tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366409730923458002024-03-05T04:24:15.115-08:00GeoPlotilicalNWO"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland,
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island,
Who rules the World-Island and the various Choke points commands the world"
"Force does not reveal to the victim the strength of his adversary,it invests the victims with patience"
Honesty, integrity, ethics, morality, Truth just might be a more effective path to real Justice.
USA is yet much too drunk of its own illusions to see the writings on the walls Worldwide.HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comBlogger1267125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-70833670411248979182014-04-04T02:40:00.002-07:002014-04-04T02:40:37.983-07:00Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity… <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo7fCrZlQJdoTUmPsjP_6Hm__5nuuNdBM0pCOOYqVQLW2RC8X4McI65QPUN5o3491-XHyQyTIsW4hhUTBVp4njzX12e3htcjqkLLYIEwV_uxX7EK1Sy0yIBQmCT3s27iehPInTrN_yDQtX/s1600/4ever+russia.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo7fCrZlQJdoTUmPsjP_6Hm__5nuuNdBM0pCOOYqVQLW2RC8X4McI65QPUN5o3491-XHyQyTIsW4hhUTBVp4njzX12e3htcjqkLLYIEwV_uxX7EK1Sy0yIBQmCT3s27iehPInTrN_yDQtX/s1600/4ever+russia.jpg" height="197" width="320" /></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggBPiNXsQvjkJBDM7fTfeDzqaraBa8yyiUpbpOA6nLCEBv2AXZ86ecAI9ZRnurKc0v4NiivvKM0_0R-45Cn-YdKacTsy4OEEDZenbhjmSVWflxPdCRmSgX1agDG4hVViXGGwV0nKQ8Abo5/s1600/crimea-river-obama-560x560.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggBPiNXsQvjkJBDM7fTfeDzqaraBa8yyiUpbpOA6nLCEBv2AXZ86ecAI9ZRnurKc0v4NiivvKM0_0R-45Cn-YdKacTsy4OEEDZenbhjmSVWflxPdCRmSgX1agDG4hVViXGGwV0nKQ8Abo5/s1600/crimea-river-obama-560x560.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a><br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 0px 0px 6px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 0px 0px 6px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity… They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes"…<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br />NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force… This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that… And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent… There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"… Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it….<br />Time to directly address the issue of today's Europe role in world affairs. I have often voiced very harsh criticisms of both "old Europe" and "new Europe" - to use Rumsfeld's classification…<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br />Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that I spent most of my last few years in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone). So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European. Furthermore, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it… So I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian". In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Vlad Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer). I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin". And yet, here I am, in 2010-14, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Vlad Putin groupie". I can hardly convey how weird this still feels…<br />Europeans disgusted with this ?:<br />First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though Europe has been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War. Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be. And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe. Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed). Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dn3_iLOp6IhM&h=yAQGF9mtU&enc=AZPYg3PJpZJSPav4YAKndrIAUxCRznZtX7lWbE39Jiz7CDl_fZT6iV6EJsybQBuzcOn71pbrnQ9xVVMg5MPtngs1qaEBL6O3dQccc-zZd1_TBH4G9Nlq2LI1kFfCF1kbqF-p6BquTY3ej4-MFHXg2atW&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_iLOp6IhM</a></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.<br />I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free….<br />This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA. So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bull’s-eye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home. For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could build a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history. If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside. As for notion of another internal European war - my generation found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium? Or France invade Spain? As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU. As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again. I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West. Not once. Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack. The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again. This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War". Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism". Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th century Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe. Not saying it's right (it's not!). I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities. I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)? The Germans or French? Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)? This is beyond ridiculous...<br />And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another. Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass Russophobia…</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse off than it was before…<br />So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests. I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt. Especially that this was far from inevitable.<br />If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like De Gaulle, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire. One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".<br />Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible. Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag, as in Ekibastuz in 1952). I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders. So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"? Okay - fair enough. But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?! Nothing, of course…<br />I do see some signs of a growing revolt: George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself. In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential. The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!). What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" ….</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
[The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology. They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of the rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community. Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Pharisaic Judaic ideology on the other… It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]<br />When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because De Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare, rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power)…. Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
But now, what do we see?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis. I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland. Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans. It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking. And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force… This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that… And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent… There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"… Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it…</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Everybody in Europe knows and understands most of the above. Many, in fact, understand it all. And yet nobody does anything about it. Nothing. It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor. Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)! And did anybody in Europe protest against this?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe? How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around? Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did? Like Alain Soral does today?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity. They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes". Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans? Just one?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DznQe9nUKzvQ&h=RAQH4opP1&enc=AZPTmQp5qzk0Hy9B1Z8J6Vl_QxNmkLXNcZlWmeVtqJkkQtfZoNyhZyzhUV3Ishv4VZRDP-lupGfl9-ZjsHAEbyS2BEd1wO1vl-S_GPFSRN6zjM-2tM07ode3I1yHOJ5w2q1HAswm-Db_qCPNqJnbYHvY&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ</a></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Don't Europeans treat their AngloZionists masters *exactly* like the "house Negro" treated his masters?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
So my question is this: where are the European "field Negroes"?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
So yes, I am disgusted with Europe and its politicians. And I am disgusted with the deafening silence of my fellow Europeans. I find no excuse for it. If African slaves could rise up against their masters, how is it that Europeans seem to have this special fondness for their current overlords?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
There is one final question I need to address here: what about Russia? Is it part of Europe?<br />I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends. The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe". Little has changed since). But for the rest of Europe? Forget it…</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Are there still "wannabe Europeans" in Russia? Sure! First, the group which I call "Atlantic Integrationists". Then the eternal bane of Russia: its liberals. Then most oligarchs (they love capitalism). Finally, the same kind of folks as we see in the Ukraine today: those who associate Europe with a high standard of living and halfway decent cops. Toss in a hodgepodge of homosexuals dreaming of living in Holland, potheads (also dreaming of Amsterdam), the many admirers of European architecture, entrepreneurs who are fed up with the dysfunctional and corrupt Russian legal system, members of West European branches of Christianity and a few others groups and you definitely get a pro-European constituency in Russia. But ask yourself - what do most of these groups and people have in common? What did reactionary aristocrats and liberal revolutionaries also have in common? The answer is simple: they simply don't like Russia. Oh sure, they will deny that, but if you dig just a tad deeper you will see that they like "a Russia" which never existed and which they aspire to bring about. But they never liked the real Russia, the only one which really exists. This simple truth - that these liberal "reformers" actually always hate the real Russia - is one truism with many Russian intellectuals and leaders have repeated many times, from Dostoevsky, to Solzhenitsyn to Putin today. And over and over again, people like Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Putin are the type of people which inspired the Russian masses to support them, because these masses always felt, almost instinctively, that pro-Western folks are always deeply alienated from them while leaders like Vlad Putin are true Russians who love Russia for what it is, not what it should be...</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
This being said, history and geography have linked Russia to Europe and in that sense, Russia will always be part of Europe. This is what Vlad Putin - and others - mean when they say that Russia will always be part of Europe: they mean that because Europe has had a huge, and sometimes even positive, impact on Russia and because it is simply impossible to build a real "Iron Curtain" which would exclude Russia from the future of Europe. There are many in central Europe - Poles in particular - who would deny their own eastern and Slavic roots and who would love to see a huge wall cutting Poland forever off its eastern neighbors. I suppose that if these folks had magical scissors they would simply cut out Poland and move it to, say, southern France (there is a myth that France and Poland are particularly close whereas in reality the only thing binding these two countries together are their Masonic lodges)…. Ditto for the Balts who would gladly move to somewhere along the Norwegian border. So when Vlad Putin says that "Russia will always be a part of Europe" he is trying to remind these folks that magic scissors do not exist and that no matter what, Russia will have influence and say in the future of Europe. I am sure that Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would agree.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
But it is one thing to be aware of history and geography and quite another to make fundamental civilizational and development decisions. The "Eurasian Sovereignists" are not dreaming of magic scissors to relocate Russia to the South Pacific or the Indian subcontinent, they simply believe that Russia has to invest its energy and efforts towards developing the immense human and natural resources of the Russian East and North and that for historical, cultural and religious reasons Russia can find much better friends and allies in Asia than in Europe. I have to say that I completely agree with this vision.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Europe has become a continent whose leaders can openly vote in support of a vicious and openly neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without any backlash at all. The EU will send the Banderists in Kiev money which it denies to the Greeks, and these same Greeks then vote in support of the Banderists… Judging by the amount of laws passed in EU countries to ban racism, revisionism, negationism and even Fascism or National-Socialism one could get the mistaken impression that racism is frowned upon in the EU... This is not so…. That only applies to anti-Jewish racism… But anti-Russian racism is actually the official order of the day, and it enjoys a consensus support from the European elites…</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
So what shall Russia do in response to that? Pretend like this is not happening? Try to shame Europeans into realizing what they have done (like Lavrov has been trying so many times)? Does it not make sense for Russia to follow a simple course: try to avoid as best can be any wars or confrontations with the West (and that will be decided by the USA anyway) and turn towards the South, East and North for its future?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
Honestly, what is the very best Russia can hope for on its western borders?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ</a></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dn3_iLOp6IhM&h=lAQHu0Nfn&enc=AZPqrXWS3hBo0PlARzNS03toxd6IyRH4Me7NIJthJFB4Tmsb7aMhKhLj18crm-3AmBhhu96-gQmHXfvysg5mIpOvv-Ny26qjrNt6-88Q5F3qizrPkEBxDbBDVFQGZSOtryoX42pgq_ZhnUlMKpvRuMZL&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_iLOp6IhM</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.31999969482422px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-13718926072834576082014-03-20T03:33:00.001-07:002014-03-20T03:33:50.362-07:00Vlad Putin's message to the world…<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>FR</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tableau Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf-sVoeA64HfCYxhx79rh5a0rG0PUlX-xFvkm6y75ucwnVV26Ysc4ZYc2npWjSZEpoF964fVXoCavY5qml6s6xCk_vAteTiexFM09e983sumwNvmgwQGOgFNPsv4sq7hNzzW4JXwS3HFFy/s1600/vlad+dog+merkel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf-sVoeA64HfCYxhx79rh5a0rG0PUlX-xFvkm6y75ucwnVV26Ysc4ZYc2npWjSZEpoF964fVXoCavY5qml6s6xCk_vAteTiexFM09e983sumwNvmgwQGOgFNPsv4sq7hNzzW4JXwS3HFFy/s1600/vlad+dog+merkel.jpg" height="252" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8JivZ3DM2STDL4FoYUJZZNF0WJIX8eV9ic8lPqAeJ3A_IPvhA-yXAnOH4IwWhaRIHGLsIDg6rSjH52LOCNS-7iaFkhir9FPHA29GP2sIv9NkQAAlbbvH1xx6Jy_AlrjwypwoRhYTopVZL/s1600/vlad+obomba+shaking+hands.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8JivZ3DM2STDL4FoYUJZZNF0WJIX8eV9ic8lPqAeJ3A_IPvhA-yXAnOH4IwWhaRIHGLsIDg6rSjH52LOCNS-7iaFkhir9FPHA29GP2sIv9NkQAAlbbvH1xx6Jy_AlrjwypwoRhYTopVZL/s1600/vlad+obomba+shaking+hands.jpg" height="189" width="320" /></a></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Vlad Putin's message to the world… </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
Predictably, Vlad Putin's speech began by discussing the recent events in
Crimea including the results of the referendum. He spoke about what Crimea and
Sevastopol meant for the Russian history, culture and nation, and he recalled
the horrors suffered by the Tatar people during the Soviet era. He then
outlined the circumstances in which Nikita Khrushchev single-handedly (and
illegally) transferred Crimea from the Ru</span>ssian Federation to the Ukraine and
how, after the fall of the Soviet Union the Ukraine suffered under the rule of
corrupt leaders. And then he explained how the legitimate protests of the
Ukrainian people were literally hijacked by very different and violent people: </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I understand those who came out on Maidan with
peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty.
The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for
the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people.
However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different
agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to
seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder
and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this
coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day (...) we can all
clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s
accomplice during World War II. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This reference to WWII is not just a politician's
rhetorical exaggeration aimed at eliciting a knee-jerk reaction from the
audience, it is something much more important – an unambiguous statement that
today, just as during WWII, the very existence of Russia as a country, a
culture and a nation was at stake… Of course, the threat to Russia does not
come from a few baseball bat wielding nationalist thugs in Kiev or from the new
regime in power, if only because this new regime is a complete fiction anyway: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is also obvious that there is no legitimate
executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies
have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the
country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often
controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the
militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government.
This is not a joke – this is reality. Those who opposed the coup were
immediately threatened with repression… </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So where does the real danger come from and who is the
real aggressor threatening Russia at least as much has Hitler did in WWII?
Before answering that question, I would like to note that Vlad Putin made a
rather candid admission about the so-called “polite armed men in green”. He
said:(emphasis added)….</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The President of the Russian Federation received
permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in
Ukraine. However, <b>strictly speaking</b>, nobody has acted on this permission
yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in
line with an international agreement. True, <b>we did enhance our forces</b>
there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – <b>we
did not exceed the personnel limit</b> of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is
set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So the mystery of the “polite armed men in green” is
now solved: “strictly speaking” they were an “enhancement” to the Russian
forces in Crimea which did not exceed the maximal total number of troops
allowed by the treaty with the Ukraine. In other words, the number of Spetsnaz
GRU troops sent to Crimea was within the terms of the treaty and the other
forces seen were, indeed, local self-defense units and not part of the Russian
military. Elegant formulation, for sure… </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDLwu4E35us">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDLwu4E35us</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
Vlad Putin then quoted the position of the UN International Court and the
United States on the issue of the secession of Kosovo: “General international
law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence” (UNIC) and “
Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation.
However, this does not make them violations of international law” (USA) and
added: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we
have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and
Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why…. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Here we are getting at the core of his argument: the
Empire has no other use for International Law then to use it as a fig leaf for
its project of world hegemony and when that is not possible, then the Empire
simply ignores it and uses brute force:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is not even double standards; this is amazing,
primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything
suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow (…)
After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability.
Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary,
in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the
United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their
practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in
their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the
world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and
there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on
the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this
aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from
international organizations, and if for some reason this does not work, they
simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall. (…) We understand
what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine
and Russia and against Eurasian integration (…) we have every reason to assume
that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th
centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a
corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and
because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy... But
there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have
crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and
unprofessionally. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Amazing words coming from the President of a
nuclear-armed superpower: not only does he denounce the complete and total
hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire, he even places it in the direct
continuation of three centuries of anti-Russian policies by Western European
powers! Not only does he denounce the Empire's double-standards, he even openly
ridicules the incompetence of its leaders: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">After all, they were fully aware that there are
millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really
lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences
of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from.
If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard.
You must always remember this. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Indeed, one can only wonder what in the world they
were thinking in the “imperial high command” when they decided to use Nazis in
the Ukraine just like they used al-Qaeda in Afghanistan: did they really think
that Russia would yield yet again? Did it even have such an option? Not
according to Vlad Putin:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is at historic turning points such as these that a
nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of spirit… The Russian people
showed this maturity and strength through their united support for their
compatriots. Russia’s foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness
from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of
our country’s main political and public forces. (…) Obviously, we will
encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we need to make for
ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will
we forever give in, retreat to who knows where? (…) Russia will also have to
make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and
external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any
democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make
the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is
happening</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Let's sum up. Vlad Putin has now openly stated that: <br />
<br />
1) There is no limit to the hypocrisy, lies, evil, stupidity and aggressive
nature of the AngloZionist Empire. <br />
2) That this Empire represents by its very nature an existential threat to
Russia. <br />
3) That the Russian people are united in their determination to resist this disgusting
and utterly criminal Empire. <br />
<br />
Frankly, to me <b>this sounds very much like a declaration of war</b>… Not
necessarily a hot war with military forces fighting each other, but something
more than a Cold War in which the status quo is an acceptable option. Vlad Putin
is suggesting that <b>the next war will be a civilizational one, a cultural one
and even a moral one</b>, a war in which one side will stand for absolute rule
of a cynical world hegemon and the other side for a multi-polar world in which
all countries are to be subjected to the same set of rules and principles. But
even more importantly than a single set of rules, the kind of international
system Russia is seeking to establish is one in which each nation, culture and
religion would have the actual, not just theoretical, freedom to live as it
want. He clearly said so in </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6402"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">his 2013 annual Presidential address to the Federal Assembly</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
when he said: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Today, many nations are revising their moral values
and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples
and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognize everyone’s right to
the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept
without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts
that are opposite in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above
not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also essentially
anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative
ideas, contrary to the will of the majority, which does not accept the changes
occurring or the proposed revision of values. We know that there are more and
more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional
values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilization in
every nation for thousands of years: the values of traditional families, real
human life, including religious life, not just material existence but also
spirituality, the values of humanism and global diversity. Of course, this is a
conservative position. But speaking in the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, the point
of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward, but that
it prevents movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return
to a primitive state. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is pretty clear that this last sentence expresses
Russia's view on the level of civilizational and cultural degradation the
AngloZionist Empire has imposed upon the people of Europe and the USA.
Furthermore, when Vlad Putin says that “<i>destruction of traditional values
from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also
essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract,
speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the majority</i>” he is clearly
stating that the AngoZionist Empire is not ruled by the people which live in
it, but by minorities, special interest groups, behind the scenes lobbies and
cabals who impose their warped agenda upon the rest of the people…. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Again, the bottom line is this: <b>the President of Russia has made an
open declaration of war against the 1% elite which currently is in control the
AngloZionist Empire</b>. This war will be a multi-level one combining “soft
power” (cultural resistance, religious resistance, informational resistance,
financial and economic warfare) with “hard power” (a military ready fight the
US/NATO if needed, the use of the “energy weapon” to retaliate against economic
warfare). In an ironical twist of history, especially for a capitalist society
which has ridiculed Marx and repudiated the concept of class warfare, <b>this
war will also profoundly be a class war</b> in which oligarchs from different countries
will support each other and in which the regular, 99%, people will work
together on, for example, the “virtual battlefields” of the Internet. <br />
<br />
<b>The crucial battlefield: “global information operations” </b><br />
<br />
“</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Operations_%28United_States%29"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Information operations</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">”
is the term used by the US military to refer to “direct and indirect support
operations for the United States Military”. Psychological operations, or
PSYOPs, are seen as a subset of IO. For our purposes, however, is to extend
this concept to not only military operations, but to the full spectrum of
national security policies of a country and, in our case, for the “deep state”
which holds the reins of power in the AngloZionist Empire. I will thus speak of
Global Information Operations or GIOs, the FDDC etc etc, the core component of
which is represented by the despicable western corporate media… <br />
<br />
For a while in my life I, like many other people, made my days by, among other
things, reading the Soviet press every day. Not just the <i>Pravda</i> or <i>Izvestia</i>,
but also even more boring or specialized newspapers, magazines and reviews. I
listen to the Soviet radio as often as I could, and I never missed a chance to
watch the Soviet TV, especially the news shows. At the time I was young, very
naïve and very dumb, and I sincerely believed that the Soviet Union was a
mortal threat to western Europe and that the only thing which stood between
them, the evil commies, and us, the free world, was the military power of the
NATO alliance. Looking back at myself and the utter garbage I had in my brain
then, I feel embarrassed and, frankly, ashamed of my total credulity. But at
the time I was a dedicated soldier of the Cold War whose motto was “know thy
enemy”. And I knew my "enemy" really, really, well. I want to explain
all of the above before stating the following: <br />
<br />
In all honesty and sincerity, I have to say here that <i>in comparison to the
modern western corporate media the Soviet press was far more pluralistic, more
diverse and more trustworthy</i>. True, the Soviet press simply did not mention
certain topics, but that goes to show that, unlike the western corporate media,
it did not feel that it could brazenly lie to the point where even what is
obvious is categorically and totally denied. For one thing, the Soviet public
was far better educated. We all, including myself, used to poke fun at the
obligatory lessons in Marxism-Leninism in Soviet schools, but we overlooked
that any halfway decent course in Marxism-Leninism will include topics like
dialectics, historical materialism and economics: stuff that makes you <u>think</u>.
This is not to say that the Soviet people could not be lied to – they could and
they have been – but only that the lies had to be at least halfway credible and
present a plausible scenario. In contrast, for a public raised on CNN, BBC or
MTV, CNBC, NTV, etc etc, the lies need not be even capable of passing a basic
common sense test (as is so vividly illustrated by the western corporate
media's coverage of the 08.08.08 war or the events in the Ukraine): the <i>Doublethink</i>
</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">predicted by Orwell in his book 1984</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> is
now fully upon us and black can be called white and vice-versa with no problems
at all. I would even argue that, in comparison, even the Nazi <i>Völkischer
Beobachter </i>contained more information than, say, the NYT, WSJ or the BBC,
etc etc etc whose level of brazen lying I could only compare to, maybe, the <i>Der
Stürmer</i>. <br />
<br />
I first noticed this absolutely unprecedented level of outright lying by the
western corporate media during the US/NATO war on Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia,
Kosovo), but I think that it has only gotten much worse since 2000…. In
contrast, the modern Russian press is extremely diverse and the people in
Russia are regularly shown the type of coverage the current events in the
Ukraine get in the western press and it leave them baffled. They simply cannot
understand how this is possible in a society which externally seems to have all
the characteristics of a free and pluralistic society. In the bad old days of
the USSR, it was all simple: there was state censorship. But there is no state
censorship in the West, no </span><i><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Directorate_for_the_Protection_of_State_Secrets_in_the_Press"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Glavlit</span></a></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
and no </span><i><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goskomizdat"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Goskomizdat</span></a></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">,
and yet the western press is far more monolithic and dishonest then even the
official party press in the USSR. But there is one crucial difference between
the USSR and today's AngloZionist Empire: the Internet. <br />
<br />
Simply put, <b>the Internet is the only global media not controlled by either
governments or corporations</b> (which is really the same thing). Yes, there
are numerous attempts by both governments and corporations to change this, but
at least for the time being, information is circulating freely throughout the
Internet. This introduced amazing changes: <br />
<br />
1) a single citizen with a minimal income now has the means to meaningfully
oppose the lies of even major corporations or governments: the case of Alain
Soral in France is typical of this amazing trend. <br />
2) the resistance to the Empire is now geographically decentralized: as this illustrates
so well with the amazing diversity of its readers. <br />
3) information simply cannot be suppressed: the world learned of the massacres
and atrocities of the Wahhabi scum/insurgents in Syria even though the
corporate media tried hard to ignore them. <br />
4) low-level classified government documents do regularly get compromised by
various individuals who can then leak it without anybody being able to stop it
(Assange, Snowden, Manning). <br />
5) an increasing number of people sever their exposure to the corporate media
which now mostly subsists on government grants. <br />
6) even those who still watch TV or read the press are aware that they are
being lied to daily for decades… <br />
<br />
All this means that we live in a new reality in which the global AngloZionist
Empire is now actively opposed by a <b>global resistance</b> which knows no
borders, no nationalities and no religions: people from different countries,
nations and religions stand together against a common hegemon not just in
theory like in “<i>Proletarians of all countries – unite!</i>” slogan, but in
actuality and they actively collaborate with each other. <br />
<br />
<b><i>It is to this global resistance to the Empire and its GIOs that Vlad Putin
addressed his words</i></b>. Sure, of course, he was primarily speaking to the
people of Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine, but he was also reaching far beyond,
to all those, probably many millions, who would make the effort to listen to
him on YouTube or read a transcript of his speech. Because, of course, all this
is much bigger than just a power struggle over a relatively small peninsula in
the Black Sea: yesterday, for the first time, a powerful and determined leader
openly told the Empire: <i>we know you, we understand what you are trying to
do, and we are not going to let you do it. In fact, we reject everything you
stand for and we will never let you rule the planet. And today, we have the
means to stop you! </i><br />
<br />
<b>Dust storms reported world wide…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>LOL
</b><br />
<br />
I think that we are entering a new era which many of us had been hoping for a
very long time ago... An era when a resistance which used to be only local has
finally found a leader capable not of commanding it, no, but capable of
representing and inspiring it. I honestly don't think that Vlad Putin wanted
that. He would have much preferred to be in the shoes of Chinese President Xi
Jinping who fully supports Vlad Putin, but who prefers to avoid an open
confrontation with the Empire, at least until such time when China becomes
truly powerful. Iran and Hezbollah have been openly resisting for many years,
but they simply did not have the means to reach much further beyond the
Middle-East. As for the resistance in Latin America (Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Bolivia) it has not been able to effectively deal with more lukewarm
or hesitating leaders (Brazil, Chile, Argentina) or with outright US puppet
states (Colombia). If anything, the recent vote at the UNSC in which only China
abstained and every other member voted against Russia goes to show that on the
global scale Russia is alone and that no world leader has the courage or guts
to openly stand next to Vlad Putin… <br />
<br />
Even though I had been following Vlad Putin's career very carefully since 1999,
it took me until 2008 to fully get a sense of what this man was all about.
Still, I know that a lot of people remained skeptical: was he really what he
appeared to be or was he simply playing a sophisticated game of “good cop – bad
cop” with Medvedev, with each of them catering to their own audience? When
Russia was invited to the G8 and when it acceded to the WTO a lot of careful
observers wondered whether Vlad Putin was really as "anti-Empire" as
he claimed to be, or whether he was just conducting a hard bargain for better
conditions inside the Empire's international system. I hope that today these
skeptics see that Vlad Putin is “for real” and that he is now the de-facto
leader of the global resistance against the AngoZionist Empire. <br />
<br />
As I have mentioned above, a lot of readers, with no personal connections to
Russia at all, reported yesterday that they had listened to Vlad Putin's
address with tears in their eyes. This resulted in a rather moving discussion
of red-eye triggering “dust storms” reported from various parts of the world
(Germany, USA, Uruguay, Austria, Canada and, of course, Russia). One though did
not want to use a cute euphemism and simply told me : “<i>Here it wasn't a
dust, it was just a sincere pure cry for the hope of the all humanity around
the world, that we can live in peace, mutual respect , abundance and prosperity
for everyone around this beautiful earth. I do believe that this is the start
of the new era</i>.” In other words: Vlad Putin – we heard you! <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion – a victory which belongs to every free person… </b><br />
<br />
First, let me be clear about this: what happened in Crimea is definitely a
victory, but only one in a much wider war which is far from over. The first
rule of warfare is to never underestimate your enemy and to never do what the
French call “<i>sell the bear's skin before having killed it</i>”. This is far
from over and if this is indeed the “beginning of the end” for the Empire, this
is still only the very beginning of a long and most dangerous process. Some
Empires die more or less peacefully, destroyed by economic ruin and over-reach,
but others need to be defeated in an orgy of violence. Though on my bad days I
sometimes daydream about seeing a private of the Russian army plant a Russian
flag on the Capitol as </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meliton_Kantaria"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Meliton Kantaria</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">
did over the Reichstag, I don't think that this would be much of a cause for
joy in the midst of a nuclear winter. So the task is to bring down the Empire
without bringing down the rest of the planet with it. <br />
<br />
Those parts of the planet which have been “liberated” (Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, China, Iran, etc.) need to resist, if needed by force, and remain
free. Those parts which are still fought over ( Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Venezuela,
etc.) need to continue their struggle, as for the rest of the world it needs to
continue its non-violent, ideological and informational resistance against the
Empire and it's lies. We can use the well-known image of a swarm of bees
attacking a large animal – individually the bees can do little, but in a
coordinated attack they can defeat and even kill the much larger animal. <br />
<br />
In the meantime, yes, we can rejoice over our common victory this week and
paraphrase the words of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in his absolutely beautiful
“Divine Victory” speech and say: “<i>We feel that we won; Russia won; Crimea
won; the Slavic nations won, and every oppressed, aggrieved person in this
world also won. It is not the victory of a party or a community; rather it is a
victory for true Russia, the true European people, and every free person in the
world. Don’t distort this big historic victory. Do not contain it in party,
sectarian, communal, or regional clans. This victory is too big to be
comprehended by us</i>”. <br />
<br />
There is a song about war as a metaphor for any resistance to evil and
brutality which is very popular in Russia called “<i>A toast to</i>” which has
the following words: (see </span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdXsDR0dgz0"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">home-made music video here</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">) …..<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdXsDR0dgz0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdXsDR0dgz0</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<i><br />
Let's toast to life, come on brother, until the end <br />
Let's toast to those who were with us then</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Let's</span></i><span class="hps"><i><span id="result_box"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;"> toast to life</span></span></i></span><i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN;">, and may
all wars be accursed! <br />
<span class="hps">We'll remember</span> <span class="hps">those</span> <br />
<span class="hps">Who</span> were<span class="hps"> with us</span> <span class="hps">then.</span></span></i><i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A toast to them, a toast to us <br />
And to Siberia and the Caucasus <br />
To light of distant cities <br />
And to friendship and to love <br />
A toast to you, a toast for us, <br />
To the Airborne Troops and the Spetsnaz… <br />
To combat decorations <br />
Let's lift a toast, my old friend! </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
<br />
In the same spirit, I toast to you, in the resistance, and I wish you courage
and steadfastness in the long struggle ahead. But today, let us celebrate
indeed!...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> </span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-63347443049562125002013-06-01T07:17:00.001-07:002013-06-01T07:17:25.971-07:00Who are the neoconservatives? <h3 class="spip">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKoLTdfXG1ZO2P_gHil1M6yj7aqaaQnoFbJaFFu87LnfVXgzyx6cVGrLescXxPvPV53XLC1Byh4xjXMQss01KuJflfIUxfcDMEfSXYj_sqLzwVN5ALtAXgosa6aObFM41uqokO85sVyiI7/s1600/AIPAC+has+never+abandoned+its+original+role+as+an+arm+of+the+Israeli+government+in+the+United+States.....jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKoLTdfXG1ZO2P_gHil1M6yj7aqaaQnoFbJaFFu87LnfVXgzyx6cVGrLescXxPvPV53XLC1Byh4xjXMQss01KuJflfIUxfcDMEfSXYj_sqLzwVN5ALtAXgosa6aObFM41uqokO85sVyiI7/s320/AIPAC+has+never+abandoned+its+original+role+as+an+arm+of+the+Israeli+government+in+the+United+States.....jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyPTKms1oWi6vHxYnImgUzwiRKhk4f-xeGZC-iNtVqXk4AWD__pA_TufQS5jZmHwYa1Q4lGwkHLKxCim5CXjiQBykhitknb_wRsY8z_M6tlIYs-kmlXZui0QmS-sNWWb54iYiuSmUwk7Bj/s1600/Zioconned+criminals;+U.S.+Withdrawal+and+utter+defeat+From+Iraq.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyPTKms1oWi6vHxYnImgUzwiRKhk4f-xeGZC-iNtVqXk4AWD__pA_TufQS5jZmHwYa1Q4lGwkHLKxCim5CXjiQBykhitknb_wRsY8z_M6tlIYs-kmlXZui0QmS-sNWWb54iYiuSmUwk7Bj/s320/Zioconned+criminals;+U.S.+Withdrawal+and+utter+defeat+From+Iraq.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</h3>
<h3 class="spip">
</h3>
<h3 class="spip">
Who are the neoconservatives?
</h3>
<div class="lettrine">
The neoconservative movement, which is generally
perceived as a radical (rather than “conservative”) Republican right,
is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the
pages of the monthly magazine <i>Commentary</i>, a media arm of the <i>American Jewish Committee</i>, which had replaced the <i>Contemporary Jewish Record</i> in 1945. <i>The Forward</i>, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: “<i>If
there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews
can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines
most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And
yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was
born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the
intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren</i>”. The
neoconservative apologist Murray Friedman explains that Jewish dominance
within his movement by the inherent benevolence of Judaism, “<i>the idea that Jews have been put on earth to make it a better, perhaps even a holy, place</i>” (<i>The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Poli</i><i>cy, </i>2006).</div>
Just as we speak of the “Christian Right” as a political force in the
United States, we could also therefore speak of the neoconservatives as
representing the “Jewish Right”. However, this characterization is
problematic for three reasons. First, the neoconservatives are a
relatively small group, although they have acquired considerable
authority on and within Jewish representative organizations, including
the <i>Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations</i>. In 2003, journalist Thomas Friedman of the <i>New York Times</i> counted twenty-five members saying, “<i>if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened</i>”.
The neoconservatives compensate for their small number by multiplying
their Committees, Projects, and other think tanks, which certainly give
them a kind of ubiquity.<br />
Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from
the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some such as Irving
Kristol, one of the main editors of <i>Commentary</i>. During the late 1960s the <i>Commentary</i>
editorial staff begins to break with the liberal, pacifist left, which
they suddenly find decadent. Norman Podhoretz, editor of <i>Commentary</i>
from 1960 until his retirement in 1995, was a militant anti-Vietnam
dissenter until 1967, but then in the 70s became a fervent advocate of
an increased defense budget, bringing the journal along in his wake. In
the 1980s, he opposed the policy of détente in his book <i>The Present Danger</i>:
in the 1990s, he calls for the invasion of Iraq, and then again in the
early 2000s. In 2007, while his son John Podhoretz was taking over as
editor of <i>Commentary</i>, he asserted once again the urgency of a U.S. military attack, this time against Iran.<br />
Third, unlike evangelical Christians who openly proclaim their
unifying religious principles, neoconservatives do not display their
Judaism. Whether they’d been Marxists or not, they appear mostly
non-religious. It is well-know that their major influence is the
philosophy of Leo Stauss, so much so that they are sometimes referred to
as “the straussians”; Norman Podhoretz and his son John, Irving Kristol
and his son William, Donald Kagan and his son Robert, Paul Wolfowitz,
Adam Shulsky, to name just a few, all expressed their debt to Strauss.
Leo Strauss, born to a family of German Orthodox Jews, was both pupil
and collaborator of political theorist Carl Schmitt, himself a
specialist of Thomas Hobbes and advocate of a “political theology” by
which the State must appropriate the attributes of God. Schmitt was an
admirer of Mussolini, and the legal counsel of the Third Reich. After
the Reichstag fire in February 1933, it was Schmitt who provided the
legal framework that justified the suspension of citizen rights and the
establishment of the dictatorship. It was also Schmitt, in 1934, who
personally obtained from the Rockefeller Foundation a grant for Leo
Strauss to study Thomas Hobbes in London and Paris, and then finally end
up teaching in Chicago.<br />
The thinking of Leo Strauss is difficult to capture, and certainly
beyond the purview of this work. Moreover, Strauss is often elliptic
because he believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the
social order and should be reserved for superior minds. For this reason,
Strauss rarely speaks in his own name, but rather expressed himself as a
commentator on classical authors, in whom he discovers many of his own
thoughts. Moreover, much like his disciples Allan Bloom (<i>The Closing of the American Mind</i>,
1988) and Samuel Huntington, he is careful to clothe his most radical
ideas in ostensibly humanist principles. Despite the apparent
difficulty, three basic ideas can easily be extracted from his political
philosophy, no different from Schmitt. First, nations derive their
strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and
governance. Second, national myths have no necessary relationship with
historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State
has a duty to disseminate. Third, to be effective, any national myth
must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil; it derives
its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. As recognized
by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article “<i>Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence</i>” (1999), for Strauss, “<i>deception is the norm in political life</i>” – the rule they applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein when working inside the <i>Office of Special Plans</i>.<br />
In his maturity, Strauss was a great admirer of Machiavelli, who he believes he understood better than anyone. In his <i>Thoughts on Machiavell</i><i>i</i>, he parts from the intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of <i>The Prince</i>
against the popular opinion regarding his work as immoral. Strauss
recognizes the absolute immorality of Machiavelli, which he sees as the
source of his revolutionary genius, “<i>We are in sympathy with the
simple opinion about Machiavelli, not only because it is wholesome, but
above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one
from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli; the
intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful
subtlety of his speec</i><i>h</i>”. The thought of Machiavelli is so radical and pure, says Strauss, that its ultimate implications could not be spelled out: “<i>Machiavelli
does not go to the end of the road; the last part of the road must be
travelled by the reader who understands what is omitted by the write</i><i>r</i>”. Strauss is the guide who can help his neoconservative students do that, for “<i>to discover from [Strauss’] writings what he regarded as the truth is hard; it is not impossibl</i><i>e</i>”.
This truth that Machiavelli and Strauss share is not a blinding light,
but rather a black hole that only the philosopher can contemplate
without turning into a beast: there is no afterlife, and neither good
nor evil; therefore the ruling elite shaping the destiny of their nation
need not worry about the salvation of their own souls. Hence
Machiavelli, according to Strauss, is the perfect patriot.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153767 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 68.6 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/philos-18dc6.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153767 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>Breaking
away from the classical political theory which sought to make virtue
the condition of power, Machiavelli (1469-1527) asserted that only the
appearance of virtue counts, and that the successful prince must be a
“great simulator” who manipulates and cons people’s mind”. The ruler he
most admired was Cesar Borgia, who after having appointed the cruel
Ramiro d’Orco to subdue the province of Romania, had him executed with
extreme cruelty, thus diverting the hatred of the people on another and
reaping his gratitude. </strong></dt>
</dl>
Neoconservatism is essentially a modern Jewish version of
Machiavelli’s political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative
movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but
rather Judaism as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian
means. Note that, in an article in the <i>Jewish World Review</i> on
June 7th, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis
that Machiavelli was a crypto-Jew, as were at the time thousands of
families nominally converted to Catholicism under threat of expulsion of
death. “<i>Listen to his political philosophy, and you will hear the Jewish music</i>”,
wrote Ledeen, citing in particular Machiavelli’s contempt for the
nonviolent ethics of Jesus and his admiration for the pragmatism of
Moses, who was able to kill countless men in the interests of enforcing
his new law.<br />
Obviously, if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it
cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean
loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not
represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not
hide it all together either. Elliott Abrams, <i>Deputy National Security Adviser</i> in the administration of Bush’s son, wrote in his book <i>Faith or Fear</i> (1997): “<i>Outside
the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the
covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in
which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart —
except in Israel — from the rest of the population</i>”. It is hard to
come with a better definition of Zionism, the corollary of which is the
apartheid practiced against non-Jewish peoples in Palestine, defended in
the same year by Douglas Feith in his “<i>Reflections on Liberalism, Democracy and Zionism</i>”, pronounced in Jerusalem, defending the right of Israel to be an <i>“ethnic nation”</i>: “<i>there is a place in the world for non-ethnic nations and there is a place for ethnic nations</i>”.<br />
If one is entitled to consider the neoconservatives as Zionists, it
is especially in noting that their foreign policy choices have always
coincided perfectly with the interests of Israel (as they see it).
Israel’s interest has always been understood as dependent on two things:
the immigration of Eastern Jews and the financial support of the Jews
of the West (American and, to a lesser extent, European). Until 1967,
the national interest pushed Israel toward the Soviet Union, while the
support of American Jews remained quiet. The socialist and collectivist
orientation of the Labor Party in power naturally inclined them in this
direction, but Israel’s good relations with the USSR were primarily due
to the fact that the mass immigration of Jews was only possible through
the good will of the Kremlin. During the three years following the end
of the British mandate on Palestine (1948), which had hitherto limited
Jewish immigration out of consideration for the Arab population, two
hundred thousand Polish Jewish refugees in the USSR were allowed to
settle in Palestine, with others coming from Romania, Hungary and
Bulgaria.<br />
The Six Day War was a decisive turning point: in 1967, Moscow
protested against Israel’s annexation of new territories, broke
diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and stopped the emigration of its
Jewish citizens, which had accelerated in the previous month. It is from
this date that <i>Commentary</i> became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “<i>the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative right”</i>.
The neoconservatives realized that, from that point, Israel’s survival –
and its territorial expansion – depended on the support and protection
of another super-power, the U.S. military, and concomitantly that their
need for Jewish immigrants could only fe fulfilled by the fall of
communism. These two objectives converged in the deepening of military
power of the United States. This is why Irving Kristol engaged the <i>American Jewish Congress</i> in 1973 to fight George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30%: “<i>this
is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. [...] Jews don’t like a
big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a
large and powerful military establishment in the United States. [...]
American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to
say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to
keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel</i>”. We now understand better what reality Kristol was referring to, when he famously defined a neoconservative as “<i>a liberal who has been mugged by reality</i>”.<br />
In the late 60s, the neoconservative support the militarist fringe of
the Democratic Party, headed by Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a
supporter of the Vietnam War who challenged McGovern in the 1972
primaries. Richard Perle, parliamentary assistant to Jackson, wrote the
Jackson-Vanik amendment, which made food aid to the Soviet Union
conditional upon the free emigration of Jews. It is also within the
office of Scoop Jackson that an alliance between the neoconservatives
and the Rumsfeld-Cheney tandem will be forged, before Rumsfeld and
Cheney took advantage of the Watergate scandal to join the Republican
camp and infiltrate the White House. Perle placed his protégés Paul
Wolfowitz and Richard Pipes in <i>Team B</i>, whose report was published in <i>Commentary</i>.
During the Carter period, neoconservatives allied with evangelical
Christians, viscerally anti-communist and generally well disposed
towards Israel, the foundation of which they see as a divine miracle
foreshadowing the return of Christ. The contribution of the
neoconservatives to the Reagan victory allowed them to work within the
government to strengthen the alliance between the United States and
Israel; in 1981, the two countries signed their first military pact,
then embarked on several shared operations, some legal and others not
so, as evidenced by the network of arms trafficking and paramilitary
operations embedded within the Iran-Contra affair. Anti-communism and
Zionism had become so linked in their common cause, that in 1982, in his
book <i>The Real Anti-Semitism in America</i>, the director of the Anti-Defamation League Nathan Perlmutter could turn the pacifism of the “<i>peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, [the] transmuters of swords into plowshares</i>”, into a new form of anti-Semitism.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153749 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="JPEG - 14.6 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/1-3663-382ca-2-dd1e9.jpg" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153749 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>Andrew
Cockburn reports in his book on Rumsfeld (2007) this conversation
between the two George Bush : “What’s a neocon?” asks W. “Do you want
names, or a description?”, says Poppy. “Description” “Well, I’ll give it
to you in one word: Israel.”</strong></dt>
</dl>
With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed
once again. Their primary objective became not the fall of communism,
but rather the weakening of Israel’s enemies. Thus the neoconservatives
underwent their second conversion, from anti-communism to islamophobia,
and created new think tanks such as the <i>Washington Institute for Near East Policy</i> (WINEP) led by Richard Perle, the <i>Middle East Forum</i> led by Daniel Pipes (son of Richard), the <i>Center for Security Policy</i> (CSP) founded by Frank Gaffney, and the <i>Middle East Media Research Institute</i>
(MEMRI). President George H.W. Bush, however, cultivated friendships
with Saudi Arabia and was not exactly a friend of Israel; he resisted in
September of 1991 against an unprecedented pro-Israel lobbying campaign
that called for $10 billion to help Jews immigrate from the former
Soviet Union to Israel. He complained in a televised press conference on
September 12th that “<i>one thousand Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me”, </i>thereby causing Tom Dine, the Executive Director of <i>AIPAC, </i>to exclaim that “<i>September 12, 1991, is a day that will live in infamy</i>”. Bush also resisted the neoconservatives’ advice to invade Iraq after <i>Operation</i> <i>Desert Storm</i>. Finally, Bush’s <i>Secretary of State</i> James Baker was too receptive to Arab proposals throughout the <i>Madrid Conference</i>
in November 1991; the neoconservatives, as a result, sabotaged Bush’s
chances for a second term and supported Democrat Bill Clinton. After
eight years of Clinton, they finally completed their victory by having
Bush’s son George W. elected and forcing him into the second Irak war.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153774 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 133.5 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/Aea-96946.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153774 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>The
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), founded
in 1943 by businessmen opposed to the New Deal, was overtaken by the
neocons in the 70s, who tripled its budget. Some weeks before launching
the war against Iraq, President George W. Bush congratulated them : “At
the American Enterprise Institute some of the finest minds in our nation
are at work in some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do
such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds”. </strong></dt>
</dl>
During Clinton’s two terms, while the <i>Madrid</i> agreements were buried by the<i> Oslo Accords</i>
negotiated directly with an overwhelmed Yasser Arafat, neoconservatives
prepared their return with Rumsfeld and Cheney, and threw all their
weight behind their ultimate think tank, the <i>Project for the New American Century</i> (PNAC). William Kristol, son of Irving, also founded in 1995 a new magazine, <i>The Weekly Standard</i>,
that immediately became the dominant voice of the neoconservatives
thanks to funding from the pro-Israeli Rupert Murdoch. In 1997, it would
be the first publication to call for a new war against Saddam Hussein.
During the Clinton years, neoconservatives, although consulted by the
White House, were not part of it. And so it is relevant to mention that,
during this same time, the FBI was investigating an Israeli mole in the
White House, who was allegedly using the code name “Mega” and enjoying
privileged access to the <i>Security Council</i>. According to the investigator Gordon Thomas, quoted by the <i>New York Post</i> on March 5th1998, the FBI investigation was stopped when <i>“Israel blackmailed President Clinton with private recordings of his steamy conversations with Monica Lewinsky”</i>.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153773 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 138 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/media-a022d.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153773 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>To
spread their war agenda, neoconservatives could rely of Rupert
Murdoch’s powerful News Corporation, which owned 175 written
publications selling more than 40 millions newspapers each week, and 35
TV channels reaching 110 million viewers on four continents. En 2003,
all of them were in favor of the war against Iraq. Murdoch is a friend
of Ariel Sharon and a loyal supporter of the Likud party. He is also
close to Tony Blair, who is the godfather of one of his children. </strong></dt>
</dl>
<h3 class="spip">
Speeches and mirrors
</h3>
The 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, <i>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy</i>, shocked the American public by exposing the considerable influence of pro-Israel groups, the oldest of which being the <i>Zionist Organization of America,</i> and the most influential since the 70s, the <i>American Israel Public Affairs Committee</i>
(AIPAC). The authors demonstrate that “the Lobby” has been the major
force driving the United States into the Iraq war and, more generally,
into a foreign policy that lacks coherence and morality in the Middle
East. The authors’ thesis is yet incomplete because they leave absent
the complementary role played from within State by the neoconservatives,
who form the other arm of the pliers now holding the American foreign
policy.
<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153772 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 206.9 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/jewish-250fe.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153772 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>“We,
the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it”, Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon said to minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres
on October 3, 2001, according to Israeli radio Kol Yisrael. His
successor Benjamin Netanyahu proved it on May 24, 2011 by receiving 29
standing ovation by the American Congress, including at each of those
sentences: “in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign
occupiers” ; “No distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old
bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land” ; “Israel will not
return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967” ; “Jerusalem must never
again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel ». </strong></dt>
</dl>
These two forces — the crypto-Zionists infiltrated in the government
and the pro-Israel lobby — sometimes act in criminal conspiracy, as
illustrated by the charge against Larry Franklin in 2005, who, as a
member of the <i>Office of Special Plans</i> working under Douglas
Feith, passed classified defense documents to two AIPAC officials,
Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who in turn transmitted them to a
senior official in Israel. Franklin was sentenced to thirteen years in
prison (later reduced to ten years of house-arrest), while Rosen and
Weissman were acquitted. Most neoconservatives are active members of the
second most powerful lobby pro-Israel, the <i>Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs</i>
(JINSA), of which Dick Cheney and Ahmed Chalibi are also members, among
others responsible for instigating the Iraq invasion. JINSA was founded
in 1976 by American army officers, intellectuals, and politicians, with
one of its stated aims “<i>to inform the American defense and foreign
affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in
bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East</i>”. Colin Powell, according to his biographer Karen DeYoung, privately rallied against this “<i>separate little government</i>” composed of “<i>Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, and Feith’s ‘Gestapo Office</i>’”, which he also called “the JINSA crowd”.<br />
In 2011, Powell’s former <i>Chief of Staff</i> Lawrence Wilkerson
openly denounced the duplicity of neoconservatives such as David Wurmser
and Douglas Feith, whom he considered like “<i>card-carrying members of
the Likud party. […] I often wondered if their primary allegiance was
to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me,
because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was
more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own</i>”. In fact, a
significant number of neoconservatives are Israeli citizens, have family
in Israel or have resided there themselves. Some are openly close to
Likud, the nationalist party in power in Israel, and several have even
been official advisors to Netanyahu; many are regularly praised for
their work on behalf of Israel by the Israeli press. Paul Wolfowitz, for
example, was nominated “<i>Man of the Year</i>” by the pro-Likud <i>Jerusalem Post</i> in 2003, and <i>« the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration » </i>by the American Jewish daily newspaper <i>The Forward.</i><br />
The duplicity of the neoconservatives is brought to light by a
document revealed in 2008 by authors such as James Petras and Stephen
Sniegoski (see bibliography); it is a 1996 report by the Israeli think
tank <i>Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies</i>, entitled “<i>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”</i>,
sent to the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The team
responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and included
Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav Wurmser. Perle
personally gave the report to Netanyahu on July 8th, 1996. The same
year, the authors signed the founding manifesto of PNAC in the U.S., and
four years later, they would be positioned in key posts of the U.S.
military and U.S. foreign policy. As its title suggests, the report <i>Clean Break</i>
invites Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993, which
committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied since 1967
and to retract illegal settlements. The new Prime minister should
instead “<i>engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism</i>” and reaffirm Israel’s right over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: “<i>Our
claim to the land — to which we have clung for hope for 2,000 years —
is legitimate and noble. […] Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs
of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, ‘peace for
peace,’ is a solid basis for the futur</i><i>e</i>”. The authors of <i>Clean Brea</i><i>k</i>
therefore encourage Netanyahu to adopt a politics of territorial
annexation, not only contrary to the official position of the United
States and the United Nations, but also contrary to public commitments
made by Israel. Even though he signed the “roadmap” intended to lead to
an independent Palestinian State in September 1999, and maintained his
position at the <i>Camp David</i> summit in July 2000, Netanyahu followed the advice of <i>Clean Break</i>
and secretly worked to sabotage the process. During a private interview
filmed without his knowledge in 2001, he bragged how he undercut the
peace process: <i>“I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that
would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67
borders”.</i> He also said: <i>“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in our way.</i><i>"</i><br />
<dl class="spip_document_153750 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="JPEG - 19.4 kb" height="293" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH293/1-3660-4b145-2-6413e.jpg" style="height: 293px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153750 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>“Richard
Perle is a traitor. There’s no other way to put it”, wrote journalist
Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker (March 17, 2003), referring to his lies
about Iraq. Perle responded by calling Hersh, on CNN, “the closest thing
American journalism has to a terrorist”. In 1970, the FBI caught Perle
transmitting to the Israeli ambassy classified information obtained from
Hal Sonnenfeldt, member of the National Security Council. Perle also
worked for the Israeli arm firm Soltam, before advising the Israeli
Prime Minister.</strong></dt>
</dl>
The recommendations to the Israeli government to sabotage the peace process in Palestine are presented by the authors of <i>Clean Break</i> as part of a larger plan to allow Israel to “<i>shape its strategic environment</i>”, by “<i>removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq</i>”,
weakening Syria and Lebanon, and finally Iran. When Perle, Feith and
Wurmser moved to key positions in the U.S. government, they arranged for
the United States to implement the program themselves, without Israel
having to pay a single drop of blood. If there are differences between
the <i>Clean Break</i> report written for the Israeli government in 1996 and the report <i>Rebuilding America’s Defenses</i>
written by the same authors for the U.S. government in 2000, it is not
in the program itself, but rather the argued reasons. First, <i>Clean Break</i>
does not have Iraq as a threat, but as the weakest of the enemies of
Israel, the least dangerous and the easiest to break. In a follow-up to <i>Clean Break</i>, entitled <i>Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant</i>, Wurmser emphasizes the fragility of Middle East States, particularly Iraq: “<i>the residual unity of the nation is an illusion projected by extreme repression of the state</i>”.
Thus the same action of first overthrowing Saddam is recommended to
Israel and the United States, but for opposite reasons. The weakness of
Iraq, which is the reason for Israel, does not constitute a valid reason
for the United States; and so it was therefore necessary to present
Iraq to the Americans as a mortal threat to their country. Netanyahu
himself authored an article in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> in September 2002, under the title “<i>The Case for Toppling Saddam</i>”, describing Saddam as “<i>a
dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and
chemical weapons, who has used these weapons of mass destruction against
his subjects and his neighbors, and who is feverishly trying to acquire
nuclear weapons</i>”. Nothing of such a threat, however, is mentioned
in Israeli internal documents, which also make no mention of any further
connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, nor even Al-Qaeda in general. The
perspective on Iraq in <i>Clean Break</i> was the realistic one, while
the motives given America was pure propaganda: by the time American
troops moved into Iraq, the country had been ruined by a decade of
economic sanctions that had not only rendered its army powerless, but
also destroyed its once exemplary education and health care systems,
taking the lives, according to UNICEF, of half a million children. It
follows, therefore, that the speech given.<br />
The second fundamental difference between the strategy recommended
for Israelis and the propaganda sold to the Americans: while the second
highlights both the security interest of the United States, and the
noble ideal to spread democracy in the Middle East, the first ignores
these two themes. The changes proposed by the <i>Clean Break</i> authors
are not expected to bring any benefit to the Arab world. Instead, the
goal is clearly to weaken Israel’s enemies by sharpening ethnic,
religious and territorial disputes between countries and within each
country. After the fall of Saddam, foreseen in <i>Coping with Crumbling State</i><i>s</i>, Iraq would be “<i>ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families</i>”, for the benefit of Israel. Furthermore, it is not democracy that <i>Clean Break</i>
recommended for Iraq, but rather restoring a pro-Western monarchy. Such
an outcome would obviously be unacceptable to the Americans, but when
Lewis Paul Bremer, as head of the <i>Coalition Provisional Authority</i>
(CPA) in 2003, brought about the destruction of the military and
civilian infrastructure in the name of “de-Bassification”, it was viewed
as a success from the eyes of the Likud. Better still, by dissolving
the army, Bremer indirectly created a disorganized pool of resistance of
some 400 000 angry soldiers, ensuring chaos for a few years. Daniel
Pipes had the gall to write, three years after the invasion of Iraq:<i> </i>“<i>the
benefits of eliminating Saddam’s rule must not be forgotten in the
distress of not creating a successful new Iraq. Fixing Iraq is neither
the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden</i>”. And besides, he adds, “<i>when
Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less
likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian
tragedy but not a strategic one</i>” (<i>New York Sun</i>, February 28,
2006). Under Bremer’s leadership, 9 billion dollars disappeared in
fraud, corruption and embezzlement, according to a report by the <i>Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction</i> Stuart Bowen, published January 30th, 2005.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153771 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 103.1 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/bin_laden_suspect-2befd.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153771 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>In
2001, Lewis Paul Bremer was the chairman of the National Commission on
Terrorism who appeared on NBC two hours after the “collapse” of the Twin
Towers, to calmly explain that “Bin Laden […] has to be a prime
suspect” and that “there are at least two States, Iran and Iraq, which
should at least remain on the list as essential suspects”. When the
reporter from NBC drew a predictable parallel between the attack and
Pearl Harbor, Bremer confirmed: “It is the day that will change our
lives. It is the day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US
[...] has been brought home to the U.S.”</strong></dt>
</dl>
The difference between the neocons’ Israeli and Amercian discourses
finds its explanation in the Israeli document itself, which recommends
Netanyahu present Israeli strategy “<i>in language familiar to the
Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the
cold war which apply well to Israel</i>”; the Netanyahu government should “<i>promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach […] will be well received in the United States</i>”.
The references to moral values are thus nothing more than tactics to
mobilize the United States. Finally, while the authors of the Israeli
report stressed the importance of winning the sympathy and support of
the United States, they also declare that their strategy will ultimately
free Israel from American pressure and influence: “<i>such
self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a
significant lever of [United States] pressure used against it in the
past</i>”.<br />
Passing off a threat against Israel as though it were a threat
against the United States is a trick to which Netanyahu had no need to
be converted; he has been employing it since the 1980s to rally
Americans alongside Israel in the “international war on terrorism”, a
concept which he can claim to have invented in his books <i>International Terrorism: Challenge and Response</i> (1982) and <i>Terrorism: How the West can Win</i> (1986). In their book <i>An End to Evil</i>
(2003), Richard Perle and David Frum likewise work to embed the fears
of Israelis into the minds of Americans; for example, they ardently urge
Americans to “<i>end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust</i>”.
It is, however, impossible for anyone to be consistently hypocritical,
and it happens eventually that neoconservatives recklessly open their
thoughts to the public. This is what happened to Philip Zelikow,
Councelor to Condoleezza Rice and Executive Director of the Commission
on September 11, when, speaking about the Iraqi threat during a
conference at the University of Virginia September 10, 2002, he let
slip: “<i>Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against
us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has been
since 1990: it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that
dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about
that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government
doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a
popular sell</i>”. That’s really it in a nutshell: the United States
must be led to make war with the enemies of Israel, and in order to
that, Americans must be convinced that Israel’s enemies are America’s
enemies.<br />
In addition, it is necessary that the Americans believe that these
enemies hate their country for what it claims to represent (i.e.
democracy, freedom, etc.), not because of its support for Israel. The
signatories of the PNAC letter to President Bush on April 3rd, 2002
(including William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman
Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, and James Woolsey) go as far as claiming that
the Arab world hates Israel because it is a friend of the United States,
rather than the reverse: “<i>No one should doubt that the United States
and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have
correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because
it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal,
democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny,
intolerance, and hatre</i><i>d</i>”. It is a well-known fact that
America had no enemies in the Middle East before its covenant with
Israel in the late 60s. On September 21st, 2001, the <i>New York Post</i> published an editorial by Netanyahu propagating the same historical falsification: “<i>Today we are all Americans. […] For the bin Laden’s of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the targe</i><i>t</i>”. Three days later <i>The New Republic</i> responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: <i>“We are all Israelis now”.</i>
The post-9/11 propaganda has created a relationship fused by emotion.
Wrongly, Americans have understood September 11th as an expression of
hatred towards them from the Arab world and have thus experienced
immediate sympathy for Israel, an emotional link neoconservatives
exploit without limit; Paul Wolfowitz declared April 11th, 2002: “<i>Since
September 11th, we Americans have one thing more in common with
Israelis. On that day America was attacked by suicide bombers. At that
moment every American understood what it was like to live in Jerusalem,
or Netanya or Haifa. And since September 11th, Americans now know why we
must fight and win the war on terroris</i><i>m</i>”.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153776 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 175.4 kb" height="310" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH310/natan-0dfc2.png" style="height: 310px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153776 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>Questionned
on September 11 about the event of the day by James Bennet for the New
York Times, Netanyahu let go: “It’s very good […] it will generate
immediate sympathy. […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples”.
He confirmed it 8 years later, at Bar-Ilan University: “We are
benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and
Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq”, adding that these events
“swung American public opinion in our favor”. (Ma’ariv, April 17, 2008).</strong></dt>
</dl>
One of the goals is to encourage Americans to view the oppression of
the Palestinians as part of the fight against Islamic terrorism. As
Robert Jensen said in the documentary <i>Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land</i> by Sut Jhally et Bathsheba Ratzkoff (2004): “<i>Since
the Sept 11th attack on the US, Israel’s PR strategy has been to frame
all Palestinian action, violent or not, as terrorism. To the extent that
they can do that, they’ve repackaged an illegal military occupation as
part of America’s war on terro</i><i>r</i>”. On December 4th, 2004,
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon justified his brutality against the people
of Gaza by claiming that Al-Qaeda had established a base there; but then
on December 6th, the head of Palestinian Security Rashid Abu Shbak
revealed in a press conference telephone banking traces proving that the
secret services of Israel had themselves tried to create fake Al-Qaeda
cells in the Gaza Strip, hoping to recruit Palestinians under the name
of bin Laden. The recruits had received money and (defective) weapons
and, after five months of indoctrination, were instructed to claim a
future attack in Israel on behalf of “the Al-Qaeda group of Gaza”.
Israeli services had intended, it seems, to mount an attack (whether
real or false) against their own people and do so under the name of
Al-Qaeda, in order to justify retaliation against Palestine.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153759 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 116.2 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/palestinia-d7390.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153759 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>Three of the Palestinians charged with conspiring with Israel to form Al-Qaeda cells in the Gaza strip. </strong></dt>
</dl>
In April 2003, a report titled <i>Israeli Communications Priorities 200</i><i>3</i>, commissioned to the communications agency <i>Luntz Research Companies & The Israel Project</i>, by the <i>Wexler Foundation, a </i>Zionist organization specializing in cultural exchanges, offers linguistic recommendations to “<i>to integrate and leverage history and communications for the benefit of Israe</i><i>l</i>” with the American public. The document recommends, for example, to speak frequently of “Saddam Hussein” which are “<i>the two words that tie Israel to America”, </i>and<i> “two of the most hated words in the English language right no</i><i>w</i>”. “<i>For
a year — a SOLID YEAR — you should be invoking the name of Saddam
Hussein and how Israel was always behind American effort to rid the
world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people</i>”. The
report also repeatedly suggests that a parallel between Saddam Hussein
and Yasser Arafat need be established. By an ultimate sophistication,
Michael Ledeen disputes in his book <i>The War Against the Terror Masters</i>
(2003) the common idea that peace in Palestine is the condition for
peace in the Middle East; the opposite, he claims, is true: “<i>If we
destroy the terror masters in Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, and Riyadh, we
might have a chance of brokering a durable peace [in Palestine]</i>”.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153760 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 168 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/vise-0a43a.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153760 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>Double
speech is a characteristic of Israel leadership, according to former
President Carter’s bitter experience, as he recalls in Palestine: Peace
not Apartheid (2006): “The overriding problem is that, for more than a
quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct
conflict with the official policies of the United States, the
international community, and their own negociated agreements”. </strong></dt>
</dl>
<h3 class="spip">
The road to World War IV
</h3>
Iraq was first on the list. Since the first Gulf war, neocons have
been demonizing Saddam Hussein’s regime. David Wurmser, for example,
published in 1999, after other islamophobic books, <i>Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein</i>. In 2000, the <i>American Enterprise Institute</i> published <i>Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America</i>,
whose author, Laurie Mylroie, expresses her debt to Scooter Libby,
David Wurmser, John Bolton, Michael Ledeen, and above all Paul Wolfowitz
and his wife Clare Wolfowitz, also member of AEI<i>. </i>Mylroie goes
as far as accusing Saddam Hussein of being the mastermind of
anti-American terrorism, blaming him (without proofs) for the 1993
bombing of the WTC, for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and for the
attack against the <i>USS Cole</i> in Yemen in 2000. What threatens the United States, according to her, is <i>“an undercover war of terrorism, waged by Saddam Hussein“, </i>itself <i>“a phase in a conflict that began in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and that has not ended”</i>.<i> </i>Richard Perle described this book as <i>“splendid and wholly convincing”.</i><br />
Neoconservatives lost no time in exploiting against Iraq the trauma
of 9/11 after creating it. As soon as September 19th , Richard Perle
invited to join in a <i>Defense Policy Board</i> meeting neocons Paul
Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor before Huntington of the
self-fulfilling prophecy of the “Clash of Civilizations”), but neither
Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice. The assembly agreed to overthrow
Saddam Hussein as soon as the initial phase of the Afghanistan war is
over. In a letter to President Bush written under the letterhead of
PNAC, they reminded President Bush of his historical mission: “<i>even
if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy
aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a
determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure
to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps
decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism”</i>.<i> </i>The argument of a linked between Saddam and Al-Qaïda is here toned<i> </i>down and, in the summer 2002, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair will simply evoke <i>“broad linkages”</i>.
Perle, however, kept claiming, against all evidence, that supposed 9/11
terrorist Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim
Samir in Prague in 1999. On Seeptember 8th, 2002 in Milan, Perle even
made up a scoop for the Intalian newspaper <i>Il Sole </i>: <i>“Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that”</i>.<i> </i><br />
Rumors of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was finally traded for a more elaborate <i>casus belli</i>:
Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. To force this new lie onto the
American State Department and public opinion, Cheney et Rumsfeld renewed
their winning strategy of <i>Team B, </i>consisting in overaking the
CIA through a parallel team of pseudo-experts, to produice the
terrifying report they needed: this will be the <i>Office of Special Plans </i>(OSP), established within the <i>Near Est and South Asia</i>
(NESA) of the Pentagon, under the control of neocons William Luti,
Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. Lieutenant Colonel
Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for NESA at that time, testified in 2004
of the incompetence of OSP members, whom she saw <i>“usurp measured and
carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion
of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to
both Congress and the executive office of the président. [...] This was
creatively produced propaganda</i><i>”</i>.<i> </i><br />
<dl class="spip_document_153761 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 154.8 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/paul-e405b.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153761 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>On
February 5th, 2003, Secreatry of State Colin Powell engages his
reputation in convincing the General Assembly of the United Nations that
Saddam Hussein’s WMD poses a threat to the world. He will later regret
his speech, calling it “a blot on my record”, and claiming to have been
deceived himself.</strong></dt>
</dl>
Just as some neoconservatives see the failure of U.S. forces in Iraq
as a pretext to threaten Iran, others find the failure to recover
Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” a pretext to accuse Syria. In
2003, they passed on the ridiculous allegations of Ariel Sharon, who
said that Iraq had secretly transferred their WMDs to Syria, along with
their nuclear scientists. On November 11th, 2003, Congress passed the <i>Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act</i>, imposing economic sanctions intended “<i>to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, [and] stop its development of weapons of mass destruction</i>”.
The aggression against Syria didn’t begin until 2012, under the guise
of a civil war, but it had been premeditated since at least February
2000, when David Wurmser, in an article for the <i>American Enterprise Institute</i> entitled “<i>Let’s Defeat Syria, Not Appease It</i>” was calling for a conflict through which “<i>Syria will slowly bleed to death</i>”.<br />
Since September 2001, Iran has also been placed in the crosshairs of
the neoconservatives. They seem to echo the sentiments of Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, who, in the London <i>Times</i> on November 2nd, 2002 called Iran the “<i>center of world terror</i>” and called for threats against Iran “<i>the day after the U.S. invades Iraq</i>”.
The failure of U.S. troops to silence the resistance in Iraq forced the
postponement of the attack on Iran. But Daniel Pipes took the bad news
in good spirits, cheerfully stating in the <i>New York Sun</i> (February 28th, 2006) that the Iraqi civil war will invite <i>“Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states”.</i> In spring 2008, President Bush publicly took up this new neoconservative chorus: <i>“The
regime of Teheran has a choice to make. […] If Iran makes the wrong
choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our
Iraqi partners”. </i>We should remember that in May 2003, through the
Swiss ambassador in Tehran, the Iranian government sent to Washington a
proposal known as the “Grand Bargain”, which, in exchange for the
lifting of economic sanctions against Iran, promised cooperation with
the United States to stabilize Iraq and to establish there a secular
democracy, and was prepared to further concessions, including peace with
Israel. Bush and Cheney, however, prevented Powell from responding
positively to the gesture. And therefore, summarized his <i>Chief of Staff </i>Lawrence Wilkerson: “<i>the secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran</i>”.<br />
In parallel to this kind of diplomatic obstinacy, false pretenses of
war have been regularly created. We know from Gwenyth Todd, advisor on
the Middle East linked to the <i>U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet</i> stationed in
the Persian Gulf, that after being barely appointed commander of the
fleet in 2007, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff ordered his aircraft carriers
and other ships into aggressive maneuvers in order to strike panic into
the Iranians, hoping for a shot fired that would allow them to engage
in war for which the pro-Israel lobby was eagerly waiting. Cosgriff
wanted to “<i>put a virtual armada, unannounced, on Iran’s doorstep</i>”, without even informing Washington, according to the <i>Washington Post,</i> August 21st, 2012. On January 6th, 2008, the Pentagon announced that Iranian boats fired on American ships <i>USS Hooper</i> and <i>USS Port Royal</i> on patrol in the Strait of Hormuz, while broadcasting threatening messages such as: “<i>I am coming to you</i>”, and “<i>you will explode after two minutes</i>”.
The television showed one of the Iranian boats dumping small white
objects into the water, presenting the situation as one of hostility, as
though the white objects were mines. Referring to this exceptionally “<i>provocative and dramatic</i>” incident, the Chairman of the <i>Joint Chiefs of Staf</i><i>f</i> Mike Mullen expressed concern about “<i>the threat posed by Iran”</i><i>,</i> including “<i>the threat of mining those straits”</i><i>,</i> and affirmed his willingness to use “<i>deadly force</i>”
if necessary. In reality, the situation presented by the media and
Mullen was completely untrue. The Iranian boats that patrolled the area
and often passed American ships on a daily basis, had issued no threat
whatsoever. Vice Admiral Cosgriff admitted that American crews had, in
fact, noted that there was nothing to worry about, since the Iranian
boats carried “<i>neither anti-ship missiles nor torpedoes</i>”. Nor did the threatening radio messages come from these vessels: “<i>We don’t know for sure where they came from</i>”, admitted the spokesman for the <i>Fifth Fleet </i>Lydia Robertson.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153758 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 101.4 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/gwenthy-c66cd.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153758 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>Gwenyth
Todd, who opposed and denounced the provocative strategy of newly
appointed commander of the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet, fled the United States
out of fear for her life and now lives in Autralia.</strong></dt>
</dl>
The 2009 Iranian elections and the ensuing protests in Tehran
presented an occasion for a new tactic of psychological warfare, this
time using Internet-based social networks and relayed by the American
media. Within a few days, the death of a young woman that took place
during the protests was appropriated as a horrifying symbol of the kind
of oppression taking place in the Islamic regime. Neda Agha-Soltan was
killed June 20th, 2009 by a sniper from the paramilitary, while exiting
her car with her music teacher. A video of her agony and death, filmed
live by mobile phone, was transmitted instantly around the world on
Facebook and YouTube. Several rallies were held around the world in her
honor. There was talk of her being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Her
fiancé, a photographer named Caspian Makan, meets Shimon Peres in Israel
and says: “<i>I come to Israel as an ambassador of the Iranian people, a messenger of peac</i><i>e</i>”, adding, “<i>I have no doubt that the spirit and soul of Neda was with us during the presidential meeting</i>”.
Unfortunately, there emerge blatant inconsistencies: 1. There are
actually three videos of Neda’s agaonizing death, which resemble several
“takes” of the same scene. 2. A BBC interview with the doctor who
attended her death is full of contradictions. 3. The autopsy concluded
that Neda was killed at point blank range. 4. Finally, the face that
became a global icon is actually that of another young girl, Neda
Soltani. Many surmised that Neda Agha-Soltan, a apprentice actress,
agreed to act her own death in exchange for a promising career abroad,
but was shot for real immediately after.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153756 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 143.6 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/neda_sultani-45373.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153756 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>The
stolen face of Neda Soltani, who tried in vain to suppress her picture
from the web. Fearing for her life, she emigrated to Germany, where she
published her story in My Stolen Face.</strong></dt>
</dl>
Finally, Iran is indicted, since the beginning of the first Bush
presidency, for its civilian nuclear research program, claims being made
that it is only a front for secret military operations. The 2005
publication of a first <i>National Intelligence Estimat</i><i>e</i>
(NIE) report was the subject of intense media attention regarding Iran
and its supposed interests; though its revision in 2007 should have
calmed what were alarming implications from the 2005 version, it was
largely ignored, as was the fact that religious leaders of Iran, begun
by Ayatollah Khomeini, had issued several fatwa banning nuclear weapons
and other weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, nothing is mentioned
regarding the illegal Israeli program that operates still
unacknowledged, one that has allowed Israel to stockpile an estimated
200 atomic bombs to date.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153764 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 155.1 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/Brzezinski_denounced_-a4082.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153764 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>On
the 1st of February 2007, in front of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Brzezinski denounced the Iraq war as la guerre d’Irak comme
“a historic, strategic, and moral calamity […] driven by Manichean
impulses and imperial hubris”. As a veteran of deep politics, he can see
what is coming next: “some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in
the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military
action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and
deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan”.</strong></dt>
</dl>
<dl class="spip_document_153763 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 125.1 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/ahmedi_negad-5fd4c.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153763 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>Iran
counts the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel.
Despite generous offers from Israel, most of these 30,000 Iranian Jews
refused to emigrate and remain loyal to their country. This does not fit
with the repeated accusation of the Iranian government as consumed by
anti-Semitism, and “preparing another Holocaust of the Jewish state”, as
written in Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (November 14, 2006).</strong></dt>
</dl>
Among the countries targeted by the neocons after 9/11, we must not
forget to mention the two best allies of the U.S. in the Middle East,
which is proof that the neocons do not have U.S. interests at heart. The
plan to accuse and threaten Saudi Arabia was clearly built in the 9/11
false flag scenario, as is evidenced by the fact that Osama bin Laden
and 15 out his 19 highjakers were Saudis. David Wurmser first opened
fire in the <i>Weekly Standard</i> with an article titled <i>“The Saudi Connection”, </i>pretending that the Saudi royal family was behind the attack. The<i> Hudson Institute</i>
had long been preparing the ground by violently denouncing all the sins
(reals and imaginary) of the Saudi dynasty, under the lead of its
co-founder Max Singer (today director of research at the <i>Institute for Zionist Strategies </i>in Jerusalem). In June 2002, the Institut sponsored a seminar called <i>“Discourses on Democracy: Saudi Arabia, Friend or Foe?”</i>, where all answered pointed to <i>foe </i>as the right answer. A special event honored the publication of the book <i>Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, </i>by
the Israeli Dore Gold, once an advisor to Netanyahu and Sharon and an
ambassador to the United Nations. On July 10th, 2002, neocon Laurent
Murawiec, of the <i>Hudson Institute</i> and <i>Committee on the Present Danger</i>, was invited to speak before Richard Perle’s <i>Defense Policy Board </i>to explain that Saudi Arabia represented <i>“the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent”, </i>and to recommend that the U.S. army invade it, occupy it and dismember it. He summarized his <i>“Grand Strategy for the Middle East” </i>by these words: <i>“Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize”. </i><br />
The neocons are, in fact, the original inspirators of the <i>soft</i>
challenge to the 9/11 official story, which admits the responsibility
of Al Qaeda but points to links between the Bushes, the Saudies, and the
bin Ladens. In their 2003 book, <i>An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, </i>Richard Perle and and David Frum (Bush’s speech<i>-</i>writer) write that <i>“The Saudis qualify for their own membership in the axis of evil”, </i>and ask President Bush <i>to”tell the truth about Saudi Arabia”, </i>meaning
that Saudi princes finance Al Qaeda. To understand the absurdity of
such a claim, let us recall that Osama, who called the Saudi princes
traitor to Islam for tolerating U.S. military bases since the Gulf war,
was stripped of his Saudi nationality in 1994 and banned from the bin
Laden clan. In a <i>Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places, </i>published
in 1996, bin Laden called for the overthrow of the Saudi dynasty and,
in 1998, he admitted his role in the 1995 bombing of the National Guard
headquarter in Riyad. Osama is the sworn enemy of the Saudis. It is
unthinkable that the Saudis would have conspired with Osama bin Laden.
On the contrary, it is plausible that the Saudis would have conspired
with the Bushes <i>against</i> Osama bin Laden, to blame him for a
terror attack in order to hunt him in Afghanistan — and, in the process,
destroy the Taliban regime who had become an obstacle to the UNOCAL
pipeline project: a win-win project fot the Bushes and their Saudi
friends. However, the Bushes (no friends to Israel) have been outsmarted
by the neocons, whose goals have little to do with oil and nothing to
do with stability in Saudi Arabia. Here is probably the real purpose of
having George W. Bush elected President, and the true meaning of neocon
Michael Ledeen’s famous remark: <i>“He became president, but he didn’t know why, and on sept 11, he discovered why”.</i><br />
Bin Laden is a multi-use <i>patsy.</i> Blaming him for 9/11 made it
possible to threaten and blackmail Saudi Arabia, but also Pakistan,
another U.S. ally. For if the Talibans are behind bin Laden, Pakistan is
behind the Talibans. No official accusation was made against Pakistan,
but General Ahmed Mahmud, director of ISI (Pakistan’s CIA) was
implicated by an information leaked from India (an ally to Israel,
against their common enemy Pakistan), by the <i>The Times of India </i>on October 9th, 2001:<i>
“US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that
$100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan by [ISI
agent] Ahmed Omar Saïd Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmud</i><i>”</i>.<i> </i>Since
Mohamed Atta is nothing but a patsy in this whole affair, the
information can only be interpreted as a way to blackmail the ISI and
Pakistan into supporting the official 9/11 story and collaborating with
the U.S. to destroy the Talibans. If the ISI <i>did</i> pay Atta for
some reason, then Atta’s name was picked as ringleader of the terrorists
precisely for that reason, as a lever against Pakistan. Mahmud, who had
travelled often to Washington since 1999, was there precisely between
September 4 and 11, 2001. He allegedly met George Tenet, Director of the
CIA, Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and
perhaps Condoleezza Rice (who denies). At the moment of the attacks, he
was at a breakfast<i> </i>meeting<i> </i>including Bob Graham, Chairman of the <i>Senate Intelligence Committee</i><i>,</i> and Porter Goss, Chairman of the <i>House Intelligence Committee</i>; <i>“We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan”,</i><i> </i>said Graham, who with Goss will be appointed to the 9/11 Commission.<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153757 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 108.3 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/General_Ahmed_Mahmud-adfd2.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153757 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>General
Ahmed Mahmud. We don’t know what ultimatum he was given on September
11, but he resigned the next month and disappeared from public life to
join the religious movement Tablighi Jamaat.</strong></dt>
</dl>
The fake assassination of bin Laden (or assassination of fake bin
Laden) in May 2011 in Pakistan in is another proof that the 9/11 master
plotters intended to keep maximum pressure on Pakistan. It allowed to
accuse Pakistan, after Afghanistan, of having welcomed and protected bin
Laden for 10 years, which constitutes in the eyes of Americans real
treason and a cause for war. Several books are written in this vein,
such as <i>Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of Global Jihad </i>by ex-CIA Bruce Riedel<i>. </i>According to Riedel, bin Laden’s quiet life in a suburb of Abbohabad suggest <i>“an astonishing degree of duplicity” </i>on the part of Pakistan, who might well be <i>“the
secret patron of global jihad on a scale almost too dangerous to
conceive. We would need to rethink our entire relationship with Pakistan
and our understanding of its strategic motives”</i>.<br />
<i>
</i>All these wars and threats of wars under false pretexts in
the wake of 9/11 betray a desire to inflame conflicts in the Middle
East rather than to control resources, let alone encourage stability.
Michael Ledeen himself declares in his article “<i>The War on Terror will not end in Baghdad</i>” in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>, on September 4th, 2002: “<i>We
do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi
Arabia: we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how
to destabilize</i>”.<br />
What could be the motivation for these incessant accusations and
two-faced policies? It’s not simply a mindless killing spree, and is
rather a project designed by a group of exceptionally intelligent men,
under a particular rationality with precise and realistic goals — but to
what purpose? Osama bin Laden replied to this question in an article
published by the London Arabic newspaper <i>Al-Quds al-Arabi</i> on February 23rd, 1998 (partially translated by Bernard Lewis in <i>Foreign Affairs</i>, November-December 1998). Referring to “<i>the Crusader-Jewish alliance</i>”, bin Laden speaks of “<i>their
attempts to dismember all the states of the region, such as Iraq and
Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Sudan, into petty states, whose division and
weakness would ensure the survival of Israel</i>”. Indeed, it appears
that a Zionist cabal is interested in a new kind of world war, one that
would weaken and fragment all the enemies of Israel for decades to come,
putting it in a position to surpass even the United States, who would
be ruined by their ruthless military spending (just like the USSR in the
80s) and hated across the globe. Little, it would seem, stands in the
way of the final phase of the Zionist plan: a thorough ethnic cleansing
and the annexation of the whole of Palestine. Not without some irony,
the neoconservative Stephen Schwartz, author of <i>The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud, from Tradition to Terror</i> (2003), attributed to Saudi Arabia a plan that would spread terror throughout the world (while recognizing Saudi Arabia<i> “incapable of defending its own territory”</i>) and blamed Islam for the emergence of a World War whose bloody unfolding will mean: “<i>The
war against terrorist Wahhabism is therefore a war to the death, as the
second world war was a war to the death against fascism</i>”.<br />
In an article in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> dated November 20th, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot Cohen speaks about the war against terrorism as “<i>World War IV</i>”,
a framing soon echoed by other neoconservatives. In September 2004, at a
conference in Washington attended by neoconservatives Norman Podhoretz
and Paul Wolfowitz entitled “<i>World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight</i>”, Cohen said: “<i>The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam</i>”.
Like the Cold War (considered to be a third world war), this Fourth
World War, as seen prophetically by Cohen, has ideological roots, will
have global implications and will last a long time, involving a whole
range of conflicts. The rhetorical device of this “fourth” global
conflict has also been popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “<i>How to Win World War IV</i>” published in <i>Commentary</i> in February 2002, followed by a second article in September 2004, “<i>World War IV: How It Started , What It Means, and Why We Have to Win</i>”, and finally in 2007 in a book called “<i>World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism</i>”.<br />
<h3 class="spip">
The Bible and the Empire
</h3>
Clearly, the strategists of Likud and their neoconservative allies
intend to forge their legacy as those who waged and won the global
annihilation of the Islamic civilization. How does one account for such
hubris? One explanation lies in the very nature of the State of Israel
and the leadership role held by its military since day one, not unlike
the American <i>National Security State</i>. David Ben Gurion, who
combined the functions of Prime Minister and Defense Minister, saw the
whole fate of Israel integrally intertwined with its failure or success
in the defeat of an Arab enemy: “<i>Why should the Arabs make peace? If I
were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is
natural: […] we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they
accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time,
but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay
strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there.
Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out”</i> (Nahum Goldmann, <i>The Jewish Paradox: A Personal Memoir</i>, 1978). Thus, circumstances decree that Israel is and will be a security state.<br />
It is, of course, also a colonizing state. Even when Levi Eshkol
replaced Ben Gurion in 1963 as Prime Minister, his government could not
oppose the military’s will of annexing new territories, as revealed
Ariel Sharon to journalist Ze’ev Schiff shortly after the Six Days War: “<i>We
could have locked the ministers in the room and gone off with the key.
We would have taken the appropriate decisions and no one would have
known that the events taking place were the result of decisions by major
generals</i>” (<i>Ha’aretz</i>, June 1st, 2007).<br />
Sharon is the man who, in the eyes of Israel and the world, most
aptly embodies the spirit of the Israeli military and its security
apparatus. He commanded Unit 101, which, on October 14th, 1953 razed the
village of Qibya, Jordan, with dynamite, killing 69 civilians in their
homes. In 1956, during the Suez Canal crisis, a unit under his command
executed more than 200 Egyptian prisoners and Sudanese civilians. In
1971, charged with putting an end to ongoing resistance in the Gaza
Strip, his troops killed more than 100 Palestinian civilians. And in
September 1982, acting as the Minister of Defense, he launched the
invasion of Lebanon, where, after his slaughter of refugees in two
Palestinian camps in West Beirut he was given the nickname, “the butcher
of Sabra and Chatila”. The Prime Minister at that time was Menachem
Begin, once the leader of the Irgun terrorist militia, who coordinated
both the attack on the King David Hotel in 1946, and the Deir Yassin
massacre in 1948.<br />
Begin, Sharon and Netanyahu’s Likud has never stopped campaigning for
a Greater Israel and against a proposed Palestinian state. While
Foreign Minister to Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999, Sharon described the
Oslo Accords as “national suicide” and rather advocated the “biblical
borders”, thereby encouraging illegal settlements: “<i>Everybody has to
move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the
settlements because everything we take now will stay ours</i>” he said
on November 15th, 1998. When he came to power in February 2001, with
Netanyahu in turn becoming Foreign Minister, Sharon deliberately
sabotaged the peace process and set off the second intifada through a
series of calculated provocations. When on March 28th, 2001, 22 nations
gathered in Beirut under the auspices of the Arab League and agreed to
recognize Israel if it only complied with Resolution 242, the next day,
the Israeli army invaded and besieged Yasser Arafat in his headquarters
in Ramallah. Six months later, September 11th brought the fatal blow to
any hope of peace.<br />
The Likud and its political allies among religious extremists are not
merely opposed to the secession of Palestine; they are driven by an
almost imperial vision of Israel’s destiny. In December 1981, Ariel
Sharon expressed in a speech for the <i>Institute for Strategic Affairs</i> at Tel Aviv University: “<i>Beyond
the Arab countries in the Middle East and on the shores of the
Mediterranean and the Red Sea, we must expand the field of Israel’s
strategic and security concerns in the eighties to include countries
like Turkey Iran, Pakistan, and areas like the Persian Gulf and Africa,
and in particular the countries of North and Central Africa</i>” (as translated from Hebrew in the <i>Journal of Palestine Studies</i>).
This speech will be canceled at the last minute because of the
controversy over the annexation of the Syrian territories at Golan
Heights, but it will be published shortly after the in daily <i>Ma’ariv</i>. This “Sharon doctrine” is found in a number of Hebrew texts, translated and published by the dissident Israel Shahak in <i>Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies</i> (1997). In an essay entitled “<i>A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties</i>” written for the <i>World Zionist Organization</i>
in February 1982, Oded Yinon, a former senior official in the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, put forward a strategy to exert control over the
Middle East through the fragmentation of Israel’s neighbors, beginning
with Lebanon: “<i>The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional
localized governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arab peninsula, in a similar
fashion. The dissolution of Egypt and later Iraq into districts of
ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is the
main long-range objective of Israel on the Eastern Front. The present
military weakening of these states is the short-term objective. Syria
will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and
sectarian structure, as is happening in Lebanon today</i>.”<br />
The ideology behind Likud’s strategy and its neoconservative allies
is an intransigent version of Zionism. Zionism, as its name suggests
(Zion is the name given to Jerusalem 152 times in the Hebrew Bible), is
before anything else a biblical dream, shaped by the biblically defined
borders of <i>Eretz Israel</i>. “The Bible is our mandate”, proclaimed
Chaim Weisman, the future first President of Israel, at the Versailles
Conference in 1919. In Germany in the late 19th century, the biblical
notion of a “chosen people” was translated by the founding fathers of
Zionism into a racial ideology, correlative and in competition with the
fantastical dream of a superior pan-Germanic Aryan race. Zionism, like
Nazism, opposed the assimilationist trend of the majority of German
Jews. Zeev Jabotinsky wrote in 1923, two years before Hitler’s <i>Mein Kampf</i>: <i>“A
Jew raised in the midst of Germans can certainly adopt German customs
and speak the German language. He can become totally immersed in this
German milieu, but he will always be a Jew, because his blood, his body
and his racial type, his entire organic system, is Jewish”.</i> We now
know that these kinds of claims are categorically unscientific: Israeli
settlers from Eastern Europe can not claim any biological descent from
among the ancient Hebrews in Judea or Samaria, unlike the Palestinians
they’ve evicted from their ancestral lands, and perhaps the Sephardic
Jews from North Africa, once called <i>“human garbage”</i> by the Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and submitted to eugenic policies in the 1950s (Haim Malka, <i>Selection and Discrimination in the Aliya and Absorption of Moroccan and North African Jewry, 1948-1956</i>, 1998).<br />
The Zionism of Zev Jabotinsky is as important a key as the
Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss in decrypting the mentality of the men
who, in Israel and in the United States, are trying to reshape the
Middle East. It is, at least, a key to understand the ultimate goals of
Benjamin Netanyahu, whose father, Ben Zion Netanyahu (born Mileikowsky
in Warsaw), was the personal secretary of Jabotinsky. March 31st, 2009,
Netanyahu appointed Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, from the <i>Yisrael Beiteinu</i> party that presents itself as “<i>a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky</i>”. Lieberman is intent upon, <i>“fighting Hamas just as the United States fought the Japanese during the Second World War”. </i><br />
<dl class="spip_document_153755 spip_documents spip_documents_left" style="float: left; width: 220px;">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 56.7 kb" height="294" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L220xH294/Zev_Jabotinsky_writes_in_The_Iron_Wall-b5a79.png" style="height: 294px; width: 220px;" width="220" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153755 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 220px;"><strong>Zev
Jabotinsky writes in The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs: “All
colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the
will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop
only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the
local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To
formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy. […] Zionism is a
colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or it falls by the question
of armed force”.</strong></dt>
</dl>
Zionism has outlived Nazism because, after the war, it was able to
shamelessly capitalize on the terrible persecution of Jews in Europe and
usurp the representation of the Jewish community. To do that, it had to
force the forgetting of its active involvement with the Nazi regime in
the 30s, which then saw the immigration of Jews to Palestine the
“solution to the Jewish problem” (see Lenni Brenner’s <i>51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis,</i>
2009). The pervasive legitimacy of Zionism has also relied heavily upon
its biblical roots. Despite being agnostic, David Ben Gurion (born
Grün), was indoctrinated by the biblical story, to the point of adopting
the name of a Judean general who fought the Romans; “<i>There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible</i>”, he is quoted stating (Dan Kurzman, <i>Ben-Gurion, Prophet of fire</i>, 1984). While envisioning an attack against Egypt in 1948, he wrote in his diary: “<i>This will be our revenge for what they did to our ancestors in Biblical times</i>” (Ilan Pappe, <i>The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine</i>,
2008). The planned ethnic cleansing by Ben Gurion in 1947-48, which
forced the fleeing of 750,000 Palestinians (more than half of the native
population), was deeply reminiscent of that which was ordained by
Yahweh against the Canaanites: “dispossess them of their towns and
houses” (Deuteronomy 19:1), and, in the towns that resist, “not leave
alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).<br />
This dream instilled by the biblical God to His chosen people is not
only racist, it is also militarist and imperialist. These verses from
the second chapter of Isaiah (reproduced in Micah 4:1-3) are often held
up to show the pacifist trend of the biblical prophecy: "they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks. Nation
will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war
anymore” (Isaiah 2:4); but in taken in context, we see that this <i>Pax Judaica </i>will
come only when “all the nations shall flow” to the Jerusalem temple,
from where “shall go forth the law” (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new
world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik
and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October
12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an
alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians
around a “theopolitical” project, one that would consider Israel,
according to the “Jerusalem Declaration” published on the official
website of the Summit, “<i>the key to the harmony of civilizations</i>”, replacing the United Nations that’s become a “<i>a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships</i>”: “<i>Jerusalem’s
spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority
to become a center of world’s unity. [...] We believe that one of the
objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the
center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of
peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets</i>”. Three acting
Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and
Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry
Scoop Jackson Prize.<br />
Jerusalem’s dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of
world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums,
predicted that the Lord will fight “all nations” allied against Israel.
In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the
exception of Jerusalem, who “shall remain aloft upon its site” (14:10).
Zechariah seems envision what God could do with nuclear weapons: “And
this shall be the plague with which the Lord will smite all the peoples
that waged war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are
still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their
tongues shall rot in their mouths” (14:12). It is only after the carnage
that will world finally find peace, providing their worship of “the
Lord Almighty”: “Then every one that survives of all the nations that
have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the
King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of booths. And if any of
the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King,
the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them...” (14:16-17)<br />
<dl class="spip_document_153762 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 95.4 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/Evangelical_Christians-c6597.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153762 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>Evangelical
Christians, who welcome the End of the World as good news, find in the
Book of Revelation plenty to feed their fantasy, especially with the
Angel Faithful and True of chapter 19, coming with “the armies of
heaven”, with eyes “like a flame of fire”, “a robe dipped in blood”, and
in his mouth “ a sharp sword with which to smite the nations”.</strong></dt>
</dl>
<dl class="spip_document_153775 spip_documents spip_documents_center">
<dt><img alt="PNG - 139.4 kb" height="266" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH266/Christians-92f00.png" style="height: 266px; width: 400px;" width="400" /></dt>
<dt class="crayon document-titre-153775 spip_doc_titre" style="width: 350px;"><strong>With
more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major
politica force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared:
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike
against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a
biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead
to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ”.</strong></dt>
</dl>
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the
neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what
is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized
ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions
before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general
from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists “<i>that
describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan
and finishing off with Iran</i>”. Is it just a coincidence that the
“seven nations” doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the
biblical myths instilled in Israeli schoolchildren? According to
Deuteronomy, when Yahweh will deliver Israel “seven nations greater and
mightier than yourself […] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make
no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make
marriages with them…” (7:1-2). “And he will give their kings into your
hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24).<br />
<h3 class="spip">
General Wesley Clark</h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 7px; text-align: right;">
<a class="titre_serif_3" href="http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur125605.html?lang=en">Laurent Guyénot</a>
</div>
<aside>
<div class="noprint" id="share" style="padding-top: 20px;">
<div id="recommander">
<a class="share" href="http://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" title="Printable version"><img alt="<:ver_imprimer:>" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -0px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="menu-titre share main" href="http://www.blogger.com/null" rel="nofollow" title="Send this article"><img alt="<:recommander:recommander:>" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -15px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html&t=%E2%80%9CThe%20machiavelian%20threefold%20game%20of%20the%20neoconservatives%E2%80%9D%20[Voltaire%20Network]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Facebook"><img alt="Facebook" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -30px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://twitter.com/?status=%E2%80%9CThe%20machiavelian%20threefold%20game%20of%20the%20neoconservatives%E2%80%9D%20http://www.voltairenet.org/a178638%20[Voltaire%20Network]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Twitter"><img alt="Twitter" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -45px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20machiavelian%20threefold%20game%20of%20the%20neoconservatives%E2%80%9D%20[Voltaire%20Network]&notes=To%20realize%20their%20fantasies%20of%20world%20domination,%20the%20neocons%20resorted%20to%20a%20triple%20discourse,%20as%20Laurent%20Guy%C3%A9not%20shows%20in%20this%20study,%20i.e.%20a%20cynical%20political%20philosophy%20developed%20by%20their%20mentor%20Leo%20Strauss%20for%20domestic%20consumption;%20a%20cold%20analysis%20of%20Israeli%20strategic%20interests%20for%20the%20benefit%20of%20the%20leaders%20in%20Tel%20Aviv,%20and%20a%20fear-mongering%20warning%20against%20imaginary%20dangers%20besetting%20U.S.%20public%20opinion." rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Delicious"><img alt="Delicious" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -60px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://seenthis.net/#ajouter=*%E2%80%9CThe%20machiavelian%20threefold%20game%20of%20the%20neoconservatives%E2%80%9D*%20%7C%20Laurent%20Guy%C3%A9not&url_site=http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html&extrait=To%20realize%20their%20fantasies%20of%20world%20domination,%20the%20neocons%20resorted%20to%20a%20triple%20discourse,%20as%20Laurent%20Guy%C3%A9not%20shows%20in%20this%20study,%20i.e.%20a%20cynical%20political%20philosophy%20developed%20by%20their%20mentor%20Leo%20Strauss%20for%20domestic%20consumption;%20a%20cold%20analysis%20of%20Israeli%20strategic%20interests%20for%20the%20benefit%20of%20the%20leaders%20in%20Tel%20Aviv,%20and%20a%20fear-mongering%20warning%20against%20imaginary%20dangers%20besetting%20U.S.%20public%20opinion.&txt=#Neoconservatism,%20racism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Seenthis"><img alt="Seenthis" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -75px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20machiavelian%20threefold%20game%20of%20the%20neoconservatives%E2%80%9D%20[Voltaire%20Network]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Digg"><img alt="Digg" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -90px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<a class="share" href="http://www.voltairenet.org/spip.php?page=backend&id_secteur=1110&lang=en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="RSS"><img alt="RSS" class="" height="15px" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/rien.gif" style="background: url(local/cache-sprites/recommander.png?m=1370080208) 0px -105px; height: 15px; width: 15px;" width="15px" /></a>
<div class="ajax" style="font-size: .75em; margin-top: 15px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</aside>
<h3 class="spip">
Attached documents</h3>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr valign="top"><td align="center">
<a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/gif/10078-saf1.gif"><img alt="" class="spip_logos" height="235" src="http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L200xH235/10078-saf1-9db57-18e51.png" style="height: 235px; width: 200px;" width="200" /></a>
</td>
<td width="10"> </td>
<td valign="top"><div class="titre_sans_8">
<a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/gif/10078-saf1.gif"><b class="crayon document-titre-153778 ">Her middle name suggests a reference to her father’s CIA posting in Turkey. </b></a><br />
(GIF - 30.3 kb)<br /> </div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr valign="top"><td valign="top"><div class="titre_sans_8">
</div>
<div class="titre_sans_8">
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-36076700145112239182013-05-16T07:46:00.000-07:002013-05-16T07:46:42.667-07:00KURDISH CLOUDS OVER DARKENING WEST ASIA HORIZON....
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNWYmYD6vGhvT8vwHrXdNTybXxndlAEDBOmTY7KrIcmiwmO3lGMwlqBf3rqHEhrL8C6CCcaFjniiLgjb2FXeGwuOMjWt-u5TVdkRcp-CABBhAulZUgIUNi6FvhnFAknmJ1sB4Ipn2iVSvE/s1600/Benjamin+Nutsenyahu+and+Obomba.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNWYmYD6vGhvT8vwHrXdNTybXxndlAEDBOmTY7KrIcmiwmO3lGMwlqBf3rqHEhrL8C6CCcaFjniiLgjb2FXeGwuOMjWt-u5TVdkRcp-CABBhAulZUgIUNi6FvhnFAknmJ1sB4Ipn2iVSvE/s320/Benjamin+Nutsenyahu+and+Obomba.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<b> “Those who control the present control the past”*</b>....this is a candid representation of the sordid and most infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant and way Beyond.... TFEH<br />
<br />
In 1969 when I was posted to Ankara , the word Kurd was almost a taboo
in Turkey .Kurds were called mountain Turks .But the truth was brought
home to me very vividly a few months after my arrival when after a
long tour of the Black Sea coast including Samsun , Trabzon and cutting
via Erzurum ( cold and gloomy) and Bingol ,I and family drove into
Diyarbakir, with its black rock walls , the largest Kurdish city (
although some people claim that Istanbul, a mega polis of 12 million
,might have surpassed it in the number of Kurds) . After installing my
family in the hotel I came out to look for a restaurant .Lo! I was
surrounded by five six young boys singing Kurdish songs and repeating
‘Kurdum, Kurdum ‘ ( I am a Kurd ,in Turkish)<br />
<br />
I visited Diyarbakir a few times more, the last time in 1997.<br />
<br />
Turkey’s Kurdish problem is as old as the establishment of the secular
Republic by Kemal Ataturk .The Kurds have been inhabiting the east and
south east of Turkey much before the Turkish tribes started arriving in
from central Asia in 11th century. Even now the percentage of Turkish
citizens who came from Turkistan in central Asia would be less than 15%.<br />
<br />
As late as around 1980 a Turkish minister was charged when he said that
there were Kurds in Turkey and he was a Kurd .It was in end 1980s that
president Turgut Ozal publicly proclaimed the presence of Kurds in
Turkey and admitted to his own part Kurdish blood. It is suspected that
he was poisoned by those who believe in the unitary state since he was
trying to find a solution to the vexing problem which had enflamed a few
years earlier.<br />
<br />
The current Islamist AKP has instituted an enquiry into Ozal’s death
.Hopefully it will not be to further humiliate the proud Turkish armed
forces, which along with Republican Peoples Party established by Kemal
Ataturk and virulently pan Turanian party, the MHP (National Action
party) oppose concessions to Kurds on even matters of culture and
language .The continuing AKP tirade and actions against the military
could one day lead to a blowback. In Sunni Muslim states, the struggle
between the ruler and cleric continues (Prophet Mohammad was both the
religious leader and the military commander) at the moment the military
is on the back foot in Turkey as well as in Pakistan and Egypt.<br />
<br />
The Kurdish rebellion against the state was led by Abdullah Ocalan
(Ojalan) and began in early 1980s with the Marxist Kurdish Labour party
(PKK) as the vehicle.<br />
<br />
Part I , below covers the period from the beginning of the insurgency
and the capture , sentencing and imprisonment of Ocalan in 1999.<br />
<br />
*During the rule of the secular parties in Turkey until 2002, history of
Turkey during its Anatolian past was not highlighted and of the
Byzantine/ Roman etc era glossed over .As if the history began with
arrival of the Turkish tribes into Anatolia in 11 century .Since the
arrival of Justice and Development party (AKP) in end 2002 and
Islamisation the republican era is being glossed over.<br />
<br />
<b>ABDULLAH OCALAN AND TURKEY’S KURDISH PROBLEM</b><br />
<br />
Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocala (c=j), sentenced to death for
treason on 29th June 1999 after a trial by a Turkish Tribunal at the
Imrali island (where coincidentally Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and
his two colleagues were hanged after the 1960 military takeover),
represents the violent face of resistance since millennia by a minority
tribe, community or a nation against forced assimilation by majority
ethnic, linguistic or religious groups. In view of Turkey’s laws, its
judicial system and the fever pitch passions aroused against its enemy
number one, with masses baying for Ocalan’s blood, the death sentence
was not surprising. Since 1984, Ocalan led PKK (Kurdish Workers Party)
rebellion for a Kurdish state in South and East of Turkey has already
cost over 45,000 lives, mostly Kurds including 12000 female cadres and
also includes over five thousand soldiers. Thousands of Kurdish villages
have been bombed, destroyed, abandoned or relocated and millions of
Kurds have been moved or migrated to shanty towns in South, East and
West wards .Added to the migration for economic reasons, half the
Kurdish population now lives in Western Turkey, making disentangling of
the two communities extremely difficult. With 1/3rd of Turkish army tied
up in South East, the cost of countering the insurgency has mounted to
$6 to $8 billion per year , shattered the economy of the region and
brought charges of police and military brutality and human rights
violations in the West to which Turkey is linked through NATO and OECD.
It has also harmed its chances of joining EU, with which it has a
Customs Union. The consequences of Ocala’s sentence carried out or not
will be a major defining moment in the history of the Republic. Already
April 1999 Elections have highlighted an upsurge of nationalism and a
swing for ultra-nationalist National Action party (MHP), giving it
second slot from nowhere and the top slot to Prime Minister Bulent
Ecevit’s Democrat Left Party (DSP) for his Govt’s successful hounding
and capture of Ocalan ,further polarising Turkey’s already fractured
polity.<br />
<br />
The problem was brought to a head when late last year Turkey, hoping to
give a hammer blow to the Kurdish rebellion, threatened war on Syria to
force out Ocalan and PKK, sheltered in Syria as a lever against Turkey
for denial of its fair share of Euphrates waters and irredentist
claims over Hatay province annexed to Turkey in 1939 (but still shown
within Syrian maps). Egypt and others including Iran helped defuse the
situation but a somewhat isolated Syria had to expel Ocalan, who first
went to the Russian Federation and then to Rome looking for asylum .The
Italians instead arrested him on a German warrant .But sensing further
mayhem and the strife it would create among its Kurdish and Turkish
populations, FRG got cold feet and did not extradite him .Nor was he
extradited to Turkey causing bad blood between Turkey and EU. In
mysterious circumstances with some Greek assistance Ocalan then
disappeared looking for a safe haven but found none. He was eventually
apprehended in Nairobi on 16 Feb,1999 by Turkish agents assisted by
other countries and brought handcuffed to a rapturous Turkey .His
capture was followed by violence and demonstrations in Turkey and
Europe ,where Kurds number 850,000 among 4 million Turkish immigrants (
3 millions in FRG alone of which nearly half a million are Kurds) .<br />
<br />
Majority of Kurds in Turkey would be satisfied with cultural autonomy
but the hounding of Ocalan, touched an emotional chord uniting Kurds all
over the world against their persecution over millennia and suppression
of their aspirations for autonomy and freedom, dashed time and again.
The Kurdish nation totaling over 25 million straddles mostly the
mountainous regions of Turkey (14 in 70 million), Iran (8 out of 70
million), Iraq (4 out of 20 million) and with more than half million in
Syria and another half million in Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia.<br />
<br />
Kurds are an Aryan Iranian people caught up in ethnic upheavals and
intermingling of Aryan, Turkic and Semitic races going on since two
millennia from the Eurasian steppes to the Mediterranean , the Gulf and
the Arabian Sea .But Kurds have lived in the region since they shifted
from the steppes in 2nd millennium and some can perhaps claim Kassites
and Mitannis as their forefathers .Most descend from the Iranian Medes
.They were mentioned as the Kurduchoi who had harassed Xenophon and
his Ten Thousand retreating towards the Black Sea from Babylon in 401
BC .<br />
<br />
Turks started moving into Anatolia only in 11th Century after the
Byzantine defeat at Manzikert. In spite of the long stay in the region,
the Kurds, most Sunni Muslims, have failed to carve out a kingdom,
barring petty dynasties at Diyarbakir and Kermanshah region during 10th
and 11th centuries and some principalities during early 19th century.
Salahaddin remains their greatest medieval hero. They have been kept
divided, abused and exploited as pawns by the ruling Persian, Turkish or
Arab empires and colonial powers, enjoying autonomy only when the
Empires were weak .Sunni Ottomans granted them autonomy and used them to
guard the frontiers against Shea Safaris of Iran. Turkey, Iran, Iraq
and Syria might have adversary relations with each other but when it
comes to Kurds they close ranks but throughout history whenever
suppressed the Kurds become outlaws and take to the mountains.<br />
<br />
Belonging to Iranian family, Kurdish is spoken in 5 dialects and many
sub-dialects but the divisions are reflected not only in the dialects or
the countries the Kurds inhabit. Differences among them have persisted
throughout history .In North Iraq the Kurds are split among Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of Jalal Talebani and Kurdish Democratic
Movement (KDM) of Masud Barzani who have been fighting each other since
decades. But the Iraqi Kurds ,even when divided have nevertheless
,enjoyed some semblance of autonomy first under the British mandate ,
then the leftist regime of Brig Kassem and even under the kid glove and
poisoned sword treatment of Saddam Hussain, with an almost free hand
during Iran-Iraq War and then US led protection after the Gulf War .
Thus in spite of the Kurdish identity having been suppressed in the
unitary Turkish state, the idea has been kept alive across in Iraq.<br />
<br />
The Iranians have manipulated Iraqi Kurds as had the Russians the
Iranian Kurds during the 2nd World War encouraging them to declare the
Mahabad Republic, which after the Russian withdrawal in 1946 was
annihilated. Iran gives shelter to Iraqi Kurds and PKK and supplies them
with arms .In return after the 1979 Khomeini revolution the Iraqis
supported Iranian Kurds. But unlike Iraq ,Iran and elsewhere , the Kurds
of Turkey are the most well integrated with other citizens .Many have
moved west wards in recent decades, making Istanbul ,with over 1
million Kurds one of the largest Kurdish cities. Unfortunately the Kurds
have been subjected to growing harassment and discriminations since the
Kurdish insurgency began , although they enjoy equal legal rights
.Ataturk’s right hand man Ismet Pasha, later President had Kurdish blood
as did President Turgut Ozal .The former Foreign Minister and the
Parliament Speaker Hikmet Cetin ,a full blooded Kurd is another of many
such examples of prominent Kurds in Turkey.<br />
<br />
However , the 1990-91 Gulf War proved to be a water shed in the
evolution of the Kurdish problem. The current nebulous and ambiguous
situation in North Iraq came about when at the end of the War, US
President George Bush without perhaps consulting the coalition’s Arab
Allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait encouraged the Kurds (and the
hapless Shias in South) to revolt against Saddam’s Sunni Arab regime.
Turkey, as it would have given ideas to its own Kurds, Saudi Arabia and
others opposed the creation of a Kurdish state in the north and a Shia
one in south Iraq .The latter would have only strengthened Shia Iran.
The hapless Iraqi Kurds and Shias paid a heavy price. In the background
of the 1988 gassing of Iraqi Kurds and international media coverage of
their pitiable condition, escaping Saddam Hussein’s forces in March 1991
led to the creation of a protected zone in North Iraq patrolled by US
and British warplanes. The Kurds have since even elected a Parliament,
which did not function. But Barzani and Talebani ran almost autonomous
administrations in their areas; much too Turkish disquiet as this also
allows PKK a free run. An attempt by PKK in 1993 to have an
understanding with Barzani, who is sympathetic to PKK, soon came apart
.Many times Iraqi Kurds have cooperated with Turkish military in its
many punitive forays against PKK in North Iraq .But the attitude of
Iraqi Kurds to PKK, in spite of differing outlook and philosophy remains
ambivalent but their natural sympathy cannot be in doubt.<br />
<br />
President Turgut Ozal, confident after turning around the Turkish
economy , perhaps looking for a larger role in the region by bringing
Iraqi Kurds under Turkish control , softened the rigors against his own
Kurds .He publicly proclaimed in1991 that there were 12 million Kurds in
Turkey and allowed them use of Kurdish in speech and music. Earlier
in 1989 acknowledgement of his Kurdish ancestry had ended the legal
taboo on the use of word “Kurd” since 1924. The Kurds had to be called
Mountain Turks. On this writer’s first visit in 1969 to Diyarbakir ,the
biggest Kurdish city ,he was soon accosted by urchins singing Kurdish
songs and muttering defiantly ‘Kurdum !Kurdum’ (I am Kurd ) As
recently as 1979, when a former Cabinet Minister for Public Housing said
that there were Kurds in Turkey and he himself was a Kurd ,he was
charged and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. In 1924 the Kurds were
also debarred from adopting Kurdish names so they take on Arabic ones.
They, therefore, found Turkish protests hypocritical when Bulgaria
forced its Turkish origin citizens to take on Bulgarian names in late
1980s.<br />
<br />
Not only Ozal but many Turks remain fascinated with the dream of
‘getting back’ Ottoman province of Mosul and Kirkuk ; which were
included within the borders of the Republic by the National Pact of
1919.The oil rich Mosul region was annexed to Iraq by the British in
1925 much to Turkish unhappiness after the ceasefire .At the same time
Turks remain equally apprehensive of an evolution of an independent
Kurdish state in Iraq which will act as a magnet for its Kurds .In the
aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War Turkey lost out much instead of gaining.
The closure of Iraqi pipeline, economic sanctions and loss of trade with
Iraq, which used to pump in billions of US dollars into the economy and
provide employment to hundreds of thousands, with 5000 trucks roaring
up and down to Iraq, has only exacerbated the economic and social
problems in the Kurdish heartland and the center of the rebellion.<br />
<br />
Who is Abdullah Ocalan !<br />
Nicknamed Apo (uncle in Kurdish ), Ocalan was born in 1949 at Omerli ,a
small town on Euphrates in Urfa ( ancient Edessa) .His family took the
surname of Ocalan ( avenger ) having rebelled against Ataturk’s
Republican Turkey in 1920s .One of seven siblings ,Ocalan claims a
Turkish grandmother and some Arab blood too and was greatly influenced
by his strong willed mother. With mixed population in South Turkey ,
many people speak Turkish, Kurdish and Arabic.<br />
<br />
More fluent in Turkish than Kurdish, Ocalan was a bright student and
after the usual religious education in the village Mekteb, at which he
excelled, he won a scholarship to the prestigious Political Science
Faculty at Ankara, a breeding ground for Turkey’s intellectuals, civil
servants and even politicians .In the heady days of early 1970s after
the Paris students uprising it had become a center of leftism. To begin
with, Ocalan was an admirer of Ataturk but the total suppression of
ethnic or cultural pluralism as if Kurdish history and identity did not
exist and a spell in jail, following a crackdown on radical students
after the 1971 military intervention, where he held discussions with
similar minded Kurdish students, turned him into a hardened Kurdish
nationalist.<br />
<br />
Ocalan took the first tentative steps in 1974 to initiate a Kurdish
liberation movement with 6 others at Ankara. But PKK (in Kurdish -Partia
Karkaran-e Kurdish ) -an alliance of workers , peasants and
intellectuals for a democratic independent Kurdistan based on Marxist
–Leninist principles was officially founded with 12 others in the
village of Lice in Diyarbakir on 27 Nov 1978 .The circumstances of its
origins, tribalism , feudalism , the grinding poverty of the region
compared to the growing prosperity in Western Turkey makes Marxism an
abiding ideology which attracts poorer but educated youth of both sexes.
The first attack , unsuccessful., was made in 1979 on a Kurdish MP
Mehmet Bucak , now a pro-establishment anti-PKK Kurdish clan leader? But
the real violent incidents , which brought recognition to PKK were
carried out in 1984 in Sirit and Hakkari near the Iraq-Iran border in
which two soldiers and a dozen civilians were killed and PKK propaganda
was broadcast. From a few hundred in 1984 the number of PKK cadres has
now gone up to many thousands and had peaked in the first half of 1990s
when PKK was churning out 300 fighters every quarter. If the state has
used all brutal power at its command the PKK has fought back savagely by
killing govt village guards, teachers, doctors, village headmen, apart
from innocents and the military and police soldiers. Brutal reprisals
and killings by security forces brought in thousands of volunteers to
PKK.<br />
<br />
Ocalan left Turkey for Lebanon just before the 1980 military
intervention preceding which in two years of almost total anarchy, over
five thousand people had been killed in clashes between leftists and
rightists (grey wolves) –the latter now form the MHP cadres and were
then encouraged by the establishment to counter communism. The military
junta feared that Islamic revivalism and Kurdish nationalism will
undermine the state .So it banned many political parties and debarred
politicians ,came heavily on media, politicians , students and Kurdish
radicals .But the prisons proved to be academies for new recruits to
the PKK cause. Ocala first contacted PLO leftists but was soon adopted
by the Syrians, who provided him a residence in Damascus and the Beck
valley for training his cadres. He spent some time in GDR, but mostly
functioned from Syria and Lebanon<br />
<br />
APO turned out to be a ruthless and cruel leader, with a charismatic
hold over his followers and in spite of never returning to Turkey, he is
revered by his dedicated followers and feared and obeyed by most.
Except for 1993 cease-fire interregnum the PKK- State violence increased
from 1991 and continued unabated till 1996 reaching peaks during the
1992 Nauru and after the break down of March 1993 cease-fire. But in
spite of the success of the Turkish forces in curbing PKK ,in areas
bordering Iraq and Syria i.e. Mardin , Nusaybin, Cizre and around
Diyarbakir, Tunceli , the Turks dare not venture out after the dusk.<br />
<br />
<b>The roots of the Kurdish problem</b><br />
The roots of the Kurdish problem lie buried deep in the Turkish psyche
.The seeds were sown during the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the
birth of the Turkish Republic after the 1st World War. The Ottomans
granted religious freedom to its Christian, Armenian and other millets
with autonomy in their personal laws and education .Turks complain that
the Christian West used the stick of religion and nationalism in Eastern
Europe to break up the Empire during the 19th and early 20th century
.The first to leave were the Balkan Christians and in late 19th century
it was feared that even the Kurds might desert like the Egyptians. But
the last straw was the revolt by Muslim Arabs , for the Ottomans always
were Muslims first and then Turks .In fact the word ‘Turk’ until Ataturk
endowed it with dignity – How happy is he who says he is a Turk.- now
written all over Turkey -was used as a term of contempt by the Ottoman
elite.<br />
<br />
Hence Turks manifest a pervasive distrust of any cultural or autonomous
movement that might lead to fragmentation of the unitary Republic .It
revives memories of western conspiracies against Turkey and the
ungratified 1920 Treaty of Sevres forced on the Sultan by the First
world War victorious Allies which would have divided Anatolia providing
outright independence to the Armenians and autonomy to Kurds leading to
independence and zones of influence for France, Italy and Greece .The
Ataturk led War of Independence and a new Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 did
away with any division and there is no mention of Armenia or Kurds in
it–not even their language Kurdish but it permitted Geeks , Armenians
and others to speak their tongues<br />
<br />
To begin with Ataturk himself had talked of Turks, Kurds, Lazes and
others but a dramatic change came over in 1923 -24 and he opted for a
unitary state .Perhaps because of the British detachment of the Mosul
region , ambivalent attitude of many Kurds and minor revolts after the
Treaty of Sevres .Free from fissiparous forces he wanted to concentrate
on modernization and reforms ,many against religious obscurantism .In
1924, he abolished the Caliphate and the Kurds were just turned into
non-persons ; their language, music, dress and culture ,even use of
Kurdish first names made illegal .The conservative Kurds led by Sheikh
Said, a follower of Nakshbandi sect ( as are many present day Islamist
leaders like former Prime Minister Necemettin Erbakan ) who had
earlier enjoyed almost total autonomy and religious freedom in their
domains rebelled against the ungodly laic state in 1925.The fledgling
Republic, under pressure from the radicals , suppressed ruthlessly with
‘exemplary ‘ punishments the rebellions ,some of which lingered on into
1930s e g in Tunceli.( Dershim).The influential Kurdish families were
relocated to Western Turkey , which were rehabilitated back only after
the introduction of multi- party democracy and slackening of unitary
state’s heavy hand in 1950s .<br />
<br />
Turkey’s Constitution describes itself as a Laic state, which according
to many is more Jacobin than genuinely secular. It is based on
nationalist philosophy of Zia Gokalp, himself a Kurd, who unfortunately
used for laic /secular the word “la din” i.e. anti- religion. After the
founding of the Republic the Christian minorities of Turkey were
exchanged with Turks from Greece and the remaining squeezed out later.
Few left in South East are leaving now .So the concept of secularism in
Turkey has somehow become anti- religion and negative and tends to
become anti this or anti that and intolerant .<br />
<br />
The Sunni dominated police establishment have regularly harassed the
Shiite Alexis, ironically perhaps the original Turcoman who helped
conquer Anatolia and now the Kurds. But perhaps the problem lies in the
fatal belief of the establishment; a curious amalgam of military led
secular elite and Sunni dominated interior ministry organization to
resolve problems by force as a compromise might be seen as weakness. It
considered Islamic revivalism and Kurdish rebellion as two major
threats to the security, stability and integrity of the State .But left
of Center Social Democrat Party( SHP) then led by Ismet Pashas’
intellectual son Erdal Inonu (who became Deputy PM in Suleyman
Demirels’ coalition Govt (in 1991-95) had come to the conclusion in 1990
based on a study that neither Kurdish nationalism nor Islamic
fundamentalism posed a threat to the Republican order .(But since end
2002 when Islamists AKP un expectedly won a thumping almost two/third
majority with only 37 % of the votes cast , Islamisation of the seculr
republic has begun )Many other subsequent reports had also confirmed the
same conclusions , underlining that most Kurds want respect for their
identity ,use of Kurdish language for education and Television and
cultural freedom. <br />
<br />
Apart from foreign hands, especially of the neighbors, the Kurdish
problem has now acquired complex dimensions Attempts to even look at the
problem dispassionately have come to naught .Unfortunately Ozal, who
helped bring out the problem into the open died in April, 1993. Had he
lived on he might have found a solution as he had wanted to do- ‘ a last
service to the nation’ Soon after his death , the unilateral cease fire
by PKK , tacitly observed by the Govt , broke down when in May, 1993
near Bingol 33 unarmed soldiers were massacred by PKK .At first the
situation was not clear but PKK countered that the State had not keep
its ‘promise’ and had continued to lean heavily on militants and Ocalan
owned it. New Prime Minister Tansu Chiller’s probing attempt in 1974 to
look at the Basque model was brushed aside by the military Pashas and
President Demirel , who has shown much less vision than Ozal in handling
the problem.<br />
<br />
Many analysts feel that under the pretext of guarding Ataturk’s unitary
state, any solution to the problem has been thwarted by the vested
interests, which have also been cited as the main obstacle for keeping
the Islamists out of power as the secular elite does not wish to share
the cake with the rising conservative classes from the heartland of
Anatolia and elsewhere, who support Islamic parties. There is also
considerable leakage in the billions of dollars spent in security
operations against the Kurds and scandals crop up from time to time.
Like rebellions elsewhere PKK has been accused of making money from the
drug trade (also from donations, extortions and taxes in Turkey and
Europe) but many in the establishment have also been accused of the same
charge, with scandals cropping up from time to time .Many, including
politicians talk of the long shadow over democracy of Turkish military,
the self styled guardians of Ataturk’s unitary and secular state, making
political solutions difficult.<br />
<br />
The Kurdish problem also affected adversely Turkey’s aim of becoming
full member of EU, although it might not be the real cause .Apart from
the fear of 70 million Muslim Turks having a run of their countries,
European diplomats in private confess that they were happy to have
Europe’s border at Bosporus and would not like to extend it to states
ruled by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Ali Khameini and Hafez El-Assad.
Because of Turkey’s continued importance for NATO , PKK’ s Marxist
philosophy and Soviet support earlier, PKK remains an anathema to USA
but Europeans with Kurdish populations in their countries are more
sympathetic to their plight. Peaceful espousal of the cause has been
allowed by Europeans in spite of Turkish protests but when the Kurds
have resorted to violence and started attacking Turkish interests as in
1993, they have come down heavily. Europe has provided a safe haven to
expelled and persecuted Kurdish MPs and others. Many Europeans
Parliamentarians and others have extended vocal support to the Kurdish
cause raising Turkish heckles and accusations of western conspiracy.
Mrs. Dannielle Mitterand was a very steadfast supporter and helped
organise in 1989 the first international conference on Kurdish problem
in Paris .But compared to say Kosovo, Europeans in general and USA in
particular have been soft on Turkey’s human rights record, because of
the need to humor an ally, who is also a useful buffer against the
volatile Middle East and for its links and influence in the Caucasus and
Central Asia.<br />
<br />
Forming 20% of the population, normally 80 to 100 Kudish deputies get
elected in a house of 550, but their cause is not taken up by their
parties and they are not allowed to form a Kurdish party to ventilate
their grievances politically. Such attempts lead to harassment, removal
of immunities, jailing and even killings of MPs and their supporters.
Kurdish parties like HEP ( Kurdish Labor party), DEP ( Democracy party)
and HADEP (People’s Democracy party) were obstructed and suppressed and
their members harassed, jailed and even killed .Many times the
radicals across the board set the Agenda discouraging any peaceful and
meaningful discussion of the problem in the Parliament or outside
.Since early 1990s attempts to explain the Kurdish view-point through
media by newspapers like Ozgur Gundem ( Free Agenda), Ozgur Ulke (Free
Country) and others have been stopped through harassment , imprisonment
,and even outright murder of journalists and distributors with
connivance or help from the establishment. Main line media was punished
for writing about Kurds, their problems and even mishandling of the
rebellion. When Urfa born Kurdish singer Ibrahim complained that he
could not sing in his mother tongue he had hell to pay .Kurds and even
Turks including famous writers like Yassar Kemal continue to be harassed
and imprisoned for writing about Kurds and their problems .
. <br />
<br />
But the Govt statements and action before and after the verdict of death
for Ocalan showed caution and circumspection maintaining that the law
take will take its course. The Parliament even replaced the Tribunal’s
third military judge with a civilian one. Although the death penalty
remains on the statutes book, since 1984 , of many scores convicted to
death not one has been hanged .The Ocalan verdict would have been
challenged in the Supreme Court and then go for ratification via its
Judicial Committee to the Parliament and finally to the President. And
then an appeal can be made to the European Court. .Any show of leniency
in the highly charged atmosphere seemed improbable, but with time
consumed in legal formalities it might be possible to let Ocalan live on
.Making him a martyr would have been is a terrible mistake, apart from
re-igniting the insurgency.<br />
<br />
Unlike the violent protests in Turkey ,Europe and elsewhere against
Ocalan’s capture , the reaction after the verdict was muted and peaceful
barring some violent acts in Turkey. No doubt, Ocalan was in custody
and promised to work for peace and bring down PKK fighters from the
mountains. Unlike some others (reportedly ZA Bhutto) awaiting a certain
death sentence, from the glass cage, Ocalan’s sober performance was
admirable. He came out as a cool and unperturbed leader ,clear and
consistent in his defense Apart from 1993 conditional cease-fire , he
had offered the olive branch many times in 1994 and 1995 .The first
offer was made in an interview in mainline Hurriyet newspaper in
1990.After the rapturous joy in Turkey at Ocalan’s capture and an orgy
of celebrations after the death verdict led in many cases by those who
had lost a dear ones in the war against PKK, there was a feeling of
the night after the binge ,some signs of rethinking ,even some
softening of attitude towards the Kurds.<br />
<br />
Poet philosopher PM Ecevit was opposed to death sentence in principle.
He initiated steps for Repentance Law to pardon PKK cadres not involved
in violent acts. The insurgency became much degraded on the ground.
Ideological benefactor former USSR no longer exists. Syria was more
interested in peace with Israel although its grouse about Euphrates
water still remains. Greece burnt its fingers in the Nairobi incident.
There has also been a chorus of demand from the West including USA
against the hanging But political parties took rigid and some
irreconcilable positions .There was always a danger of politicians
outdoing each other in whipping up national fervor for short term
political gains ,specially the Ultra-nationalist MHP which recently
rose like Phoenix .Many a times even when politicians had wanted to
calm the situation the establishment puts spanners in the path e g the
continued harassment in 1993 even when the state had tacitly accepted
the PKK cease fire and the creation of the Hezbollah with its
murderous squads in East against PKK , halted only when it started
expanding to the West .<br />
<br />
And the Republic instead of resolving problems politically resorts to
legal measures i.e. closing down political parties ;not only Islamic
but others ,even the one founded by Ataturk after the 1980 intervention
and military takeovers or extra-constitutional means like military
threats to force out elected Govts as in 1971 and 1997 .was it
confident enough and ready to address the underlying, social and
economic causes of the rebellion ie the Kurdish aspirations for
cultural autonomy and economic development of the region .Many analysts
feel that after 75 years, the Republic has matured enough and is strong
enough to resolve problems politically Turks must think and decide
that while the Empire was built on the loyalty to the Turkish house of
Osman and Islam , the Republic as a secular unitary state, with some
loosening of state’s heavy hand and Jacobin attitude having taken
place since 1950s ,perhaps time has come for more flexibility in
resolving problems through discussion and mutual accommodation. But
many a times the Turks have the habit of turning logic upside down .<br />
<br />
However Turkish PM Bulent Ecevit persuaded even his ultra nationalist
coalition partner ,National Action party ,baying for Kurdish rebel
leader Abdullah Ocalan’s head , to delay sending for the Parliament’s
consideration his death sentence , pending disposal of his appeal in
European Human Rights Court , which might take up many years A death
sentence can be executed only after Turkey’s Parliament and President
approve it .But while still on the statutes not a single sentence has
been carried out since 1984.<br />
<br />
Öcalan has been held in solitary confinement as the only prisoner on
İmralı island in the Sea of Marmara near Istanbul . More than 1,000
Turkish military personnel are stationed on the island to guard him. His
death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after the abolition
of the death penalty in Turkey in August 2002. In 2005, the European
Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey had violated articles 3, 5 and 6
of the European Convention of Human Rights by granting Öcalan no
effective remedy to appeal his arrest and sentencing him to death
without a fair trial. Öcalan's request for a retrial was refused by a
Turkish court.<br />
<br />
This piece was written in 2002 while I was resident at Bucharest .Part
II will cover the effects of 2003 US led illegal invasion of Iraq and
emergence of north Iraqi Kurdistan as an autonomous if not an almost
independent entity and AKP’s effort to negotiate the problem with Ocalan
following the foreign aided uprising in Syria , with Ankara taking a
prominent role encouraged by US, UK and France and financially supported
by petro and gas dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia .Watch this space ,<br />
<br />
Amb (Rtd) K Gajendra Singh.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNWYmYD6vGhvT8vwHrXdNTybXxndlAEDBOmTY7KrIcmiwmO3lGMwlqBf3rqHEhrL8C6CCcaFjniiLgjb2FXeGwuOMjWt-u5TVdkRcp-CABBhAulZUgIUNi6FvhnFAknmJ1sB4Ipn2iVSvE/s1600/Benjamin+Nutsenyahu+and+Obomba.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-53935766064824417732013-03-06T04:18:00.000-08:002013-03-06T04:18:31.056-08:00China and India should stop fretting...<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong> </strong></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXXsfPPWd9xp5GY755UCsQg9rFVE2kkc79q_8zcskEblQ9NRvrupkCTonKsLlqgzu1UGK2rxx-MzW50JO3dF_NEis4_Pn7UDWXnF6PN1FUfV3SYdZC0VEFntaFXMNrY_AFE_bmKTyyHI0v/s1600/india_china_Iranian+oil+poses+Asian+strategic+dilemma....,.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXXsfPPWd9xp5GY755UCsQg9rFVE2kkc79q_8zcskEblQ9NRvrupkCTonKsLlqgzu1UGK2rxx-MzW50JO3dF_NEis4_Pn7UDWXnF6PN1FUfV3SYdZC0VEFntaFXMNrY_AFE_bmKTyyHI0v/s320/india_china_Iranian+oil+poses+Asian+strategic+dilemma....,.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong> </strong></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong> </strong></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>China and India should stop
fretting...</strong>By M K Bhadrakumar <br /><br />As the world weighs the
significance of President Barack Obama's cabinet appointments of John Kerry and
Chuck Hagel as the secretaries of state and defense, it's clear that a varied
list of countries - China, Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the Philippines - are
going to be more affected than others. <br /><br />China appears quietly pleased
that Kerry has cast aspersions on the United States' "pivot" to Asia. Russia
would like to estimate that Kerry and Hagel are good for a revival of the
"reset" of the bilateral relationship, except that it can't be sure yet. Iran
and Israel are getting mixed signals, while Turkey gets a lousy feeling that it
is holding the Syrian baby. And the Philippines feels a little bit lonesome in
the South China Sea. <br /><br />All in all, angst wells up in the bosom when
something new is struggling to be born and uncertainty surrounds how good or bad
it could be. The point is, the American economy is in distress; the world
situation is turbulent and dangerous; the locus of world power is shifting; the
US' capacity to "lead" is in difficulty; and most important, it is beginning to
dawn on the American mind that an historic transition is under way. In sum, a
long sunset has begun. <br /><br /><b>A sinking feeling</b><br />By all accounts, the
Indian pundits too are gripped with anxiety. Some key assumptions on which the
country's regional strategies were predicated through the past decade are being
called into question. <br /><br />Gnawing doubts arise as to what Kerry and Hagel
signify for India's interests. The heart of the matter is that these powerful
statesmen broadly share a world view that discounts the real worth of military
force for the advancement of the US's global reach and influence. <br /><br />In a
manner of speaking, Kerry and Hagel are doing a favor to the Indians by making
them realize a few home truths. India's internal problems are mounting and there
is great urgency to reset the national priorities. India too needs an
Obama-style re-prioritization of national policies. <br /><br />More than
priorities, this is also a matter of self-awareness of the limitations of power
in the contemporary world situation. Some inspiring views have been articulated
by Hagel and Kerry about the efficacy of solving regional issues through
military force, and, more important, on the preference to "engage" adversaries
in a calm and rational manner. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Hagel has been dragged into a
storm in an Indian tea cup over a previously unreleased 2011 speech that he made
at Oklahoma's Cameron University, which was been brought to light by a US
website with conservative leanings just as his appointment as defense secretary
was about to be confirmed by the US Senate last Tuesday. Hagel apparently said,
inter alia, in a wide-ranging speech: </span>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"India for some time has always used Afghanistan as
a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on
that side of the border. And you can carry that into many dimensions, the point
being [that] the tense, fragmented relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan
has been there for many, many years." </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
Indian pundits are hopping mad. But then, this is not the first time that such a
thing has been openly said. Way back in September 2009, then American (and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization) commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley
McChrystal made an assessment for the then secretary of defense Robert Gates
that "increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate
regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or
India." <br /><br />The American officials are <i>au fait</i> with the decades old
Indian mantra of a "second front" vis-a-vis Pakistan, but in the prevailing
circumstances of Western military presence in the Hindu Kush, would have
credited Indian policymakers with the discerning capacity to know what not to
do. <br /><br />Suffice to say, Hagel's 2011 speech had nothing stunningly new to
it. However, the "course correction" of great interest to Indian interests lies
somewhere else - what Kerry might have hinted in relation to America's
"rebalancing" in Asia. <br /><br />In the course of his Senate hearing, Kerry voiced
support for the rebalancing policy, but added a caveat that he isn't convinced
that increasing the US' military influence is critical yet, and pointing out
that the US already has more bases in the region than any other nation. He also
took note that Beijing is concerned about the increased number of US marines
based in Australia. Kerry said: </span>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"The Chinese ask what the United States is doing.
'They try to encircle us, what's going on' - and so every action has its
reaction. We have to think thoughtfully about not creating a threat when there
isn't one and understand where we can find bases for cooperation. I am not
talking about retreating, I am simply trying to think about how we do this, not
creating the reaction you don't like to create".</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It was never quite realistic to imagine that the US was wedded to a
Cold-War style containment strategy toward China, or that India would have a key
role to play as the US's partner in the vast "Indo-Pacific" region (stretching
from the Strait of Hormuz to Vanuatu), which Indian pundits unilaterally claim
as their country's sphere of influence. <br /><br /><b>A new traction </b><br />Maybe,
Hagel and Kerry disappoint them. But what saves the day for Delhi today is, that
the policymakers "anticipated" Kerry even before he expressed the need to
revisit the rebalancing policy. The National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon
in a candid speech at Delhi on Monday before an audience of "China-watchers"
took the bull by the horns: </span>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"I have made it clear that in my opinion talk of
Sino-Indian maritime rivalry is overdone and that it is not inevitable… In
geopolitical terms, and in terms of the naval capabilities of the different
navies other than the US that operates between Suez and Hawaii, this
[Indo-Pacific] space still consists of three distinct areas: the Indian Ocean,
the western Pacific, and the seas near China, (namely, the South China Sea, the
East Sea and the Sea of Japan). <br /><br />"Both India and China have a common
interest in keeping the sea lines of communication through the Indian and
Pacific Oceans open… Over the last decade an Indian presence in the waters east
of Malacca and a Chinese presence west of Malacca have become the new norm. Both
have happened simultaneously and without apparent friction. These are natural
consequences of the development of India and China, and of their increasing
dependence on the world as their economies globalize. <br /><br />"The reason I
cavil about calling the Indo-Pacific one space is because if we do, there is a
danger of prescribing one medicine for the different security ailments that
afflict the Indian Ocean, the seas near China, and the western
Pacific."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In retrospect, India's
policymakers have done well to decline the persuasive invitation extended to it
by Washington to be a "linchpin" in "America's Pacific Century" - to borrow the
title of Hillary Clinton's famous article in the Foreign Affairs magazine
written just 16 months ago. [1] <br /><br />2012 stands out as having been a truly
transformative year in the Sino-Indian normalization. True, the intractable
border dispute remains unsettled; China's Tibetan wound festers; China's all
weather friendship with Pakistan worries (albeit less and less) - yet, a new
traction is coming into the India-China engagement. India has become China's
single biggest market for "project exports", trade is on an upward curve,
high-level exchanges are frequent, and the top officials have begun
acknowledging that the two countries may have more in agreement over the
emerging world order than what might separate them. Indeed, the latest evidence
of the new traction is the proposal from Beijing to commence a structured
"Afghan dialogue" with Delhi. <br /><br />How does it all add up? What is there in
it for India in the Obama-era US Asian strategies? Actually, there could be a
lot if only India is geared up for it. <br /><br />Only last week, the
government-owned China Daily newspaper wrote that the US policies may create
"friction" in Sino-American ties, but Washington "needs" cooperation - "The US
needs cooperation with China, and vice versa, as cooperation helps promote the
economic interests of both countries … The huge Chinese market potential will
undoubtedly serve as an anchor for bilateral trade. If US exports to China grow
by 12% annually over the next four years, a total of 143,000 jobs could be
created in the US." <br /><br />What emerges is also that India lags far behind
China in figuring out the logarithm (after tabling the entries) of what is on
the mind of Kerry and Hagel - and Obomba...& the US ZOG Infamous White House Murder INC,... </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-92102924157687234812013-02-13T04:16:00.001-08:002013-02-13T04:16:30.032-08:00Time to Face the Truth About Iran...<br /><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghBb7MEpr8ndlLAgV4dMZq76zlKFsrAA51GajQ-eviy3i-NrwUaOIGlFxm6E93a2dPdofjZvebKgER5mz_pOuYqS8EMrLHCtXN4DZyuPVobKXKEkQ2igaIzpJX2opfOQZdE4RCnLBQHYdc/s1600/IRAN+surrounded+by+the+scoudrels.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghBb7MEpr8ndlLAgV4dMZq76zlKFsrAA51GajQ-eviy3i-NrwUaOIGlFxm6E93a2dPdofjZvebKgER5mz_pOuYqS8EMrLHCtXN4DZyuPVobKXKEkQ2igaIzpJX2opfOQZdE4RCnLBQHYdc/s320/IRAN+surrounded+by+the+scoudrels.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></h1>
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small;">Time to Face the Truth About Iran...</span></h1>
<table border="0" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="authors" valign="top">
<div>
by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett;</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="norm">Fifty years ago, during the Cuban missile crisis, the
United States faced what is frequently described as the defining challenge of
the Cold War. Today, some argue that America is facing a similarly defining
challenge from Iran’s nuclear activities. In this context, it is striking to
recall President John Kennedy’s warning, proffered just months before the
missile crisis, that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie --
deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive
and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We
subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the
comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” Half a century later,
Kennedy’s warning applies all too well to America’s discussion -- it hardly
qualifies as a real debate -- about how best to deal with the Islamic Republic
of Iran. <br /><br />For more than thirty years, American analysts and policy-makers
have put forward a series of myths about the Islamic Republic: that it is
irrational, illegitimate and vulnerable. In doing so, pundits and politicians
have consistently misled the American public and America’s allies about what
policies will actually work to advance US interests in the Middle East.
<br /><br />The most persistent -- and dangerous -- of these myths is that the
Islamic Republic is so despised by its own people that it is in imminent danger
of overthrow. From the start, Americans treated the Iranian Revolution of
1978-79 as a major surprise. But the only reason it was a surprise was that
official Washington refused to see the growing demand by the Iranian people for
an indigenously generated political order free from US domination. And ever
since then, the Islamic Republic has defied endless predictions of its collapse
or defeat. <br /><br />The Islamic Republic has survived because its basic model --
the integration of participatory politics and elections with the principles and
institutions of Islamic governance and a commitment to foreign policy
independence -- is, according to polls, electoral participation rates and a
range of other indicators, what a majority of Iranians living inside the country
want. They don’t want a political order grounded in Western-style secular
liberalism. They want one reflecting their cultural and religious values: as the
reformist President Mohammad Khatami put it, “freedom, independence and progress
within the context of both religiosity and national identity.” <br /><br />That’s
what the Islamic Republic, with all its flaws, offers Iranians the chance to
pursue. Even most Iranians who want the government to evolve significantly --
for example, by allowing greater cultural and social pluralism -- still want it
to be the Islamic Republic. After Iran’s 2009 presidential election, when former
Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi lost to the incumbent president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, Western elites and Iran “experts” portrayed the Green Movement that
morphed out of Mousavi’s campaign as a mass popular uprising poised to sweep
away the Islamic Republic. But the Greens, even at their height, never
represented anything close to a majority of Iranians, and within a week of the
election, their social base was already contracting. The fundamental reason was
that, after Mousavi failed to substantiate his charge of electoral fraud, the
Greens’ continued protests were no longer about a contested election, but a
challenge to the Islamic Republic itself -- for which there was only a
negligible constituency. <br /><br />While many Westerners prefer to believe that
the Greens did not fade because of their own weaknesses, but because of cruel
suppression by an illegitimate regime, this does not hold up to scrutiny. In the
fifteen months preceding the shah’s 1979 departure, his troops gunned down
thousands of protesters -- and the crowds demanding his removal kept growing. In
2009, police brutality unquestionably occurred in the course of the government’s
response to post-election disturbances. The government itself acknowledged this
-- for example, by closing a prison where some detainees were physically abused
and murdered, and by indicting twelve of that prison’s personnel (two were later
sentenced to death). But fewer than 100 people died in the clashes between
demonstrators and security forces after the 2009 election, and still the Greens
retreated and their base shrank. <br /><br />Western human rights groups estimate
that 4,000 to 6,000 Iranians were arrested in connection with protests following
the 2009 election. More than 90 percent were released without charge. As of
2010, Western human rights organizations did not dispute official Iranian
figures that about 250 were convicted of crimes stemming from the unrest, with
perhaps 200 other cases still pending. Most were pardoned by Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; most who were not are free on bail pending appeals.
According to a survey by Craig Charney, a former pollster for Bill Clinton and
Nelson Mandela, most Iranians saw their government’s response to the unrest as
legitimate. <br /><br />Notwithstanding the Islamic Republic’s staying power,
American policy elites and Iran “experts” with no direct connection to the
on-the-ground reality inside the country continue to advance the myth of the
Islamic Republic’s illegitimacy and fragility, with the idea that if we just
believe in it enough, we will somehow sweep away the challenge Iran poses.
Today, this myth comes in two interlocking versions: that sanctions are
“working” to promote US objectives vis-à-vis Iran, and that the Arab Awakening
has left it isolated in its own neighborhood. <br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Many
commentators now posit that the economic hardships caused by the sanctions will
soon prompt Iranians to rise up and force fundamental change in their country --
or at least compel their government to make the concessions demanded by
Washington. But those making this argument have never explained why the economy
is so much worse today than it was in the 1980s, when Iran lost half its GDP
during the war with Iraq -- and yet even then, its population did not rise up to
force fundamental change or concessions to hostile powers. <br /><br />Indeed, there
is no precedent <i>anywhere</i> for a sanctioned population mobilizing to
overthrow the government and replace it with one that would adopt the policies
preferred by the sanctioning foreign power. Even in Iraq, where crippling
sanctions were imposed for more than a decade, killing more than 1 million
Iraqis (half of them children), the population did not rise up to overthrow
Saddam Hussein. In the end, Saddam was displaced only by a US invasion -- and
even after that, Iraqis did not set up a pro-American, secular, liberal
government ready to subordinate Iraq’s sovereignty and national rights to
Washington’s preferences. <br /><br />Last year, Western pundits hyperventilated
about “hyperinflation” in Iran, arguing that a sharp devaluation in the
country’s currency would turn the people against the government. This
assessment, like so many similar projections before it, proved fanciful. The
Iranian rial has been overvalued for more than a decade, underwriting the rising
consumption of imported goods by upper-class Iranians that has cost the economy
billions of dollars, hurt prospects for farmers and domestic manufacturers, and
constrained Iran’s non-oil exports. The recent devaluation of the rial has
aligned its nominal value with its real value; as the rial has dropped, Iran’s
non-oil exports have expanded significantly. At the same time, the government is
disbursing its foreign exchange holdings to defend a lower exchange rate for
essential imports like food and medicine. <br /><br />While no one in Iran is immune
from the impact of currency devaluation, the rural poor and those involved in
export-oriented sectors are in a relatively advantageous position. There are no
discernible food shortages; stores of all sorts are fully stocked, with
significant customer traffic. Shortfalls are emerging in some imported
medicines. This, however, is not because of currency devaluation. Rather, it is
a function of the US-instigated banking sanctions that, contrary to official US
rhetoric about their “targeted” nature, make it difficult for Iranians to pay
for Western medical and pharmaceutical imports, even though selling such items
to Iran is technically allowed under US sanctions regulations. Certainly, anyone
who has walked the streets of Tehran recently (as we did in December) can see
that Iran’s economy is not collapsing, and anyone who has talked with a range of
Iranians inside the country knows that the sanctions will not compel either the
Islamic Republic’s implosion or its surrender to US demands on the nuclear
issue. There is no constituency -- among conservatives, reformists or even
what’s left of the Green Movement -- prepared to accept such an outcome.
<br /><br />Sanctions advocates continue to claim that it’s different this time,
partly because a “demonstration effect” from the Arab Awakening will reinforce
the impact of sanctions to break the Islamic Republic’s back. In Tehran,
however, policy-makers and analysts see the Arab Awakening as hugely positive
for the Islamic Republic’s regional position. They judge – correctly -- that any
Arab government that becomes more representative of its people’s beliefs,
concerns and preferences will be <i>less</i> enthusiastic about strategic
cooperation with the United States, let alone Israel, and more open to the
Islamic Republic’s message of foreign policy independence. <br /><br />More
particularly, one hears in Washington that, because of the Arab Awakening,
Tehran is going to “lose Syria,” its “only Arab ally,” with dire consequences
for Iran’s regional position and internal stability. This observation
underscores just how deeply US elites are in denial about basic political and
strategic trends in the Middle East. Iranian policy-makers do not believe that
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will be overthrown (at least not by Syrians).
But even if Assad felt compelled at some point to cede Damascus, he and his
forces would almost certainly still control a significant portion of Syria.
Under these circumstances, Syria is hardly likely to become an ally of the West.
Indeed, any plausibly representative post-Assad government would not be more
pro-American or pro-Israel than the Assads have been, and it might even be less
keen about keeping Syria’s border with Israel quiet. Unless Assad were replaced
by a Taliban-like political structure -- which would be at least as
anti-American as it was anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian -- the foreign policy of
post-Assad Syria would be, on most major issues, just fine for Iran. But the US
fixation on undermining the Islamic Republic by encouraging Saudi-backed jihadis
to fight Assad will ultimately damage US security, just as US support for
Saudi-backed jihadis did in Afghanistan and Libya. <br /><br />More significant,
American elites have been slow to grasp that, today, the Islamic Republic’s most
important Arab ally isn’t Syria; it’s Iraq -- the first Arab-led Shiite state in
history, an outcome made possible by the US invasion and occupation. Likewise,
America’s political class has been reluctant to acknowledge that the strategic
orientation of Egypt -- a pillar of US Middle East policy for more than thirty
years -- is now in play. While certainly not uniformly pro-Iranian, post-Mubarak
Egypt is clearly less reflexively pro-American. Before meeting with President
Obama, the country’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi,
traveled last year to Beijing, where he met with both outgoing President Hu
Jintao and incoming President Xi Jinping, and to Tehran, where he met with
President Ahmadinejad. Iranian military ships now go through the Suez Canal --
something that Washington could have vetoed just two years ago. Because of these
developments, Iran doesn’t “need” Syria today in the same way it once did.
<br /><br />American elites have a hard time facing these facts. What Washington
misses above all is that Tehran does not need Arab governments to be more
pro-Iranian; it just needs them to be less pro-America, less pro-Israel and more
independent. Because US elites miss this critical point, they miss a broader
reality as well: that the Arab Awakening is accelerating the erosion of
Washington’s strategic position in the Middle East, not Tehran’s. Rather than
deal with this, Americans continue to embrace the logic-defying proposition that
the same drivers that are empowering Islamists in Arab countries will somehow
transform the Islamic Republic into a secular liberal state. <br /><br />But reality
is what it is. Consider the strategic balance sheet: on the eve of 9/11, just
over a decade ago, every Middle Eastern government -- every single one -- was
either pro-American (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf Arab
monarchies, and Tunisia), in negotiations to realign toward the United States
(Qaddafi’s Libya) and/or anti-Iranian (Saddam’s Iraq and the Taliban’s
Afghanistan). Today, the regional balance has turned decisively against
Washington and in favor of Tehran. <br /><br />This has occurred not because Iran
fired a single shot, but because of elections that empowered previously
marginalized populations in Afghanistan, Egypt, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and
Turkey. In all of these places, governments have emerged that are no longer
reflexively pro-American and anti-Iranian. This is a huge boost to the Islamic
Republic’s strategic position. <br /><br />Some commentators claim to see signals
from Iran that suggest it will finally be forced by sanctions and the Arab
Awakening to make those concessions on the nuclear issue that the United States
and Israel have long demanded. But what these commentators put forward as
evidence of imminent Iranian concessions is nothing new. Unlike others in the
Middle East, Iran was an early signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. And the Islamic Republic has for years been willing to negotiate with
America and others about their concerns over its nuclear activities -- so long
as it would not have to concede internationally recognized sovereign and treaty
rights.<br /><br />In the early 2000s, the Islamic Republic negotiated with the
“EU-3” (Britain, France and Germany), suspending uranium enrichment for nearly
two years to encourage progress in the talks, at a time when it had installed
far fewer centrifuges and was enriching only at the 3 to 4 percent level
required to fuel power reactors. The United States refused to join those talks
until Tehran agreed to forsake its right to internationally safeguarded
enrichment and to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. <br /><br />In 2010, Iran
made commitments to Brazil and Turkey that it would give up most of its
then-current stockpile of 3 to 4 percent enriched uranium and, in effect, forgo
enrichment at the near 20 percent level needed to fuel a research reactor making
medical isotopes for cancer patients. In return, Tehran asked for an
internationally guaranteed fuel supply for the reactor and recognition of its
right to enrich. Once again, Washington rejected this public opening to
negotiate a meaningful nuclear deal. <br /><br />Still, Iran continues to be
interested in an agreement -- perhaps one restricting its near 20 percent
enrichment in return for new fuel for its research reactor and substantial
sanctions relief or, preferably, a more comprehensive accord. In this regard,
the nuclear issue is quite simple: if the United States accepts Iran’s right to
enrich on its own territory under international safeguards, there could be a
deal -- including Tehran’s acceptance of more intrusive verification and
monitoring of its nuclear activities and limits on enrichment at the near 20
percent level. <br /><br />But the Obama administration, like the Bush
administration before it, refuses to acknowledge Iran’s nuclear rights. In the
wake of Obama’s re-election, there is no evidence his administration is
rethinking that approach; senior US officials say their goal remains a
suspension of Iran’s enrichment-related activities. The administration may offer
Tehran bigger material incentives for substantial nuclear concessions (as if the
Iranians were donkeys to be manipulated with economic carrots and sticks). But
Washington remains unwilling to address the Islamic Republic’s sovereign rights
and core security concerns, for that would mean acknowledging it as a legitimate
political entity representing legitimate national interests. As long as this is
the case, there won’t be a deal. <br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Even if Tehran won’t
surrender to American diktats and the Islamic Republic doesn’t collapse, a
critical mass of US policy elites argue that continuing the current mix of
sanctions and faux diplomacy is worthwhile, because this will persuade Iranians,
other Middle Easterners and Americans that the failure to reach a deal is the
Iranian government’s fault. And that, it is held, will justify the ultimate
“necessity” of US military strikes. <br /><br />Americans should have no illusions
about the consequences of an overt, US-initiated war against the Islamic
Republic. Using American military power to disarm another Middle Eastern state
of weapons of mass destruction it does not have, even as Washington stays quiet
about Israel’s arsenal of about 200 nuclear weapons, would elevate already high
levels of anti-American sentiment in the region, threatening our remaining
allies there and rendering their cooperation with the United States virtually
impossible. American military action against the Islamic Republic would have no
international legitimacy. The larger part of the international community (120 of
the UN’s 193 member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, which recently
elected the Islamic Republic as its chair) is already on record that it would
consider an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities illegal. There will be no UN
Security Council authorization for such action; Washington will have no allies
save Israel and (perhaps) Britain. <br /><br />Starting a war with Iran over the
nuclear issue would ratify the US image, in the Middle East and globally, as an
outlaw superpower. This prospect is even more dangerous to America’s strategic
position today than it was after the invasion of Iraq. Just a few years ago, the
United States was still an unchallenged superpower. Other countries’ views did
not matter much; especially in the Middle East, Washington could usually impose
its requirements on compliant governments whose foreign policies were largely
unreflective of their own peoples’ opinions. <br /><br />Today, as more countries
with increasingly mobilized publics seek greater independence, their views on
regional and international issues -- as well as the views of their people --
matter much more. Therein lies the real challenge posed by the Islamic Republic,
a challenge that Washington has yet to meet squarely: How does the United States
work <i>with</i> an Iran -- or an Egypt, for that matter -- acting to promote
its interests as it sees them, rather than as Washington defines them? America
needs better relations with Tehran to begin improving ties with the growing
number of Islamist political orders across the Middle East, which is essential
to saving what’s left of the US position in the region. It also needs Tehran’s
help to contain the rising tide of jihadi terrorism in the region -- a
phenomenon fueled by Saudi Arabia and Washington’s other ostensible Arab allies
in the Persian Gulf. Iran is a critical player for shaping the future not only
of Iraq and Afghanistan, but Syria as well. More than ever before, American
interests require rapprochement with the Islamic Republic. Continued US
hostility only courts strategic disaster.<br /><br /><br /><i>Flynt Leverett is
professor of international affairs at Penn State. Hillary Mann Leverett is
senior professorial lecturer at American University. Together, they write the
Race for Iran blog. Their new book is </i>Going to Tehran: Why the United States
Needs to Come to Terms With the Islamic Republic of Iran<i> (Metropolitan
Books)</i>.</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-74839959182066777392013-02-07T23:28:00.003-08:002013-02-07T23:28:58.491-08:00Leave Religion Out of It...<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 600px;"><tbody>
<tr><td align="left"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAkyZmnMpMqvMszUT-9J3gjQ0ek03ZzTUIQc90Y6I-Xy-jRp_xkqUhs36S0d2iy3AYI4o6SD1peGFKbBqHczgMaYu33Q_80ImOqodkVzPWOe7b8D542l0jvMnY6-VaN9I4cmtZLVn3sXO_/s1600/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7+%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAkyZmnMpMqvMszUT-9J3gjQ0ek03ZzTUIQc90Y6I-Xy-jRp_xkqUhs36S0d2iy3AYI4o6SD1peGFKbBqHczgMaYu33Q_80ImOqodkVzPWOe7b8D542l0jvMnY6-VaN9I4cmtZLVn3sXO_/s320/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7+%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div id="mhline2">
<br /></div>
<div id="mhline2">
<br /></div>
<div id="mhline2">
Leave Religion Out of It...</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left"><div id="insummary">
Ending the manipulation of
religion and the simplistic analyses that try to conceal the secular
reality of conflict, particularly in the Middle East, is essential if we
want to bring peace to this tormented region, <strong>Georges Corm</strong>.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="color: #cccccc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 8.5pt; font-weight: bold;">
<div style="margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 15px;">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="10"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="text2"><div id="storytext">
<div id="text2">
Times have changed.
The days when the West condemned Moscow-sponsored communist subversion
and the East celebrated class struggle and anti-imperialism are over:
Now we talk in terms of religious, ethnic and even tribal struggles.
This new interpretation has acquired exceptional force in the last 20
years, since the US political scientist Samuel Huntington popularised
the idea of the “clash of civilisations,” suggesting that different
cultural, religious, moral or political values were at the root of most
conflicts. Huntington was merely reviving the old racist dichotomy,
popularised by Ernest Renan in the 19th century, between the supposedly
civilised and refined Aryan race and the anarchic, violent Semites.</div>
<div id="text2">
Invoking
“values” in this way encourages a return to simplistic identities,
which successive waves of modernisation had driven back, and which have
returned to favour with globalisation, the homogenisation of lifestyles
and consumption, and the social upheavals much of the world suffered
because of neoliberalism. It allows international public opinion to be
mobilised in favour of one side or the other, and is greatly helped by
certain academic traditions steeped in colonial-era cultural
essentialism.</div>
<div id="text2">
As European-style secular liberalism and
socialist ideology (both of which had spread beyond Europe) have
receded, conflicts have become reduced to their anthropological and
cultural dimension. Few journalists or academics bother to maintain an
analytical framework based on classical political science, taking into
account demographic, economic, geographic, social, political, historical
and geopolitical factors, as well as the ambitions of leaders,
neo-imperial structures and regional powers’ desire for influence.</div>
<div id="text2">
Conflicts
are generally presented in a way that disregards the multiplicity of
causes, caricatures the issues, and makes it a matter of “good guys” and
“bad guys”. The main players are defined according to their ethnic or
religious affiliations, as if opinion and behaviour were homogeneous
within these groups.</div>
<div id="text2">
This started to happen towards the
end of the cold war. The players in the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990),
for example, were classed as either Christian or Muslim. The Christians
were said to belong either to the Lebanese Front or the rightwing
Phalange Party. The Muslims were lumped together as
“Palestino-progressives,” and later “Islamo-progressives.” This did not
take into account the fact that many Christians belonged to the
anti-imperialist and anti-Israeli coalition and supported the right of
Palestinians to attack Israel from Lebanon, which many Muslims opposed.
The problem posed by the presence of armed Palestinian groups in
Lebanon, and Israel’s massive and violent reprisals against the
population, was not religious in nature, and had nothing to do with the
denomination of the Lebanese people.</div>
<div id="text2">
There were many
other manipulations of religious identity during this period that media
experts did nothing to denounce. The Afghan war, the result of the
Soviet invasion of December 1979, was reported to have mobilised
“Islamists” against “atheist” invaders, obscuring the nationalist
dimension of the resistance. The United States, Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan trained and radicalised thousands of young Muslims of all
nationalities (though most were Arab), creating the conditions for a
lasting international Islamist jihad.</div>
<div id="text2">
The 1979 Iranian
revolution caused a major geopolitical misunderstanding: Western powers
believed that the best option for replacing the shah, and avoiding a
nationalist middle-class government (like the experiment led by Muhammad
Mossadegh in the early 1950s) or a socialist and anti-imperialist one,
was for religious leaders to come to power. The examples of Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan -- two very religious states closely allied to the United
States -- led them to assume that Iran would also be a reliable and
staunch anti-Soviet ally. Subsequently the perspective changed. Iran’s
anti-imperialist and pro-Palestinian policies were denounced as Shia,
anti-western and subversive, as opposed to “moderate” Sunni policies.
Inciting rivalry between Sunnis and Shia, and Arabs and Persians, became
a major preoccupation for the United States (a trap Saddam Hussein fell
into when he invaded Iran in September 1980), particularly after the
failure of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to an increase in Iran’s
influence.</div>
<div id="text2">
Since then, there have been many articles
about the danger of the “Shia crescent” -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and
Lebanon’s Hizbullah -- trying to destabilise Sunni Islam, export
terrorism and eliminate Israel. No one bothers to recall that some
Iranians were only converted to Shia Islam in the 16th century,
encouraged by the Safavid dynasty so that Persia could more effectively
resist Ottoman expansionism. We choose to forget that Iran has always
been a major regional power and that the regime is pursuing, in a
different guise, the same policies as the shah, who saw himself as the
gendarme of the Gulf. He too had strong nuclear ambitions, encouraged at
the time by France. Despite these non-religious historical facts,
everything in the Middle East is now analysed in terms of Sunni and
Shia.</div>
<div id="text2">
The simplification continued with the Arab
revolutions of 2011. The protesters in Bahrain were described as Shia
and manipulated by Iran against their Sunni rulers, ignoring those Shias
who supported the regime and those Sunnis who sympathised with the
opposition. In Yemen, the Houthi rebellion (Zaydis from the northwest
province of Saada) is seen as a Shia phenomenon, and due to the
influence of Iran.</div>
<div id="text2">
Lebanon’s Hizbullah is considered
just a tool of Iranian ambition, despite the opposition to it within the
Shia community, and its popularity among many Christians and Sunni
Muslims. It is often forgotten that the movement arose from Israel’s
occupation (1978-2000) of mainly Shia southern Lebanon, which would have
lasted much longer without its resistance. That Hamas in Gaza is a
purely Sunni product, stemming from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood,
does not trouble analysts who support the idea of “moderate” Sunni
Islam: The movement must be denounced because its arms are supplied by
Iran and used in attempts to end Israel’s blockade.</div>
<div id="text2">
There
is a lack of nuance. Oppression and socio-economic marginalisation are
not mentioned. Parties in conflict do not have hegemonic ambitions: they
are either good or bad. Communities that incorporate a variety of
opinions and behaviour are characterised with hollow anthropological
generalisations and essentialist cultural stereotypes, even if they have
absorbed other socio-economic and cultural influences for centuries.</div>
<div id="text2">
New
concepts have taken over our discourse: In the West, “Judeo-Christian”
values have replaced the secular invocation of our “Graeco-Roman” roots.
The promotion of Muslim or Arab-Muslim values, peculiarities and
customs has replaced the anti-imperialist, socialist and “industrialist”
demands of secular-inspired Arab nationalism, which had long dominated
the regional political scene.</div>
<div id="text2">
The individualistic and
democratic values that the West claims to embody are contrasted with the
supposedly holistic, patriarchal and tribal values of the East. Until
recently, leading European sociologists maintained that Buddhist
societies could never attain industrial capitalism, since it is
supposedly dependent on the specific values of Protestantism.</div>
<div id="text2">
The
Palestinian question is no longer perceived as a war of national
liberation that could be resolved by creating a single country where
Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together as equals, as the PLO has
long called for. Instead it is regarded as Arab-Muslim opposition to a
Jewish presence in Palestine and so, for some, a symbol of enduring
anti-Semitism that must be opposed. But if Palestine had been invaded by
Buddhists, or post-Ottoman Turkey, resistance would have been just as
strong.</div>
<div id="text2">
Tibet, Xinjiang, the Philippines, the Russian
Caucasus, Burma (where we have just discovered a Muslim population in
conflict with its Buddhist neighbours), the former Yugoslavia (broken up
along sectarian lines between Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and
Muslim Bosnians), Northern Ireland (Catholics and Protestants) and now
Mali: Can the conflicts in all these regions really be seen as a clash
of religious values? Or are they in fact secular, anchored in a social
reality that hardly anyone bothers to analyse, while self-appointed
sectarian leaders seize the opportunity to realise their personal
ambitions?</div>
<div id="text2">
Exploiting identity in clashes between large
and small powers has a long history. One might have thought that
political modernity and the republican principles that have spread
around the world since the French Revolution would mean that secularity
was firmly installed in international relations, but this is not the
case. There has been an increase in the claims of some countries to
speak on behalf of transnational religions, particularly the three
monotheistic ones.</div>
<div id="text2">
These countries use religion to
serve their policies of power, influence and expansion. They use it to
justify ignoring fundamental human rights defined by the UN: The West
has supported the continued occupation of Palestinian territories since
1967, while some Muslim countries allow flogging, stoning and the
maiming of thieves. The sanctions applied to those who contravene
international law also vary: The international community imposes strict
punishments in some cases (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Serbia) and does not
reprimand at all in others (the Israeli occupation, the US detention
system in Guantanamo). Ending this manipulation of religion, and the
simplistic analyses that try to conceal the secular reality of conflict,
particularly in the Middle East, is essential if we want to bring peace
to this tormented region.</div>
<div id="text2">
<strong>Georges Corm</strong>
is an economist and historian of the Middle East, a former minister of
finance in the Lebanese government, 1998-2000, and author of Le
Proche-Orient éclaté (Gallimard) and Le Nouveau gouvernement du monde
(La Découverte).</div>
<div id="text2">
<strong>© 2013 Le Monde diplomatique</strong> – distributed by Agence Global</div>
<div id="text2">
<br /></div>
<div id="text2">
<br /></div>
<div id="text2">
<br /></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-57480198439203765912013-01-14T03:46:00.001-08:002013-01-14T03:46:23.543-08:00Iran and the Fallacy of Saber-Rattling...<br /><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKczCLTcUd32R0YJLCO6NXIT9ZgSStdamoBPRUT7-bOpWmtXO1dh6NVe_nj6F73sc9X93SPm5qrpexzEvkCCLd5Hc01h-s9EUVdjLkiBObnPrfTYFcoVGKLqtlvtiLW0SEY1I35h7T5FlS/s1600/Kerry+kissing+Khameni.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKczCLTcUd32R0YJLCO6NXIT9ZgSStdamoBPRUT7-bOpWmtXO1dh6NVe_nj6F73sc9X93SPm5qrpexzEvkCCLd5Hc01h-s9EUVdjLkiBObnPrfTYFcoVGKLqtlvtiLW0SEY1I35h7T5FlS/s1600/Kerry+kissing+Khameni.jpg" /></a></div>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></h1>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">
<span style="font-size: small;">Iran and the
Fallacy of Saber-Rattling...</span></h1>
<div class="title">
<a href="http://nationalinterest.org/profile/paul-r-pillar">Paul R.
Pillar</a>;</div>
<div class="title">
</div>
<div class="title">
Among several broadly held misconceptions about Iran is that to get Iranians
to make concessions we want them to make at the negotiating table the United
States must credibly threaten to inflict dire harm on them—specifically, with
military force—if they do not make the concessions. Some in the United States
(and some in Israel) who are especially keen on promoting this notion would
welcome a war. If war preparations and brinksmanship used to communicate such a
threat lead the two nations to stumble into an accidental war—and there is a
real danger they might—so much the better from their point of view. But the
belief in saber-rattling as an aid to gaining an agreement in the negotiations
over Iran's nuclear program extends to many who actually want an agreement and
are not seeking a war. We have heard more about this lately in connection with
Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense. People ask whether this
nominee, who has evinced an appreciation of the huge downsides of a war with
Iran, would be able to rattle the saber as convincingly as the same people think
a secretary of defense ought to rattle it.<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0"><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0]"><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[0].[0]">Even
the usually thoughtful David Ignatius has adopted this line of thought, dictated
by CIA thugs... In his latest column he makes a comparison with nuclear
deterrence in the time of Dwight Eisenhower. Under the doctrine of mutual
assured destruction,</span></span><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]"><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0"><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[0]">
a “bluff” of “frightening the Soviets with the danger of Armageddon” was used to
dissuade them from overrunning Western Europe. “Obama,” says Ignatius, “has a
similar challenge with Iran.”</span><br id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[1]" /><span id=".reactRoot[309].[1][2][1]{comment10151184679866537_24030061}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[2]">No,
he doesn't. One situation was deterrence of what would have been one of the most
epic acts of aggression in history. The other is an effort to compel a far
lesser country to curtail or give up an avowedly peaceful program, and to do so
by threatening what itself would be an act of naked aggression, a la 2006...
Thomas Schelling has taught us that deterrence and what he called compellence
have significant differences, with the latter generally being harder to
accomplish than the former. And this is in addition to all the other vast
differences in scale, subject matter and morality between nuclear deterrence
during the early Cold War and the current standoff with Iran...or the valiant
Patriotic Resistance of Hezbollah!!!</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span>These
and other differences get to one of the problems with the common notion about
threatening military attack in response to Iran not crying uncle at the
conference table: a difficulty in making such a threat credible no matter how
energetic a saber-rattler the secretary of defense might be. This is related
also to the question Mr. Obama posed during the election campaign, about whether
his opponent wanted a new war in the Middle East. At the level of public
sentiment, most Americans do not want to become engaged in a new war in the
Middle East. At the more sophisticated level of policy analysis—if that analysis
<a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">is done thoroughly and objectively</a> <span class="print-footnote">[6]</span>—such a war would be seen to have enormous costs
and disadvantages. One of those disadvantages would be—as members of the
opposition in Iran have repeatedly warned—to strengthen politically Iranian
hardliners whose position is based partly on implacable hostility from the
United States and who would benefit from a rallying around the flag in response
to foreign attack. Another disadvantage would be the directly counterproductive
one of leading the Iranians to make the decision they probably have not yet
made, which is to build a nuclear weapon.<br />
That last consideration is in turn related to another problem with the notion
about threatening military attack, which concerns the reasons Iranians have for
being interested in nuclear weapons. The chief reason almost certainly involves
the presumed value of such weapons as a deterrent against major, regime-crushing
foreign attack. The more that the brandishing of the threat of military attack
makes such an attack seem likely, the greater will be the Iranian interest in
developing nuclear weapons and the less inclined they will be to make
concessions that would preclude that possibility.<br />
As if all of this were not enough to discard the notion about the efficacy of
saber-rattling, there are the central realities of the nuclear negotiations
themselves and how Tehran perceives them. Inducing the Iranians to concede is
not just a matter of hurting them more. They already are hurting a lot, from the
economic consequences of international sanctions. What is missing from the
negotiations is any reason for them to believe that the hurt will be eased if
they make concessions. The P5+1 have yet to place on the table any proposal that
includes any significant relief from sanctions. Without such an incentive, there
is no reason for the Iranians to cry uncle or even to make lesser concessions,
no matter how much more they are made to hurt.<br />
The Iranians have good reason to be suspicious of ultimate U.S. and Western
motivations, and threats of military force figure into that in an unhelpful way
too. The Iranians do not have to look far to see ample evidence in favor of the
proposition that the primary U.S. goal regarding Iran is regime change. And they
do not have to look far into the past to see a recent U.S. use of military
force—participation in the intervention in Libya—that overthrew a Middle Eastern
regime <em>after</em> it had reached an agreement with the United States to give
up all its nuclear and other unconventional weapons programs. What reason would
Iranian leaders have to make any concessions if they believe the same thing is
likely to happen to them? This is already a problem; rattling the saber only
makes it worse...<br />
<br />
</div>
</span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-80162792535789112002013-01-01T09:14:00.001-08:002013-01-01T09:14:22.112-08:00اسامة الشهابي يعد العدة لقتال حزب الله في الضاحية... والجنوب... انطلاقا من فلسطينيي المخيمات...: فتش عن بندر بن سلطان......<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhghkrD2NHzmZ_N3MuJv7yqMHyYdRxI9jtqGnAn_5SEx3V73Z9bFQ7EtpexGrKUqPWebXPIFoITRCzHFXz5uCGsGjfthFFYU1Lr1Q6QtCUfmkoMHQtQTReVOnhM7mvfWdoaH0XDLWi-cOo7/s1600/salafiyat.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhghkrD2NHzmZ_N3MuJv7yqMHyYdRxI9jtqGnAn_5SEx3V73Z9bFQ7EtpexGrKUqPWebXPIFoITRCzHFXz5uCGsGjfthFFYU1Lr1Q6QtCUfmkoMHQtQTReVOnhM7mvfWdoaH0XDLWi-cOo7/s1600/salafiyat.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" id="fbPhotoPageCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span dir="rtl"><b><span style="font-size: large;">اسامة الشهابي يعد العدة لقتال حزب الله في الضاحية... والجنوب... انطلاقا من فلسطينيي المخيمات...: فتش عن بندر بن سلطان...</span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;"> <br />
الشيخ أسامة أمين الشهابي تلقى تمويلا كبيرا من وكيل بندر بن سلطان في
لبنان... عبر عميل اميركي - سعودي اسمه جناح حمود... شقيق هاني حمود...
مستشار سعد الحريري... بهدف تأمين مجموعات مسلحة... تقود تجنيد فلسطينيي
المخيمات ضد حزب الله... والشهابي ( فلسطيني ،والدته خديجة الغزال ، موالي<span class="text_exposed_show">د عام 1971 ، رقم الملف 538 ، البيان الإحصائي 180053 ، مسؤول تنظيم جند الشام... جند الشام في مخيم عين الحلوة )<br /> <br />
يقوم بتأمين دخول الفلسطينيين من مخيم اليرموك في سوريا إلى لبنان...
لينضموا إلى خلايا جند الشام المنتشرة في مخيمات برج البراجنة... ومار
الياس... والبداوي... ، وهؤلاء فائض القوة التابعة للتكفيريين في
اليرموك... الذي يعج بمئات الكوادر التابعة لتنظيم جند الشام... و عرف منهم
: <br /> <br /> - رامز مصطفى طه (مواليد 1973 مخيم اليرموك دمشق)<br /> - محمد أحمد عميري (مواليد 1973 مخيم اليرموك دمشق) <br /> - معتز خالد موسى العمر (ملقب عامر العمر مواليد 1970 دمشق ) <br /> - فوزي محمد العوض (مواليد الأردن عمره حوالي 39 سنة سكان مخيم اليرموك) <br /> - صافي علاء عيسى (ملقب أبو مظهر ، مواليد 1971 اليرموك ) ....<br /> <br /> عصبة الانصار: فرع علني لتنظيم القاعدة... الحليف الحقيقي للاميركيين...<br /> <br />
تفيد مصادر من جهات داخل مخيمات لبنان ان تنظيم عصبة الأنصار في مخيم عين
الحلوة هو الوجه الديبلوماسي لتنظيم جبهة النصرة . وعلاقات تنظيم الانصار
مع السعوديين... رعاة جبهة النصرة قديمة ومتشعبة : <br /> <br /> النشأة : <br />
تأسس من قبل الشيخ هشام الشريدي, وبعد اغتياله, أسندت قيادة التنظيم إلى
الشيخ أحمد عبد الكريم السعدي, الملقب أبو محمود, الذي لا يزال يقيم في
منزله, في ظل إجراءات أمنية مشددة, ويتحاشى من الظهور العلني, مسنداً
كافة الأنشطة الأمنية والسياسية والعسكرية, الى شقيقه المدعو هيثم
السعدي... الملقب أبو طارق, والذي يعتبر ناطقاً رسمياً باسم التنظيم في
لبنان ... ....<br /> <br /> عديد هذه المجموعات القتالية وهي من جنسيات مختلفة
، فلسطينية ، جزائرية سورية ، فلسطينية سورية ، مغربية ، أردنية ،
شيشانية ، تونسية ، مايقارب الثمانمئة عنصر على الأقل وهو مسلحون بالسلاح
الخفيف والمتوسط والثقيل ، وأماكن انتشارهم في <br /> <br /> المخيم هي على الشكل التالي : <br /> <br /> - حي حطين وبداخله تتواجد مجموعات فتح وجماعة النور ...<br /> - حي التعمير وهو مركز رئيسي لتنظيم جند الشام وهو أحد أجنحة عصبة الأنصار . <br /> - حي طيطبا... <br /> - حي الطوارئ... <br /> - حي الصفصاف وهو المعقل الرئيسي لعصبة الأنصار ، وتوجد تحت هذا الحي أنفاق أرضية تؤدي الى منازل كوادر وأعضاء التنظيم ...<br />
التنظيم المذكور هو عضو في جبهة النصرة وحامي لهم ديبلوماسيا من خلال
علاقاته السياسية والامنية مع اجهزة عديدة منها من هو تابع للدولة
اللبنانية... لكن قيادة التنظيم شريك في مجلس جهادي مرتبط بتنظيم القاعدة
مباشرة وهذا المجلس مؤلف من أحد عشر عضو وهم : <br /> - أسامة أمين الشهابي ، يعاونه كل من أيمن التوجري من التابعية الليبية. <br /> - محمد أحمد غنيم / فلسطيني. <br /> - وفيق محمد عقل / فلسطيني. <br /> - علي محمد قاسم حاتم / لبناني. <br /> - عماد ياسين ياسين / فلسطيني. <br /> - سليم محمد حليمة / فلسطيني. <br /> - ابراهيم أحمد حميد / فلسطيني. <br /> - هيثم السعدي ، أبو طارق / فلسطيني.<br /> <br /> توجد عدة كوادر قيادية في التنظيم المذكور تعمل ضمن لجان خاصة مرتبطة بتنظيم القاعدة مباشرة __ هيئة ارتباط عليا وهم :<br /> - التونسي محمد بوشريك. <br /> - التونسي صلاح حسن. <br /> - الجزائري توفيق بوقرة بوصالح. <br /> - نور الدين بدر الدين مصلح / سوداني. <br /> - عمر أحمد سويد/ سعودي معروف بأنه ممول رئيسي مالياً للتنظيم ...</span></span></b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" id="fbPhotoPageCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span dir="rtl"><span class="text_exposed_show">HK4EVER</span></span></span></span></b></span><br />
<br />
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-19931179664393295222012-12-24T01:07:00.000-08:002012-12-24T01:09:36.728-08:00Israel is a perpetual Geostrategic project MANUFACTURED to separate the eastern flank of the Arab World from the Suez Canal, Egypt and Beyond...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOOibafgm7wnPOU6GTEHT4h7XUkDdrSuqIEonAcdQqFv3nVcp6G2cICCY48D-FJv3ApCvzW5t5D9nOqyB41Jqo9GNYUiNlxcjXGkHFl15gmmDQ4Is0TELVSjlf0ZYpM4yCNqe55EBlrOY8/s1600/%D9%83%D9%84+%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A1+%D9%81%D9%8A+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9+%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86+%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A+%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1+%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1+%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%84..jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOOibafgm7wnPOU6GTEHT4h7XUkDdrSuqIEonAcdQqFv3nVcp6G2cICCY48D-FJv3ApCvzW5t5D9nOqyB41Jqo9GNYUiNlxcjXGkHFl15gmmDQ4Is0TELVSjlf0ZYpM4yCNqe55EBlrOY8/s1600/%D9%83%D9%84+%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A1+%D9%81%D9%8A+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9+%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86+%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A+%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1+%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1+%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%84..jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">THE MODERN STATE OF “ISRAEL” IS A FRAUD
PERPETUATED UPON THE HUMAN RACE BY THE THUGS AT BRITISH CROWN
INC...</span></b></div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">It is BEYOND obvious that the whole scheming since
1894 & the Balfour Declaration of theft in the Levant, was a deliberate
geostrategic barrier created from scratch by the Empire of utter criminals in
London, in order to separate the eastern flank of the Arab World from the Suez
Canal, Egypt and Beyond. This nuclearized geostrategic barrier allows the
control of the main maritime choke points in MENA & Arabia, which can
suffocate Asia etc. anytime the Zioconned West chooses to do so within a few
months...This policy of support for a failed concept in the face of
international law and simple Justice, still prevails in the corridors of the
UKUSA alliance of Evils... Pathetic!</span></b></div>
<div>
<b></b> </div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://youtu.be/AOv_Ll_Pl08">http://youtu.be/AOv_Ll_Pl08</a></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: #3fb502;"><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Semites"><span style="color: #3fb502;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Semite</span></b></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">–A
member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern
Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians,
Hebrews, and Phoenicians...</span></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">Arthur Koestler, author of <i><a href="http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf"><span style="color: black;">The
Thirteenth Tribe</span></a></i>, easily the most expansive single work on the
subject, states, “The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the
past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever
perpetrated.” 1</span></b><br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">This is
the story of a kingdom of belligerent, warlike Caucasian nomads, having no
linked ancestry with anything Israelite this side of Noah, yet adopting Talmudic
Judaism and becoming the dominant — and virtually only — current force in
twenty-first century international Jewry.</span></b></span><br />
<h1>
<span style="color: #b2040b;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464023091024180.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"><span style="color: #b2040b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Where Do Jews Come
From?</span></span></a></span></h1>
<h1>
<span style="color: #b2040b;"><span style="color: #b2040b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></h1>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">By </span><a href="http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=EVAN+R.+GOLDSTEIN&bylinesearch=true"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">EVAN R. GOLDSTEIN</span></a></h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This much is known: In the mid-eighth century, the ruling
elite of the Khazars, a Turkic tribe in Eurasia, converted to Judaism. Their
impetus was political, not spiritual. By embracing Judaism, the Khazars were
able to maintain their independence from rival monotheistic states, the Muslim
caliphate and the Christian Byzantine empire. Governed by a version of
rabbinical law, the Khazar Jewish kingdom flourished along the Volga basin until
the beginning of the second millennium, at which point it dissolved, leaving
behind a mystery: Did the Khazar converts to Judaism remain Jews, and, if so,
what became of them?</span><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3536640973092345800" name="U10195116089VMD"></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Enter Shlomo Sand. In a new book, <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234"><span style="color: black;">“The Invention of the Jewish People,”</span></a></b> the Tel
Aviv University professor of history argues that large numbers of Khazar Jews
migrated westward into Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania, where they played a
decisive role in the establishment of Eastern European Jewry. <span style="color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><b>The implications are
far-reaching: If the bulk of Eastern European Jews are the descendents of
Khazars—not the ancient Israelites—then most Jews have no ancestral links to
Palestine. Put differently: If most Jews are not Semites, then what
justification is there for a Jewish state in the Middle East?</b></span> By
attempting to demonstrate the Khazar origins of Eastern European Jewry, Mr.
Sand—a self-described post-Zionist who believes that Israel needs to shed its
Jewish identity to become a democracy—aims to undermine the idea of a Jewish
state.</span></span><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3536640973092345800" name="U101951160895NB"></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Published in Hebrew last year, “The Invention of the Jewish
People” was a best seller in IsraHell...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464023091024180.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464023091024180.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</a></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf">http://www.fantompowa.info/13th%20Tribe.pdf</a></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-71742119583522621132012-12-19T10:45:00.002-08:002012-12-19T10:46:32.164-08:00Russia's principled policy in the Levant is based on international law, will it stand the test of Time...<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjaPbefrIfYTXTdih2QanzmSCih5sbdpWPcHbbloB-I33gtk-QCeywxLloRro6AhqaXzb5MZ_cjy0G_kDbyCid8zP5HAiilbtA4X46D5WeWbbBCELA_PCbx2DkTginO5KffXXE0u3hHS6/s1600/stupid+thuggish+ASSAD+the+assassin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtjaPbefrIfYTXTdih2QanzmSCih5sbdpWPcHbbloB-I33gtk-QCeywxLloRro6AhqaXzb5MZ_cjy0G_kDbyCid8zP5HAiilbtA4X46D5WeWbbBCELA_PCbx2DkTginO5KffXXE0u3hHS6/s320/stupid+thuggish+ASSAD+the+assassin.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Russia's policy
towards Syria is one based on principles and not one which will change depending
on circumstances</i>. Russia has clearly said that it will never allow a "Libya
2" in Syria. That is a principled position which in itself does not secure an
outcome, <i>only excludes a specific scenario</i>...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Several Russian (and
Ukrainian) nationals have been kidnapped by the Al-CIAda insurgents which, in a
typical Wahhabi-thuggish manner, are now demanding a ransom in US dollars. This
is an ominous development which the Kremlin cannot ignore. Again, contingency
plans do <b>NOT AT ALL</b> mean a change in policies. <i>To take all the
necessary measures to protect its nationals is an inherent obligation of any
state and not an original policy</i>.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fundamentally, Russia
is using the power that it has (veto at the UNSC) and stays away from pretending
to use the power it does not have (military intervention). This is also exactly
what China is doing, all for the same reasons, yet nobody is constantly speaking
about Chinese zig-zags on China. Why? Because China is not the ex-Soviet Union
with global ambitions...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is the key thing which so
many experts simply cannot get used to: Russia is not a global power anymore.
In fact, it has absolutely no desire to become one again. Russia is, of course,
a major power which, in theory, could challenge the USA, just like China could.
However, both Russia and China could only do that at great, immense, risk for
themselves.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And then there is the time
factor: both Russia and China fully realize that they, even more than the other
BRICS countries, have time on their side and that each passing year makes them
stronger. The USA, in contrast, is globally overextended, burdened by a debt it
will never pay, profusely hated world wide, and the only thing which still keeps
it going is the fact that the rest of the planet is too afraid of the US
military to openly refuse to use the US dollar as a currency reserve and to pay
for its energy. The US is also socially dysfunctional, culturally sterile,
militarily over-extended, economically de-industrialized, and politically
"neo-feudal" (1% rule over 99% of serfs). Sooner or later the USA will become
weak enough to make it possible for any major power, including Russia or China
and Brazil, to openly defy it, but while it is still powerful but weakening it
is an extremely dangerous foe which should not be under-estimated. This is why
Russia, along with the other regional powers on the planet, will continue to
carefully wait for the right time and avoid any sudden move which would
compromise all that it has achieved in the past 12 years...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On The EU poodles.... I would
argue that the current condition of the EU is even <i>worse</i> than the one of
the Zio-USA... Russian politicians look at the EU in total disgust. Russian
experts are saying that all that the EU had to offer was a "never ending
gay-pride parade combined with a massive Maghrebization and of Africanization of
its society". That is not a bad way to put it. The EU, as a political project,
is dying, and the European society arguably is even more dysfunctional than the
US one. The likes of Sarkozy, Hollande, Cameron, Fabius, Juppe and Merkel can
delude themselves by playing big power politics, but the fact that French
Rafales were the first to bomb Libya will change exactly nothing to prevent the
French society from dying from the truly cataclysmic influx of immigrants, most
of which come from the Maghreb or Africa. From Estonia to Portugal and from
Bulgaria to Iceland, Europe is nothing more than a US colony, totally ruined by
a corrupt political elite, which is sinking as fast as the Titanic did, and
whose orchestra (corporate media) is still playing its happy ballroom
music...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But "dying" and "dead" are very
different things. The EU is still a huge market, and the EU elites have a lot
of soft power to throw around, much more than Russia. And this is why at least
for the time being, Russia will try to avoid openly antagonizing the
EU...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Russia's stance on the Levant is based on principles and
international law...Russia has exactly *zero* need for Syria. Russia does see
Syria as a friend, and many Russian politicians see Assad's MAFIA as "friends",
but that does not mean that anybody in Russia "needs" him...<br />In this case it
is a national interest of Russia to insist that the situation be handled
strictly according to international law. Russia seeks a multi-polar world and
that means one in which international law is fully respected. In other words, it
is in Russia's pragmatic national interest to insist on
principles...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Russian gas is already going through two routes (north and
south) to Europe in total safety which would never be the case if the EU
depended on a pipeline going through Syria... In fact, Russia does not even
"need" Iran, though I would argue that Iran is far more important to Russia than
Syria... Syria and Lebanon are strategically located at the crux of the
Middle-East, but Russia has very little influence in the Middle-East anyway, and
there is no aspect of Russian national security to which the Middle-East would
be really important except one: the fact that the USA is trying to impose its
will on the Middle-East in total violation of international law which does set a
dangerous and highly undesirable precedent for Russia...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To the extent that genuinely autonomous nation states
continue as the major military and political arbiters of the planets military
and political affairs, that would be a desirable outcome...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">My worry is that transnational organizations with minimal
national loyalties/allegiances are coming to dominate foreign affairs and
marginalizing nation states in the process. The major globalised corporations
seem to be the driving force, with their bought-and-paid-for politicians,
bureaucrats and intelligence establishments who effectively moderate the treaty
interpretation and development process (among other critical things). Their big
potential problem lies in the ultimate loyalties/allegiances of the military
establishments that they rely on as enforcers of last resort. That together with
the mass of the planets population that really have come to hate America and
NATO with a vengeance..., courtesy of the most Infamous White House Murder INC,
following the barbaric Cheney's 9/11 and the cowardly assassination of HK,
January 24th 2002 in Lebanon...<br /><br />The thing that nags me deeply is the
possibility of Putin and/or other capable Russian and Chinese big-hitters being
made offers they can't refuse. In other words, when the chips are finally down
in this accelerating global game of poker, where will their loyalties really
lie?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That is a big question indeed. Which would they choose -
themselves and their power or the welfare of their people?<br /><br />I guess that
we will never know for sure until they are actually faced with this choice.
Sometimes, in historical situations, not so principled folks suddenly take a
principled stance, while in other circumstances previously rather idealistic
people suddenly cave in and betray the values they were supposed to stand
for...CIRCA January 15th 1986...etc etc.<br /><br />Regardless of personalities,
there is, I believe, a very large social consensus in Russia and this social
consensus is what gives real power to the Kremlin's policies. Any politician
wanting to go against this social consensus would place himself in a great deal
of risk and would have to start ruling by force, which would be rather
dangerous.<br /><br />So, the current Russian policies will stand and there will be
no sudden "zig-zag!" Only Time will tell...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-7441994320303339482012-12-01T07:32:00.001-08:002012-12-01T07:32:21.629-08:00The Obomba/Bush three options...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWc4QBeM1xVjIGXrwPnwa5Og4VSUD1suRkQWcPFgWV3WXVK55XW7dqAK3hr84lB_2Rn81NBY_-6BXfEjGabuXeb-45RU1-1lE7ntQl9JF6n8mvkPdGU1b5AUxrq-xc4Zkqjt0beVwKaPqS/s1600/SHN.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWc4QBeM1xVjIGXrwPnwa5Og4VSUD1suRkQWcPFgWV3WXVK55XW7dqAK3hr84lB_2Rn81NBY_-6BXfEjGabuXeb-45RU1-1lE7ntQl9JF6n8mvkPdGU1b5AUxrq-xc4Zkqjt0beVwKaPqS/s320/SHN.jpeg" width="215" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Obomba/Bush three options...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
The Obomba/Bush administration's opposition to yesterday's United Nations
General Assembly vote on the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) bid for
non-member observer state status once again places the United States outside the
consensus of the vast majority of the international community. While the merits
and usefulness of such a move by the PLO can be debated, the United States has
once again made it clear that it lacks any new ideas as to how to move toward a
just and lasting peace in the region and suggests that the administration is
likely to continue to support blindly whatever the current Israeli government
wants. <br />
However, looking forward to his second term, President Barack Obama faces
three basic options for dealing with the Palestine issue. Their outlines have
not really changed since the most recent Israeli attacks on Gaza. The first is
the tried and true method of simply ignoring Palestine and the Palestinians,
while paying lip service to the "peace process" and attempting to extract
unreciprocated Palestinian concessions to Israel. This approach was practiced
during most of the administration of George W. Bush, and over the last two years
by that of Obama. There are many pretexts for following this course of action
today. These range from the persistent political divisions in Palestinian ranks
and the feebleness of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, to the
supposedly "terrorist" nature of the Hamas leadership in Gaza. They include as
well the stubborn unwillingness of the government of Israeli Prime Minister
Benyamin Netanyahu to engage in serious negotiations to change the intolerable
status quo of never-ending settlement growth and strict Israeli control over the
millions of Palestinians who have lived under Israel military occupation for
over 45 years. If, as clearly seems to be the case, the Israeli government is
not fully willing to allow unfettered Palestinian self-determination, terminate
its occupation, and remove its settlers, what is the point of "negotiations" for
the Palestinians? Another reason for doing nothing is the unbroken record of
failure of every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter in trying to stop the
inexorable expansion of the Israeli settlement enterprise. This vast endeavor
now comprises nearly 600,000 colonists -- or about one in every 10 Israeli Jews,
who live on stolen Palestinian land in a far-flung archipelago explicitly
intended to make the creation of a contiguous, viable Palestinian state
physically impossible, with majestic success thus far. <br />
The second option is to make a major effort to revive a "peace process" which
has been moribund for well over a decade, and was on life support long before
that. There is a large body of pious conventional opinion in Washington and
elsewhere that would back such an approach. Those who favor it ignore the
various realities on the ground just mentioned, which make the two-state
solution that is the ostensible object of this process well-nigh impossible.
They ignore as well the question of why a Palestinian leader with any degree of
self-respect should re-engage in a "peace process" that, far from bringing
peace, has resulted in the further entrenchment of this colonial reality and of
Israel's military occupation of Palestinian lands. Beyond this, the Palestinians
have been imprisoned in a collection of separate, sealed Bantustans, with those
in the West Bank unable to enter Jerusalem or Israel or Gaza, those in Gaza who
cannot freely go anywhere at all, and those in Jerusalem who can move more
freely, but are at constant risk of having their Jerusalem residency rights
arbitrarily withdrawn. These are all realities that took on their full form
during the 21 years of this misnamed and misbegotten "peace process," starting
with the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, and it is these realities that are the
most concrete results of this process. <br />
Moreover, from the beginning, this process has been totally dominated by the
United States, which is Israel's closest ally, and a broker so prejudiced toward
Israel it was once described by a senior American negotiator, Aaron David
Miller, as acting as "Israel's lawyer." Many of these officials have been
blatant in their sympathy for Israel and in their antipathy for the
Palestinians. During a recent televised discussion I faced two of them, Elliot
Abrams, a senior advisor to George W. Bush (and who served under Reagan and
George H.W. Bush), and Dennis Ross, a senior advisor to both Presidents Clinton
and Obama (and who served under their two Republican predecessors). I was struck
by how extraordinarily alike they sounded, and by the heavy responsibility they,
their colleagues, and their superiors bore for the failure of this process. <br />
The third and last option is one never before taken by U.S. policy makers.
This would involve a complete reassessment of a thoroughly bankrupt two-decade
old negotiating process. This process shoe-horned the Palestinians into an
"interim" self-governing authority with no sovereignty, no jurisdiction, and no
real authority that has been in existence for 18 years, and deferred discussion
of "final status issue" -- all the important ones like Jerusalem, refugees,
settlements, water, and so forth. These core issues have never been seriously
addressed in over 20 years of farcical negotiations. The Madrid-Oslo framework
has produced not peace but a significant worsening of the situation of the
Palestinians: it must be abandoned. Such a reassessment would require as well an
acceptance that the United States, because of its profound inherent structural
bias in favor of Israel, cannot monopolize peace making. This is necessary if
the desired result is peace, and not yet another instance of blind American
support for Israeli intransigence where the Palestine issue is concerned, which
has been the outcome of every such attempt from the days of President Carter
until the present. <br />
Jimmy Carter was the first U.S. president to recognize the need for a
Palestinian homeland. Ironically, it was also his administration that first
accepted former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's restrictive 1978
"autonomy plan" (an Orwellian term if ever there was one) as the absolute
ceiling to which the Palestinians would be allowed to aspire. This plan was
explicitly designed by Begin to prevent Palestinian self-determination and
statehood, and to perpetuate and strengthen Israel's occupation and its colonial
enterprise in Jerusalem and the West Bank. It has done just that, with the
blessing of every U.S. administration since Carter's, under whatever rubric it
was disguised since then. This path, of the 1978 Camp David agreements and the
1993 Oslo accords, which are both based directly on Begin's restrictive autonomy
plan, cannot lead to peace. It can only lead where Begin, the patriarch of the
Israeli right wing, meant it to go and where it has so far gone: toward the
permanent subjugation of the Palestinians and the annexation of all or most of
their land. <br />
The third path, the road never before taken, would require more than just a
diminution by the United States of its heretofore pervasively dominant role, and
the involvement of other more neutral parties in negotiations. It would require
as well that the Palestinians finally get their act together, unify their
splintered ranks, end the destructive political split which has debilitated
them, and come to a consensus on an imaginative new strategy for Palestinian
national liberation and an end to Israeli settlement and occupation. This in
turn requires abandonment of both the PA's approach of half-trying to negotiate
from a position of abject weakness under the thumb of Israel and the United
States under ground rules designed to favor Israel, and of Hamas's dead-end
approach of reliance on violence alone under the rubric of "resistance." This
will be hard for both, especially after the Netanyahu government's recent
attacks on Gaza have massively enhanced the prestige and standing of Hamas among
Palestinians, Arabs, and others. But it is absolutely necessary, since neither
the Ramallah PA's adherence to the "peace process" as it has been structured for
decades, nor Hamas rockets, have yet liberated any part of Palestine. Indeed the
Palestinians are far worse off today than they were at the time of Madrid in
1991. Such a shift by the Palestinians would need to be met by greater U.S.
flexibility regarding both Hamas, and the idea of the unity of all major
Palestinian factions, which Washington has worked against assiduously since that
group won the 2006 elections. <br />
Given the inflexibly pro-Netanyahu political realities of Washington DC,
which on this issue are unreflective of American public opinion and indeed of
American Jewish opinion (after an election in which 69 percent of American
Jewish voters voted for Obama in spite of Netanyahu virtually campaigning for
Romney), it may be hard to see the Obama administration doing any of these
things. But a new reality is emerging in the Arab world, of which we have only
seen a glimmer so far. The 2012 U.S. presidential election showed that the
Republican Party has come to represent the fading demographic reality of older,
whiter, male southern and western America. Similarly, the Arab upheavals of the
past two years have underlined the fact that the old Arab world was represented
mainly by entrenched despots who would do whatever Washington wanted and who saw
Iran as more of a problem for the region than Israel. This is not how most of
the largely young population of the Arab world (or most of the population of
Turkey) perceive their region, and in particular how they perceive the issue of
Palestine. There are just beginning to arise Arab governments which in some
small measure reflect both that popular will and that growing demographic
reality. That development may yet be short-circuited by the efforts of forces
supported by the reactionary Arab Gulf autocrats, for whom constitutional
parliamentary democracies are anathema. Nevertheless, the Obama administration
would be well advised to respond to these new realities in the Middle East,
before the United States is once again caught behind the curve in this vital
region. Instead of continuing to align itself with the old Arab order, and with
the Israeli government's bullying of the Palestinians, it should help in the
achievement of a just and lasting peace. This would greatly benefit not only
Palestinians and Israelis, but also the standing of the United States in the
Middle East and the world. <br />
<div>
With the announcement this morning that Israel will speed up settlement
building especially in E1 and the absolute silence from Zioconned Washington and
Ottawa on the announcement. Don't hold your breath. Countries should start with
drawing support for the sanctions against Iran if Israel does not back down on
these new settlements...</div>
<div>
</div>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>Rashid Khalidi a friend of the Obamas..., and is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia
University, a former advisor to the stupid Palestinian negotiators, who have been taken for a ride since 1964 by their atrocious PLO thugs..., and author of The Iron
Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, and the forthcoming
Brokers of Deceit: How the US Undermined Peace in the Middle East.</i> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-29503962755048869142012-11-23T08:51:00.000-08:002012-11-23T08:51:01.902-08:00Kurdistan-Iraq confrontation looming, keep your eyes on Kirkuk...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYDRFvdplg5YRsGZDJBFa_lSLQXDDLNwn5iTRYd0Bfnf5rqvpxE4MeHeej4HkQUFeXDOJ9cuIKLNq4XSsrYC2oeoKIPhz0ZVINH5oqf8ullQB064mJfbs0z4fHTyU9MhGKSctU8zx7xYuY/s1600/Kurdish-Iraq+Confrontation....jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYDRFvdplg5YRsGZDJBFa_lSLQXDDLNwn5iTRYd0Bfnf5rqvpxE4MeHeej4HkQUFeXDOJ9cuIKLNq4XSsrYC2oeoKIPhz0ZVINH5oqf8ullQB064mJfbs0z4fHTyU9MhGKSctU8zx7xYuY/s320/Kurdish-Iraq+Confrontation....jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">Kurdistan-Iraq confrontation looming, keep your eyes on
Kirkuk...</span></b></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Some of
my early thoughts were</span></span><a href="http://www.theospark.net/2012/11/my-estimate-of-krggoi-fightby-dj-elliott.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
published</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in rough form earlier.<span> </span>My estimate of Kurdish and Iraqi
Forces is that neither side is really ready for a stand-up fight.<span>
</span>But it may happen anyway for political reasons or as deployed forces
maneuver for position.<span> </span>If it happens, don't be surprised if it
doesn't work out as planned - for either
side...</span></span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Of interest, the formation
of the Tigris Operational Command and the claim of forming 2 Kurdish
</span></span><a href="http://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/11/state6619.htm"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Operational
Commands</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in response as justification for the confrontation is pure
propaganda.<span> </span>Establishing corps-level commands has been ongoing
since the Surge and both sides require these command elements whether they are
fighting each other or not.<span> </span>They or something like them have been
projected as planned for over 5 years.<span> </span>For a
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span>casus belli</span><span>, this is
really flimsy.</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In 2003, the Kurds had a dominate position
but, the US did not want a divided Iraq – policy was to rebuild Iraq to remain
the natural geographical roadblock for Iran.<span> </span>This correlation of
forces has not remained static.<span> </span>The Iraqi Army has re-grown to 14
divisions since then while the Peshmerga was already at peak strength in 2003
and has reduced to 10-11 division-equivalents since then for budget
reasons.<span> </span>This didn’t matter as neither could push while foreign
forces prevented operations.<span> </span>The withdraw of US forces last year
was the first opportunity for Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government to
consider the military option to settle the disputed
territories.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">One problem with all analysis is that both
sides do not have experience in conventional war.<span> </span>The majority of
both forces are too young to have participated in anything other than internal
security.<span> </span>Nor have they had sufficient training in conventional
war.<span> </span>Conventional war is not the same as COIN and neither side
knows how their troops will react to high intensity
conflict.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">While the straight numbers of </span><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~djyae/site/?/page/Iraq_Order_of_Battle/"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Kurdish and Iraqi forces</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> indicate an Iraqi advantage – the basic
numbers are not the whole story.<span> </span>While Kurdish forces can be
concentrated in a confrontation with Iraq – Iraqi forces are still heavily tied
down performing internal security.<span> </span>This is a Kurdish passing
advantage as the Iraqi Federal Police is slowly taking over the lead in internal
security, freeing up the Iraqi Army for other employment and
training.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Iraqi Army Pros and
Cons</span></span></strong><br /><strong><span></span></strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Neither side is ready. What we are seeing
from the IA is preparatory moves vice short-term conflict moves.<span> </span>It
will be 1-2 years before the IA is ready.<span> </span>While neither side is
currently ready, IA has more resources in the long run than KRG. The IA has
effective numeric parity with the trained reorganized RGBs with its available
force at this time.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">That is not the full story – the IA only
started training on combined arms a year ago.<span> </span>They are still short
Artillery and will have coordination and supply issues due to lack of
experience.<span> </span>This confrontation is not the same as
counter-insurgency operations.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The IA also needs to train on new
equipment. This is especially true of the 12th Division in Kirkuk – it may be
politically dependable but, it is too green and only recently equipped with some
armor. Only the IA 9th Armor Division is really ready for this type of fight -
the rest are still shaking-down on new equipment and only started training in
conventional combined arms during the last year.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">While the 12th Division in Kirkuk is
politically dependable - Using 12th IA Division as point is a mistake.<span>
</span>This is the same former Strategic Infrastructure Battalions that had to
be re-blued/re-greened. It is the youngest, least capable/professional div in
the IA - which makes giving them armor unwise.<span> </span>Given the limited
time, the 12th has had armor and the limited hand-me-down armor only received in
the last 2 months – they are likely to be combat ineffective until they have
completed a real training shakedown – probably a
year.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">There is a trust issue with several IA
divisions in a confrontation with the KRG.<span> </span>Kurds serving in the IA
tend to be concentrated in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Divisions – all in disputed
zones.<span> </span>The IA needs to shift forces in the north that they cannot
trust verses the KRG to southern locations, while shifting forces the GoI can
trust against the KRG to replace them. That takes
time.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The IA has only limited number of forces
available because most of the Army is still needed for internal security - this
will change with time.<span> </span>As the Federal Police expands and takes over
internal security in various locations, the IA will have more forces freed up
for training and for deployment - this is the delay. The FP is not expanding
fast enough, but this will eventually allow the IA to
concentrate.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The IA also need more training time on the
new equipment and needs more heavy weapons. Primarily needs Artillery verses the
KRG, Artillery is the biggest shortage. Most of the other systems that the IA is
short of are not essential in a fight against the
KRG.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Additional time to fully set up sustainment
is needed for the IA. Sustainment is an issue for both
forces.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">While the IA/IqAF has the air power
advantage – it is insufficient to be more than a localized advantage.<span>
</span>Given more training time and additional deliveries [especially munitions]
– this will change.</span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">These may be the reasons PM Maliki is
talking a deal where IA and KRG forces are partnered in the disputed
zones.<span> </span>Prime Minister Maliki is talking joint patrols in the
disputed zone - Smart move. This buys time to shift and upgrade forces.<span>
</span>Looks like a compromise but, has the effect of pinning [corseting] most
of the Regional Guards Brigades to an equal force of IA. In any KRG/GoI
conflict, this would reduce the KRG flexibility - thus allowing the IA to move
additional forces in and defeat the KRG in detail. Also, it would draw most of
the RGBs into more favorable terrain for the IA. Again, this needs time to set
up.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">PM Maliki appears to want to move hard but,
the IA is not ready.<span> </span>The limited numbers of new equipment procured
haven't had enough personnel training time to be effective combined arms
formations.<span> </span>The IA is not ready yet.<span> </span>1-2 years minimum
to get truly functional trained, equipped, and <u>sustainable</u> with the new
equipment.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Then there is the International
fall-out.<span> </span>Iraq can ill afford the likely results of even a
victorious war with the KRG.<span> </span>The reaction would probably include an
international arms embargo against Iraq - Not to mention UN peacekeepers
deciding the actual border.<span> </span>Since Iraq has no air defense and
limited heavy weapons, such a result would keep Iraq weak and its government
very shaky.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Kurdish Regional Guards Pros and
Cons</span></span></strong><br /><strong><span></span></strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">While the KRG is still not ready, they are
in better shape vis-a-vie the IA at this time than they will be in the
future.<span> </span>Unlike the IA, almost all of the Kurdish forces are
available for a conflict.<span> </span>16 of a planned 20 Regional Guards
Brigades have been re-organized and trained/equipped for conventional
conflict.<span> </span>The 2 KRG mechanized Brigades and 2 SOF Brigades are
already functional although the armor is obsolete.<span> </span>The Zerevani has
reorganized into 2 divisions and received enough Carabinarie training to be
effective.<span> </span>The I DBE Region [Division] is also Kurdish manned and
significant elements of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th IA Divisions will probably join the
KRG in a fight.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The RGBs are actually matching conventional
training timelines with the IA - retraining/reorganizing as many RGBs as the IA
in the same timeframe. 16 of 20 RGBs have been retrained and reorganized.<span>
</span>4 more are starting training but, this program only started a little more
than a year ago.<span> </span>Most of the current generation of Peshmerga [like
the IA] has little or no conventional combat experience.<span> </span>Their
problem is they have a lower final end-strength and less access to heavy
weapons. <span></span>The IA will surpass them in 1-2
years.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The KRG has the advantage in logistics -
interior shorter lines. Without more effective air strength than they have
available - the IA/IqAF has no realistic way of neutralizing this KRGs
advantage. <span></span>But, to maintain it, the KRG needs Turkish or Iranian
backing for any resupply when they run out of
ammo.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Another problem is that the Kurds have not
historically demonstrated an ability to fight in the plains. All the disputed
areas are in the plains.<span> </span>They are an infantry force that has not
been able to defeat Iraqi armor advantage in the past.<span> </span>However, the
current IA does not have so much armor this time and the KRG has been reported
</span><a href="http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/11/state6636.htm"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">acquiring ATGWs</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> that might be sufficient to neutralize
that advantage for now.</span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span> </span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Conclusion</span></span></strong><br /><strong><span></span></strong><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">From the GoI’s position this is IA/GoI
political and battlefield prep for the future – it will be 1-2 years minimum
before the IA is ready for a real fight.<span> </span>Any fight before the IA is
ready, could be very iffy for the GoI.<span> </span>If the fight starts this
year - the KRG has a good chance of winning against the
IA.</span></span><br /><span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span></span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">From the KRG’s standpoint, this may be the
last opportunity to secure the disputed zone and try for independence.<span>
</span>The Kurds have the current force advantage but, that will not last.<span>
</span>The KRG's current problem is Iran and Turkey – neither wants an
independent Kurdistan.<span> </span>Without their concurrence the KRG would be
fighting a loosing battle.</span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br /><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Both sides are operating from a
questionable military position as they cannot be sure of their
forces...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span> </div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-35937143591154395282012-11-16T04:55:00.005-08:002012-11-16T04:55:57.063-08:00Palestinian leaders seem to never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHw76JnHYDZCKzTDPgNmU4B1yWa-YlRsiFwjLtwsKzZUltKS6ryWhgAO248YmWTYUzjbIsA1qmF9lcfp11rfAt1EhBbj1zCpfY-40MetSl7RiZgm6T-nvZFgK1g3uqxlOElrnMIBuTwMab/s1600/Palestinian+people+realize+that+they+are+led+by+a+clique+of+completely+incompetent+leaders.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHw76JnHYDZCKzTDPgNmU4B1yWa-YlRsiFwjLtwsKzZUltKS6ryWhgAO248YmWTYUzjbIsA1qmF9lcfp11rfAt1EhBbj1zCpfY-40MetSl7RiZgm6T-nvZFgK1g3uqxlOElrnMIBuTwMab/s320/Palestinian+people+realize+that+they+are+led+by+a+clique+of+completely+incompetent+leaders.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"> </span></span></span></h5>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">Amongst
the many calamities which have befallen the Palestinian people one of
the worst ones is being systematically led by incompetent and utterly
corrupt and subservient leaders with no strategic vision and a true
knack for always choosing the wrong side in a conflict... From their
misguided alliance with all kinds of unsavory terrorist groups in the
1970s and their atrocious behavior in Lebanon, which is still ongoing by
the way..., to their support for Saddam, to their naive participation
in the Oslo Accords, to today completely misguided support for the
NATO-Wahhabi/Takfiri insurgents in Syria - the Palestinian leaders seem
to never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot...<br /> The
fact that the Israelis have successfully split the Palestinians into
three separate groups (Israeli citizens vs. West Bank residents vs. Gaza
residents) is certainly the most glaring example of how easily the
Palestinian elites can be manipulated. And e<div class="text_exposed_show">
ach time, there is hell to pay by the Palestinian people for such mistakes by their utterly corrupt and criminal leaders...<br /><span>
Look at the situation in Syria. What have the Palestinians done to
themselves this time? By siding with the NATO-Wahhabi/Salafist/</span><wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span>Takfiri,
Al-CIAda insurgency, they have essentially turned against Hezbollah and
Iran, their only true friends in the region. In contrast, the Israelis
have carefully succeeded in completely isolating Hamas and now they can
afford to safely bomb and kill as many people of the Gaza strip as they
want..., while the PA and many Palestinian agents of the Zios in Gaza
have become an extension of the SHINBET...<br /> And what can Hamas do in
retaliation? Fire some rather useless rockets at Israel and hype the
rhetoric about "opening the Gates of Hell" for Israel which, of course,
is utter nonsense. The truth is that the Israeli Iron Dome does a
halfway decent job shooting down many Palestinian missiles and even when
the Palestinian missiles actually succeed in killing a Israeli family
(like what happened this week...), it only serves the political agenda
of the Israeli government...<br /> Palestinians are dying again as a
direct consequence of the mistakes and miscalculations of the
Palestinian leaders. And this really begs the following question: how
many more Palestinians will have to die before the Palestinian people
realize that they are led by a clique of completely incompetent leaders
which do not make things better for the Palestinian people, but only
worse, much worse...</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
</div>
</span></span></span></h5>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-86509047909827763802012-11-15T01:19:00.002-08:002012-11-15T01:19:23.263-08:00الفتنة السنية - الشيعية.. محاذيرها ونتائجها...<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">
<div class="RapidFlowNormal newsposting_floatleft newsposting_titleswidthpanel">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhXFli9_qvZQWShZ19mVHl7T9D6imHN6xzPf69oiobc95Jq0wchBZuy8oa2LvFqKY_aPWyDjKG8OGuG2DBqee_xGRmC6zozSPn7foKFSnaeFNBUC4Pe8b5i1HtC_CE4fIyyC6rNNao7Xck/s1600/Leila+Nicolas+-+Rahbani.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhXFli9_qvZQWShZ19mVHl7T9D6imHN6xzPf69oiobc95Jq0wchBZuy8oa2LvFqKY_aPWyDjKG8OGuG2DBqee_xGRmC6zozSPn7foKFSnaeFNBUC4Pe8b5i1HtC_CE4fIyyC6rNNao7Xck/s1600/Leila+Nicolas+-+Rahbani.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal newsposting_floatright newstitle directionrtl">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td><td>....</td><td><span style="font-size: large;">الفتنة السنية - الشيعية.. محاذيرها ونتائجها</span></td><td> (<span style="font-size: large;">ليلى نقولا الرحباني</span>) </td><td> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal">
<div class="RapidFlowNormal newsposting_floatleft newsimgpadding">
<div class="RapidFlowNormal">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal textaligncenter">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearboth">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearboth">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearboth">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" class="borderleftdiv" width="100%"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearnone newsposting_textalignright">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="RapidFlowNormal" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: large;"><span id="_ctl148_HtmlPlaceholderTwo">
كان محقاً السيد حسن نصرالله في التحذير في خطابه الأخير من انجرار البعض، سواء
بقصد أو بغير قصد، إلى السير في مشروع فتنة سنية - شيعية، يرمي الغرب وبعض العرب
إلى إشعالها، وهي إن حصلت وتمّت كما يُخطط لها، فستؤدي إلى تدمير لبنان والمنطقة
على رؤوس أبنائها جميعهم، ولن تنأى من تداعياتها دولة عربية أو مسلمة في
العالم.<br />
بالفعل، أصاب السيد نصرالله في تنبيه الرأي العام الإسلامي إلى مخاطر الوقوع في
فخ الفتنة تلك، فمن خلال ما نلاحظه من قراءة التقارير الغربية، ومن المؤتمرات
الدولية التي نشارك بها، يمكن لنا استخلاص أهداف خطيرة جداً يرمي إليها مخططو تفجير
الفتنة السنية - الشيعية، والتي يسير بها بعض المسلمين المدفوعين بدافع المذهبية
البغيضة، من دون إدراك تداعياتها عليهم وعلى الأمة ككل.<br />
ولعل أبرز ما يمكن إدراجه من أهداف ذلك المخطط، يمكن اختصارها بما يلي:<br />
أولاً: إدخال المسلمين في أتون نار مذهبية دينية بين بعضهم البعض، وذلك لإلهائهم
عن الأخطار الحقيقية المحدقة بهم، وأهمها الصراع العربي - "الإسرائيلي"، والمشروع
الغربي الذي يرمي إلى السيطرة على المنطقة اقتصادياً وثقافياً وعسكرياً.<br />
ثانياً: تجفيف نبع الروحانية الإسلامية، وهنا يتحدث بعض الخبراء الغربيين عن
ضرورة إدخال الإسلام إلى نفس "الأتون" المذهبي الديني الذي دخلت فيه أوروبا
المسيحية في القرون الوسطى، والتي لم تخرج منها إلا وقد خسرت روحانيتها، وتخلى
المجتمع عن تديّنه، ولفظ الكنيسة والدين، وبات من السهل اختراقها بكثير من البدع
اليهودية التي دخلت إلى المسيحية وشوّهتها من الداخل، ودفعت بعض المسيحيين إلى
الإيمان بالعهد القديم والأساطير التوراتية التي جاء المسيح لتصحيح النظرة
إليها.<br />
وبنفس السيناريو، لا بد من اختراق الدين الإسلامي بالبدع البعيدة عن جوهر
الإسلام - وهو ما نشهده اليوم من انتشار الفتاوى الغريبة والمريبة في آن - والتي
تجعله بحاجة إلى ثورة إصلاحية تُخرجه من البدع تلك، والتي لن تتم إلا بإضعافه
وتجويفه.<br />
ولكي يعيد التاريخ الأوروبي نفسه مع المسلمين هذه المرة، يجب أن يتمّ حكم بلاد
المسلمين من قبل مؤسسات دينية متعصبة، تقوم بما قامت به الكنيسة على يد "بابوات"
القرون الوسطى، فتقضي تلك الحركات الدينية المتعصبة، التي ستحكم بلاد الإسلام، على
كل مظاهر الفكر والتقدم والانفتاح والتعايش، وتُغرق المسلمين بالتعصب والجهل، وتسلط
عليهم فتاوى التكفير (كما تسلطت الكنيسة على الأوروبيين بتُهم الهرطقة).. والنتيجة،
وكما في أوروبا، حرب دينية بين السنّة والشيعة تمتد مئة عام أو أكثر، يخرج بعدها
المسلمون أضعف إيمانياً وسياسياً، وبعدها يخرجون إلى عصر الأنوار، فيسيطر الفكر
المادي على الروحاني، وعندها يمكن لهم أن يخرجوا إلى العالم بفكر يدعو إلى فصل
الدين على الدولة، ويدخلون في عصر نهضة حقيقية مشابهة للنهضة الأوروبية.<br />
ثالثاً: تفتيت المنطقة إلى دويلات تقسَّم على أساس عرقي أو طائفي، ما يجعل من
وجود "إسرائيل" كدولة يهودية أمراً طبيعياً في محيط من الدويلات المتناحرة طائفياً،
وقد تكون "إسرائيل" حينها قبلة تلك الدويلات التي يمكن لها أن تسعى للتحالف معها -
باعتبارها دولة قوية عسكرياً وتكنولوجياً ومدعومة غربياً - للقضاء على أعدائها من
الدويلات الأخرى. والنتيجة تكون إنهاء القضية الفلسطينية، وإسقاط حق العودة
نهائياً، وتوطين الفلسطينيين اللاجئين في أماكن وجودهم في تلك الدويلات الطائفية،
التي لن ترفضهم، باعتبارهم جزءاً من انتمائها المذهبي، وهم "أخوة" في الدين قد
يعززون وضع الدويلة الطائفية تلك.<br />
رابعاً: القضاء على الوجود المسيحي في الشرق، ويبقى للمسيحيين وجود في بعض
المناطق القليلة جداً التي تستطيع أن تقيم دويلتها القابلة للحياة، ومنها دولة
الأقباط في سيناء، ودولة جنوب السودان..<br />
أما في لبنان، فيتوهم بعض المسيحيين أنه سيكون لهم كونتونهم الخاص، يستأثرون
بحكمه في ظل تحقق هذا السيناريو، ولذا يدفعون تلك الفتنة المذهبية دفعاً إلى
الأمام، ويستميتون في إذكاء نارها، وهو ما لفت إليه السيد نصرالله أيضاً.<br />
لكن، ما يبدو واضحاً من خلال قراءة كل المعطيات، أن القضاء على الوجود المسيحي
في لبنان يبدو ضرورة لنجاح المخطط، باعتبار أن المناطق المسيحية تشكّل عازلاً بين
المناطق السنيّة والشيعية، ولا بد من إزالة الدويلة - الحاجز إما بالتهجير، أو
بتدفيعهم ثمن وجودهم بين جبهتين متقاتلتين، وجعلها غير قابلة للحياة بخنقها.<br />
في المحصلة، إن المرحلة الصعبة التي نمرّ بها تحتم على السُّنة والشيعة
والمسيحيين العقلاء في لبنان والعالم العربي، أن يعوا إلى أن وجودهم ومصيرهم
ومستقبلهم مرهون بمدى وعيهم بما يحاك للمنطقة، وإن المصلحة الخاصة التي يحلم البعض
بتحقيقها من فتنة سنية - شيعية، لن تُبقي شيئاً من الوطن كله لحكمه أو الاستئثار
به</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearnone newsposting_textalignright">
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearnone newsposting_textalignright">
</div>
<div class="RapidFlowNormal clearnone newsposting_textalignright">
</div>
</span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-24657908386929217552012-11-03T12:57:00.001-07:002012-11-03T13:02:35.708-07:00Coinistus Maximus Petraeus, et. all. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXdry-KDg6SPC8QXLyMh2p0BydZZomiKhDpecoYkeq_-Cc-FN3W9FgFjV9OhzW_4impWPSJy9eCJIamGQ_yVOrluE2bEdokkJKj0Bib6Kplw71m__-u3VGwTS0hlDjye9J49IS_hHN_Iji/s1600/forsane_alizza2;+CIA+reportedly+trains+its+al-Qaeda+mercenaries.....jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXdry-KDg6SPC8QXLyMh2p0BydZZomiKhDpecoYkeq_-Cc-FN3W9FgFjV9OhzW_4impWPSJy9eCJIamGQ_yVOrluE2bEdokkJKj0Bib6Kplw71m__-u3VGwTS0hlDjye9J49IS_hHN_Iji/s1600/forsane_alizza2;+CIA+reportedly+trains+its+al-Qaeda+mercenaries.....jpg" /></a></div>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
</h5>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"><span style="font-size: small;">So it now seems that Hillary Clinton, Coinistus
Maximus Petraeus, et. all. are now on a quest to find Syrians who share US
values to replace the ones who shared US values before....LOL<br />Which suggests
that the new council they are going to support (create?) will be filled with
those very Al-CIAda jihadists/Takfiri/MB thugs, etc. as they are the ones on the
ground fighting... Rather stunning, eh?<br />Smoke wafting from the shishas on the
seventh floor of Foggy Bottom will have to be monitored now for indications of a
successful selection of a new government in exile, well, internal exile it would
seem...<br />Of course, Washington could find a diplomatic way out, by supporting
UN peace efforts...but demonic possession by the very active ghosts of Sykes and
Picot, not to mention Woody Wilson appears to rule the foreign policy elite such
as it is...Demonic possession provides a more persuasive explanation than
anything else that I can imagine...</span></span></span></h5>
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /><span style="font-size: small;">Machiavelli would have avoided
Syria, IMO, believing it was in pretty good hands with the ASSAD Mafia
already...The "possessed" in London, Paris, and DC are inclined
otherwise...<br />The Saudis (both official and non...) have had a long term
project for Sunni triumphalism in the Levant. This is one of a number of such
projects, another having been Egypt, a third being the spread of Wahhabism
through endowment of mosques, etc. In the case of the Levant their technique had
been the distribution of moneys to potential political allies and the use of
agents of influence like Rafik Hariri for the purpose of suborning enemies and
controlling "friends." Hafez Assad resisted this process and flare ups resulted
in events like the Hama massacre and Hariri's first removal from office as PM of
Lebanon. The Syrian rebellion provides the Saudis with their best opportunity
yet for the expansion of Sunni supremacy in the Levant...LOL</span></h5>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /><span style="font-size: small;">Rather dull..., but they keep
trying!!!</span></h5>
<h5 class="text_exposed_show">
</h5>
<h5 class="text_exposed_show">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"></span></span></h5>
</span></span></span></div>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"></span></span></span></h5>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-67121818284367954922012-10-29T10:35:00.002-07:002012-10-30T04:32:06.733-07:00The full spectrum dominance and its madness...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6r5fCW5gnODKyaxaR72fvMF1e_ydPqEafDLUBH7XaecNdiY27ZqmMZsqMdHMfCjNyK49VaJ3UwqS5Ay56lxQGFCQeZP_dy3QFiBhgNtoLAmOeQjAIQ1tQkVOrzeilf-WlUSMc_GyR-wc/s1600/U.S.+Army+Gen.+Lloyd+Austin,+commander+of+the+criminal+assassins,+U.S.+Forces-Iraq+onboard+a+C-17+Globemaster+en+route+to+Baghdad,+Iraq.....jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX6r5fCW5gnODKyaxaR72fvMF1e_ydPqEafDLUBH7XaecNdiY27ZqmMZsqMdHMfCjNyK49VaJ3UwqS5Ay56lxQGFCQeZP_dy3QFiBhgNtoLAmOeQjAIQ1tQkVOrzeilf-WlUSMc_GyR-wc/s320/U.S.+Army+Gen.+Lloyd+Austin,+commander+of+the+criminal+assassins,+U.S.+Forces-Iraq+onboard+a+C-17+Globemaster+en+route+to+Baghdad,+Iraq.....jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: #cf3a58;"><span style="color: #b6260b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The full spectrum dominance and its
madness...</span></span></span></b></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: #cf3a58;"><span style="color: #b6260b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The mess that we find ourselves in today, is due to the
miserable, evil policies of the past three American Administrations...and their
despicable and cowardly assassinations, right after the Barbarism of 9/11, and
the tragedy of January 24th 2002 in Hazmieh...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #cf3a58;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Humane people
will not tolerate outright murder and crimes against humanity to
control politics, vice, and bad habits in faraway lands... Whenever American
war tactics in the service of the odious & infamous White House Murder INC,
are exposed to the international Zio-media, the obvious criminality and
immorality of the strategy being followed deliberately erase any good that might
come out of the effort...in order to serve the interests of the utterly corrupt
ZOG/USA.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #cf3a58;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The US
military should have the planet on lockdown… yet after more than a decade of
war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular
support...</span></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #cf3a58;">
<span style="color: #b6260b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">That singular,
vital to understand point is this--the American war on terror HAS NOT FAILED, it
has succeeded brilliantly in its primary mission--to spread conflict over the
entire planet... The war on terror was NEVER intended to be won, it was just a
means to an end, prepositioning military forces in every nation, before
unleashing global nuclear war... All of these little "piss ant" wars that the
ZOG/US have been fighting, the various Partnership-for-Peace programs, Special
Forces training missions, i.e. embedding the most infamous White House Murder
INC, surreptitiously within local forces..., drug-interdiction and border
control operations, along with the overall rubric of "fighting terrorism," have
all provided the means to preposition American "Special Operators" and their
weapons within other national militaries and police forces. Their original
mission has been to "win the hearts and minds" of foreign military men, before
the real war begins, the war against all enemies at once...LOL
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #b6260b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The Pentagon
would prefer to be known as a bumbling,"inept giant," rather than as the
monstrous, devouring beast that it really is...and this should be known to
ALL... The Joint Chiefs have been faithfully carrying-out the desires of their
corporate masters and their puppets in the Zio-White House, by spreading the
Pentagon's tentacles into every corner of the planet, even to the depths of the
oceans and the heights of sub-orbital space. The Pentagon is a monster, that is
set upon devouring all of the little peasant villagers who will besiege the
fortified fortresses of their dark overlords. The Pentagon is firmly committed
to a policy that is best defined as "Malthusian," the calculated thinning-out of
the human herd... The Pentagon has been setting itself up as the ultimate
protectors of a small group of racist elitists, who consider the rest of us as
cattle, fit only to be bought and sold, improved in limited numbers through
selective crossbreeding and genetic experimentation, with the remainder of the
herd to be eventually slaughtered, probably to be processed into "Solvent
Green" for them... </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #b6260b;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The day is nearly
upon us when open-air thermonuclear detonations will become a regular
occurrence. The day after that day comes and goes, will be the only time when
Bush's war could be judged either a resounding success, or a total failure.
Until then, only the spread of death and terminal madness will spread across
the face of the Earth...</span></span><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #cf3a58;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
</span>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">La politique de L'Ouest Zio-criminel est toujours
la meme, essayer de tirer quelques avantages de ce conflit sunnites-chiites,
tout en sachant que tot ou tard , il peut se retrouver agressè par le sunnite
qui etait leur » ami intime » contre le chiite...[ Diviser pour regner depuis
les 1800, rien ne change. ]...</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b>Quel chef d’Etat occidental bien pensant
ose dénoncer avec autant de force les persécutions de chrétiens et de chiites au
Pakistan, Arabie Saoudite, Bahrain, etc. comme il pretendent "dénoncer" si
fermement celle des sunnites Takfiri/Wahhabi et Al-CIAda en Syrie..., alors qu'ils sont leurs poulains du moment... ?
</b></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
De la même manière, le massacre de dizaine de
milliers de Chretiens au Liban entre 1973-1990..., et deux millions de chrétiens
au Sud Soudan entre 1960 et 2007, par la dictature militaro-islamiste de
Khartoum n’a jamais suscité d’intervention occidentale. Et cette élimination des
chrétiens-animistes du Sud, considérés comme des esclaves par le Nord
arabo-musulman, n’a jamais été reconnue comme un génocide par les Nations unies,
qui ont pourtant officiellement qualifié de génocide l’assassinat de musulmans
de Bosnie et du Kosovo dans les années 1990 par des nationalistes de
Serbie-Yougoslavie, pays alliés des « méchants » russo-chinois (comme l’Irak de
Saddam, la Libye de Kadhafi ou la Syrie d’Assad)... </div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Deux poids deux mesures : les Occidentaux
dénoncent les chiites de Téheran, mais pas celui encore plus totalitaire des
salafistes sunnites,Takfiri/Wahhabi et Al-CIAda armés, financés et formés par
l’Arabie saoudite, la Turquie, Qatar et meme Israel des fois...</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
La diabolisation de l’Axe syro-iranien n’a donc
d’égal que la servilité de ces mêmes Zio-Occidentaux envers l’Arabie saoudite,
le Koweït, pour qui l’on s’est battu, et le Qatar, nouvel ami-bienfaiteur du
Hamas cree par Israel pour contrer L'OLP palestinien et des Frères musulmans.
<b>Les Etats du Golfe sont, avec Al-CIAda, le Pakistan, les vrais parrains
de l’islamisme radical sunnite mondial,</b> et leur but
géopolitico-religieux est, à des degrés divers, de renverser partout en terre
d’islam les derniers régimes non-soumis à la Charià, ce pour quoi ils envoient
pétrodollars et prédicateurs tant en Afrique, qu’en Indonésie ou au Proche
Orient afin d’étendre le règne du totalitarisme islamiste partout et ceci
jusqu’aux banlieues d’Europe...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>En conclusion, il est clair que le
“Printemps arabe” a émerveillé les dirigeants Zio-occidentaux non pas parce
qu’ils ont cru à la sincérité des appels salafistes et frères-musulmans à
transformer les dictatures arabes en démocraties libérales, mais parce que ces
révolutions réactionnaires ont permis à nos alliés pétro-islamistes du Golfe et
à la Turquie post-kémaliste et néo-ottomane d’en finir avec les derniers régimes
plus ou moins laïques nationalistes ou chiites, en général alliés de Téhéran,
Pekin et de Moscou.</b></div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Grâce à Al-Jewzira (le « soft power bleu-vert »)
, au Qatar, à l’Arabie saoudite, à la Turquie d’Erdogan et aux légions de
salafistes et de Frères musulmans qui attendaient leur heure depuis des
décennies, <b>la Tunisie est aujourd’hui tenue d’une main de fer par les
Frères musulmans</b> du parti Enahda, et elle exporte ses Jihadistes
salafistes gênants vers le Mali ou la Syrie... <b>L’Egypte est redevenue
l’épicentre du monde arabe et le siège du nouveau Califat des
Frères-musulmans</b>, tandis que <b>le Maroc a un Premier ministre
issu de leurs rangs</b> (parti de la Justice et du Développement, du même
nom que le parti islamiste anti-kémaliste au pouvoir en Turquie).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dans la Libye terrorisée par les Salafistes
d'Al-CIAda..., <b>le nouveau Premier Ministre libyen soi-disant modéré est
surtout le garant de l’application de la Charià est il est lui aussi issu des
Frères musulmans</b>. <b>Le Yémen, quant à lui “libéré” de
l’ex-Président chiite-laïc Ali Abdallah Saleh, est l’un des fiefs
d’Al-CIAda</b> et les commandos clandestins Israeliens d'origine Yemenite,
avec la zone Syrie, Liban, Mali-Niger-Nigeria et la zone-Af-Pak…</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Enfin, la Jordanie du Zio-roi Abdallah II
risque d’exploser sous la pression des Frères musulmans, </b>majoritaires
chez les jordano-palestiniens, tandis que le Hamas terroriste cree par
Israel voisin a retrouvé ses parrains naturels Zio-sunnites du Golfe, d’où
l’accueil triomphal à Gaza cette semaine de l’émir du Qatar Ben Shalom Khalifa
Al-Thani ....</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cela ressemble a une lutte inter-tribale mais les
enjeux sont mondiaux (canal de suez –Bab al-mandeb, golfe persique-emirats
petroliers- Hormouz, Chine, Hezbollah, Liban-Israel-mediterrannèe... )</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<br />
<div>
<span id="comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef017ee48ab785970d-content"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Controlled chaos is fine..., 14HMars diffuse political identity
resonates little with the Lebanese...March 14 licking their opportunistic lips,
with utter cluelessness about the way the winds were blowing....
</span></span></div>
<div>
<span></span> </div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial;">The changing face of a crumbling and utterly
criminal empire is just more of the same... </span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span style="font-family: Arial;">The US vogue to strive for a militarily "light
footprint" seems timely for a nation that's thrown untold billions of dollars in
weaponry, technology and bribes at a remarkably diverse set of enemies in the
past decade. But this isn't the fundamental re-evaluation of warfare and
intervention that's needed in Zioconned Washington... </span></span></div>
<div>
<span></span><span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Sure, we "saw" the effect of war in a
much more close up way than most of our fellow citizens in Lebanon, but not
nearly as much as those who truly bore the brunt of
battle...</span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span id="comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef017d3d16523e970c-content"><span style="font-family: Arial;">We are in a whining, hand wringing mode of hysteria, concocted by the
infamous White House Murder INC, & about "terrorism" promoted by the crooked
media and by cowardly politicians. We need to deal with the threat, together
with the valiant Resistance, in a determined manner from the shadows and
silently...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span><span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ30Ak01.html">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ30Ak01.html</a></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span><span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #cf3a58;"><br />
</span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-39865351347697816242012-10-28T04:51:00.003-07:002012-10-28T04:51:26.155-07:00Achrafiyyeh, a whiff of an entrapment , a brilliantly plotted ambush by CIA, but with a powerful blow-back... <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAZ6XM6UXHcJATf2CY_4-YpHYV3kjsve9E_XIE21F1ajMOIfuyZ61-UbBlNBpuRyRScTQ11gngb77WN7pSTcVyl6FEolYAZvih3gKd5JfoJMQ524s7Qdn0Suca4nkjvQOBjtGGiVeaVITX/s1600/Rusbridger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAZ6XM6UXHcJATf2CY_4-YpHYV3kjsve9E_XIE21F1ajMOIfuyZ61-UbBlNBpuRyRScTQ11gngb77WN7pSTcVyl6FEolYAZvih3gKd5JfoJMQ524s7Qdn0Suca4nkjvQOBjtGGiVeaVITX/s320/Rusbridger.jpg" width="298" /></a></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">Achrafiyyeh, a whiff of an entrapment
, a brilliantly plotted ambush by CIA, but with a powerful
blow-back...</span></b></div>
<div>
<b> </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" id="fbPhotoPageCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span style="font-family: Arial;">En ce qui concerne
l'attentat d'Achrafiyyeh, il était tout à fait prévisible et attendu en la
personne de la cible (le général Wissam al-Hassan) qui a signé son arrêt de mort
le 9 août dernier en procédant de son propre chef à l'arrestation de l'ancien
ministre Michel Samaha...<br />Wissam Hassan se croyait protégé par les services
Américains criminels et ses sponsors Zio-saoudiens et d'autres...<br /><br />Il
avait drôlement tort. Au delà du concert des "pleureuses", sa mort arrange tout
le monde....<br />Il faudra bien qu'à un moment ou un autre un "lampiste" paye les
pots cassés...<br />Je crains beaucoup que ce soit lui et l'arrivée officielle
hier à Beyrouth d'une délégation du FBI pour enquêter sur l'attentat contre
Wissam Hassan en dit long sur l'indépendance et la marge de manœuvre des
responsables politiques libanais, stupides et inféodés aux Américains....<br />Ce
n'est pas parce que je m'interroge sur la composition, la stratégie, les
objectifs et les financements de la rébellion Syrienne a la solde de la CIA, que
je suis partisan du régime en place dont j'ai au contraire dénoncé sans relâche
depuis 1996 le caractère autoritaire, communautaire, brutal, assassin et
fermé.<br />- Enfin, ce n'est pas parce que les baasistes avaient tort que les
islamistes ont raison. Il est exact que je déplore la marginalisation, voire
l'éradication, des idéologies laïques et pluralistes dans le monde arabe et
musulman. . Ce n'est peut être pas du goût des 14HMARS mais c'est une position
que je revendique fermement... <br /><br />Les sociétés du Levant sont, comme vous
le savez sans doute tous, des sociétés féodales où le pouvoir d'un chef se
mesure à sa capacité à protéger ceux qui le servent...<br />Wissam Hassan, Ancien
chef des gardes du corps de Rafiq Hariri, totalement dévoué aux intérêts
Zio-Saoudiens avant ceux du Liban, nommé chef du service de renseignement des
Forces de Sécurité Intérieures (FSI), ce Général a organisé en août dernier - à
l'insu de ses chefs et des responsables politiques du pays mais en liaison
étroite avec les services Américains qui lui ont fourni toute l'assistance
logistique nécessaire (écoutes, surveillance aérienne, surveillance radio et
vidéo, analyses de laboratoire, protection des informateurs mis sous programme
de protection aux Etats Unis, etc.), l'arrestation de l'ancien ministre et
député libanais Michel Samaha, devenu l'un des conseillers les plus écoutés de
Bashar Assad l'assassin extraordinaire....qui jusqu'en 2003 était en étroite
collaboration avec les Amerlocks de la CIA, a travers la liaison étroite de
Assef SHAWKAT avec la CIA,DIA, DGSE, etc...<br />En procédant à l'arrestation et à
l'incarcération dans des conditions inhumaines de l'ancien ministre Samaha, le
Général Hassan a mis le pouvoir syrien en position très difficile. Ou bien le
Président Assad ne réagissait pas et tous ses partisans au Liban (il y en a
beaucoup notamment parmi les Sunnites et non-sunnites) se seraient éloignés de
lui. Ou bien il intervenait officiellement et la communauté internationale
l'aurait accusé "d'ingérence" inadmissible dans les affaires
libanaises...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Dans ces conditions on pouvait s'attendre à ce
que Wissam Hassan soit la cible d'un attentat "aveugle" et non revendiqué, même
si tout le monde sait très bien à quoi s'en tenir...<br />Wissam Hassan en était
parfaitement conscient puisque, quand il a été victime de l'attentat, il
rentrait de Washington où il avait été solliciter avec insistance auprès du
Général Petraeus actuel DCI/ de la CIA, et (le chef d'état major américain) , la
protection des services criminels U.S. !<br />Ce que Wissam Hassan n'a pas compris
c'est que, ayant bien servi les intérêts Zio-Saoudiens et américains , il
devenait encombrant car susceptible d'en parler et de dire qu'il avait servi des
puissances étrangères au détriment des intérêts de son propre
pays...<br /><br />Reprenons les faits si vous le voulez bien...<br />Le 9 août
dernier, le Général Wissam el-Hassan procède à l'aube à l'arrestation hors de
tout cadre légal de l'ancien ministre et député libanais Michel Samaha sur la
base de suspicion de transport d'explosif et de préparation d'attentats au
Liban.<br /><br />N'étant pas sur le terrain au moment des faits, et ne disposant
pas d'accès privilégié à l'information, je ne suis pas en mesure de porter de
jugement définitif sur l'affaire Samaha et la matérialité des faits qui lui sont
reprochés. <br />Cependant plusieurs choses me paraissent très troublantes :<br />-
Pourquoi les Syriens ont-ils brusquement éprouvé le besoin de faire passer
quelques dizaines de kilos d'explosif (le contenu d'un coffre d'Audi) au Liban
alors qu'on trouve sans peine et en quantités quasi illimitée armes et explosifs
au Liban (la preuve en a été administrée a Ashrafiyyeh....) ?<br />- En admettant
qu'ils aient eu besoin d'engins spécifiques, pourquoi ne pas en avoir confié le
transport à quelques petites mains habituelles qui l'auraient fait pour quelques
dizaines de dollars sans poser de question et tant pis pour eux s'ils se font
prendre ?<br />- Pourquoi confier ce transport à un Monsieur de 64 ans, deux fois
ministre, deux fois député, parfaitement connu de tout le monde, ne pouvant
passer inaperçu (il mesure 1,92 et sa figure est connue de tous au Liban) et
connu dans le monde entier comme un partisan et un conseiller écouté du
Président syrien ? Depuis le mois de juin, des tracts avec sa photo grand format
édités par les milieux salafistes/Al-CIAda circulaient dans tout le Liban
appelant à son kidnapping et à son assassinat..., comme ils l'ont déjà fait avec
les criminels de la USCFL en 2000/01/02 sur le Web...contre HK Elie
HOBEIKA...qui a conduit a son assassinat tragique le 24-01-2002 a 9.40 du matin
a Hazmieh...<br />- Pourquoi, à l'occasion d'une opération aussi délicate, M.
Samaha aurait-il embarqué dans sa voiture le Général Jamil Sayyed, ancien chef
de la Sûreté Générale, également connu de tout le monde, mis en cause dans
l'assassinat de Rafiq Hariri, qui venait de passer quatre ans en prison à
Roumieh...et que la cour pénale internationale STL/TSL a dû remettre en liberté,
car il est apparu au cours de l'instruction que tous les témoins à charge contre
lui avaient menti, parfois grossièrement ?<br />- Pourquoi M. Samaha aurait-il
remis dans le parking souterrain de son propre immeuble à Ashrafiyyeh (quartier
chrétien de Beyrouth) les explosifs à M. Milad Kfouri dont tout le monde (même
moi) savait depuis 1976 qu'il "mangeait à tous les râteliers", qu'il était un
agent du deuxième bureau (service de renseignement de l'armée Libanaise)
infiltré au sein des Kataëbs puis des Forces libanaises ? Ancien chef du service
de sécurité des Kataëb puis conseiller Diplomatique de Bashir Gemayel, M. Samaha
ne pouvait nullement ignorer ce point...<br />- Pourquoi Milad Kfouri, seul témoin
oculaire de cette affaire, a-t-il été transporté avec sa famille, visa et carte
de séjour (délivrés en urgence) par avion aux Etats Unis le jour même de
l'arrestation de M. Samaha ?<br />- Pourquoi Milad Kfouri refuse-t-il de revenir
au Liban pour témoigner comme le lui en fait avec insistance la demande, le juge
d'instruction qui lui a adressé plusieurs convocations ?<br />- Pourquoi l'enquête
et l'arrestation ont-elles été menées par le service de renseignement des FSI
(dirigé par un officier proche de l'opposition et des milieux sunnites
pro-saoudiens) alors que, considérant les faits et s'agissant d'une atteinte à
la sûreté de l'Etat, elle était de la compétence de la Sûreté Générale ?<br />-
Pourquoi le Président Sleïman, le premier ministre Mikati et le ministre de
l'intérieur (autorité supérieure des FSI) ont-ils manifesté une intense
stupéfaction devant cette arrestation dont ils n'avaient manifestement pas été
informés ?<br />- Pourquoi les mandats d'arrêt et de perquisitions ont-ils été
signés par un juge d'instruction 12heures après l'arrestation et les
perquisitions ?<br />- Pourquoi Mr. Samaha n'a-t-il été autorisé à voir ses
avocats que 5 jours après son arrestation, période pendant laquelle
(constatations médicales incontestables) il a été privé de sommeil, de
nourriture, des médicaments que son état de santé nécessite, soumis à un vacarme
incessant de bruits très forts et de lumières très vives et avec une seule
bouteille d'eau pour cinq jours ?<br />Etc. etc.<br />Au total, je n'ai évidemment
aucune compétence pour juger moi-même de la matérialité des faits qui sont
reprochés à Mr. Samaha, mais il faut tout de même avouer qu'il y a un peu trop
de zones d'ombre et de faits inexpliqués et inexplicables dans cette
affaire...<br />Si nous ajoutons à cela que les brigades spéciales des FSI
(brigade 16 à Beyrouth, brigade 18 à Tripoli) fournissent sans même s'en cacher
des armes et des explosifs aux rebelles syriens et aux partis salafistes qui les
soutiennent (notamment le Hizb at-Tahrir à Tripoli et bien d'autres...), les
Libanais ne peuvent s'attendre à être considérés comme "neutres" et à l'écart
des soubresauts du pays voisin..., et ils le savaient pertinemment bien...<br />Je
ne soutiens nullement que Mr. Samaha est innocent mais son cas mériterait quand
même une enquête un peu plus sérieuse.<br />Les gouvernements français et
Américains n'ont pas à s'immiscer dans les affaires intérieures libanaises,
c'est évident...<br />Mais je reproche à la Zio-presse prétendument
"d'investigation" française, Libanaise et autres de ne pas investiguer et de se
contenter de la "vérité officielle" qui conforte leurs prises de position
tranchées en noir et blanc...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span style="font-family: Arial;">For that matter, Jamil al-Sayyid, who is said
to have been in the car with Michel Samaha when he conducted his bomb run, may
have similarly been a perfect target for such a powerful CIA sting
operation...</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />The whole affair had more than a whiff of
entrapment about it, a brilliantly plotted ambush by CIA-MOSSAD which Samaha and
his overlords unwittingly walked into... Samaha could have been duped into
carrying the explosives by a high-ranking member of the Syrian intelligence
community who had secretly defected to the CIA years and years ago, and was
suddenly used in that sting... This person would then have tipped off the CIA
about the ongoing “plot” and all its details of twists and turns, leading to an
arrest that was very damaging to the Syrian regime of utter assassins for
hire.... </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"></span></span> </div>
<div>
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"></span></span> </div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-24965862188178898052012-10-17T06:42:00.002-07:002012-10-17T06:42:47.703-07:00Demonization Galore by FDDC pawns and petty disposable tools...<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs43fg3GMLIfaxNINlxpIkg-UiP3GlWBseiCjFLsVqJoEto_97sYkKH26L0YbdVP97y3ZfIwWdeLsgtl6fpb1bc-oiDZWIvH1HT2YdyPBldsvfuukfM-Jlotq74J8mjCiZaDy-8qxcecqx/s1600/FDDC,++Foreign+Denial+and+Deception+Committee.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs43fg3GMLIfaxNINlxpIkg-UiP3GlWBseiCjFLsVqJoEto_97sYkKH26L0YbdVP97y3ZfIwWdeLsgtl6fpb1bc-oiDZWIvH1HT2YdyPBldsvfuukfM-Jlotq74J8mjCiZaDy-8qxcecqx/s320/FDDC,++Foreign+Denial+and+Deception+Committee.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Information Warfare and Demonization
Galore by FDDC pawns and petty disposable tools...</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It's not enough to complain everyday about the policy
directions of the 14HMARS, you have to remind the Lebanese and the World, where
the 500 Million USD of Jeffrey CIA Feltman went to in Lebanon and
beyond...</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs43fg3GMLIfaxNINlxpIkg-UiP3GlWBseiCjFLsVqJoEto_97sYkKH26L0YbdVP97y3ZfIwWdeLsgtl6fpb1bc-oiDZWIvH1HT2YdyPBldsvfuukfM-Jlotq74J8mjCiZaDy-8qxcecqx/s1600/FDDC,++Foreign+Denial+and+Deception+Committee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Elias Michel MURR, Aljoumhouria rag newspaper, MTV's
crappy TV and Gabriel MURR and his sons, Nadim KOTEISH & the idiot Wehbe Qatisha and Future TV of the
Wahhabi Hariri thieves, NTV, Al-Shira3h and many others are FDDC creeps and
thugs, part and parcel of the FDDC shenanigans, CIA and MOSSAD in MENA, fully
financed by the Wahhabi kingdom of filth, CIA and FDDC. They invent and
regurgitate so called News as they go along everyday, based on utter
disinformation and direct instructions from the Pentagon's FDDC and IDF's
hooligans in Washington, Riyadh and Tel Aviv...</span></div>
<div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="AcrFinder" id="AcrFinder">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="acr"><br /></td>
<td>
<div>
<span class="illustration"></span> </div>
<div>
<span class="illustration"></span> </div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">
<div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="AcrFinder" id="AcrFinder">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="acr">FDDC, </td>
<td>Foreign Denial and Deception Committee <span class="illustration">(US
CIA...)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_Denial_and_Deception_Committee">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_Denial_and_Deception_Committee</a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://ni-u.edu/schools/SSTI/DDASP__program.html">http://ni-u.edu/schools/SSTI/DDASP__program.html</a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=20227&cid=256">http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=20227&cid=256</a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</span>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-83807677819212966152012-10-05T07:51:00.001-07:002012-10-07T10:15:09.105-07:00The devious Erdogan Zio-Administration has the audacity to describe Syrian self-defense against the Turkish proxy forces within Syria as "aggression...<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">
<b> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWjlrToOsnFhVYUFbC7qUNsgX8vjXnq6_QxcuzMMrGijdb_TWRy0eOZbREN5DrL77IZSRsJkL6nweVy8x9saBPh-0gjnHGjYhjHy7NmlNNs_MYUjEIfltPQLrSMW8bQn8JpViSKUoRt8SV/s1600/syria-turkey-map....jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWjlrToOsnFhVYUFbC7qUNsgX8vjXnq6_QxcuzMMrGijdb_TWRy0eOZbREN5DrL77IZSRsJkL6nweVy8x9saBPh-0gjnHGjYhjHy7NmlNNs_MYUjEIfltPQLrSMW8bQn8JpViSKUoRt8SV/s320/syria-turkey-map....jpg" width="320" /></a></span></b><br />
<br />
<b>“In New York, Turkey’s United Nations ambassador, Ertugrul Apakan,
wrote to the presidency of the security council. ‘This is an act of aggression
by Syria against Turkey...’” LOL</b><br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;">[The devious Erdogan Zio-Administration has the
audacity to describe Syrian self-defense against the Turkish proxy forces within
Syria as "aggression." Maybe it is time for some other megalomaniacal would be
world dictator to come along and pound the shit out of all of these cocky little
minion Zio-states like Zioconned USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, IsraHell,
Libya, the 14Hmars in Lebanon and Qatar? But that would only be supporting
another illegal, immoral insurgency within those countries, just as those
countries have done to the Syrian people, penalizing the innocent along with the
guilty Assad Mafia of Zio-Killers/Assassins... There is no justification under
any circumstances for what the Zio-USA have done in Syria and before that, in
Lebanon/06, in Libya, and a dozen other places. Zio-USA DID NOT answer a call
to support an ongoing revolution, Zio-USA organized and started that "Syrian
revolution" that has been expanded into the Syrian Civil War. It is all based
upon lies, over layers of even more Zio-USA lies. Everything about the
anti-Syrian aggression is a fabrication, just as is the entire "terror war."
Every dead American or foreign soldier, every dead civilian or "terrorist" has
died for a Zio-USA lie. Zio-USA are the aggressor in all cases, since the
original big aggression in 200, the infamous inside Job of the 9/11 Barbaric
attacks on US soil by the utterly criminal Zio-US Deep state.... </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The human race has to find some other way to
communicate with each other, other than through the usual "<a href="http://rense.com/general79/depdv.htm">dialogue of weapons</a>." The dialogue of weapons is a type of "body language"
that is measured in body counts, rather than through nuance. Nations speak with
weapons whenever words fail them, just as individuals do. Breaking this cycle
is the most important task that any human being may undertake in life. But
then, Zio-USA would still be stuck with all of those corrupted individuals in
government, as in all human endeavors, who harbor aggressive intentions towards
their fellow man. World Peace would require that all such individuals be
resisted with ultimate, absolute force. The missing dialogue, to eliminate this
"dialogue of weapons," begins whenever we start to defend the integrity of our
language against concerted attacks upon reason itself, differentiating between
legitimate "self-defense" and "aggression." What we have today in Syria is a
legitimate war of self-defense against Zio-USA foreign-sponsored aggression
against the Syrian state/people... </span><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWjlrToOsnFhVYUFbC7qUNsgX8vjXnq6_QxcuzMMrGijdb_TWRy0eOZbREN5DrL77IZSRsJkL6nweVy8x9saBPh-0gjnHGjYhjHy7NmlNNs_MYUjEIfltPQLrSMW8bQn8JpViSKUoRt8SV/s1600/syria-turkey-map....jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">
<span style="font-size: small;">There seems to be only one way to prevent the
utterly criminal Bushes, Obamas, the Clintons, the Erdogans, the Al-Sauds, and
the Thanis, [ MBs, Salafist/Takfiris- Wahhabis ] of this world from turning the
deteriorating Syrian situation into a regional or worldwide conflagration, and
that is, to begin our own self-defense right here, where the psychopaths are
staging their semantic attacks, blurring the definitions of key words which
define their aggressions. That one concept, that of twisting definitions, is the
key to all psychological warfare and the primary tactic being deployed by the
Zio-USA Imperialists today. Whenever they successfully flip certain concepts,
substituting their false definitions, then they can successfully paint Lebanese
or Syrian defenders as "aggressors," whenever an errant, or purposefully
misfired artillery shell lands on the territory of the real "aggressor state."
Whenever these evil deceptions truly take hold, resulting in American and
Russian forces ultimately standing eyeball-to-eyeball in Syria, then there will
be no limit to the number of big shells, missiles and gravity bombs that will
fall on Turkish territory. Turkey will then pay a heavy price for volunteering
to be a front-line state, as they try to push that border line southward, into
Syrian space....and the exact same thing could happen on the front lines of
South Lebanon, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere...] </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div>
<span id="comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef017d3c8657e2970c-content"><span style="font-family: Arial;">People spin events any god damn way they think advances their
interests. Always have...always will. Not on every occasion....but whatever bug
you have up your butt on this...</span></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span id="comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef017ee4013508970d-content">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Part of Syria's troubles are indeed to do with oil, gas and
geopolitics...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">1. There appear to big gas fields, and perhaps oil, in the
Eastern Mediterranean, in Greek, Cypriot, Turkish, Lebanese and Israeli waters.
As you would expect, this is already creating tensions between Greece and
Turkey. There appears to be maneuvering going on by oil companies, including
American companies, over exploration and development rights and there is a
direct link between all said companies and their respective
Governments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">2. There is a desire by Europe to diversify its energy
supplies away from Gazprom and Russia who have Europe by the short end curlie's
at present. Part of this strategy involves pipelines from Central Asian and
Iranian gas fields to the Mediterranean to bypass Russia.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It is not hard to see that temptations to meddle in the
region are so strong...</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, Escalation and madness... It seems that the fog of war has already
settled in to some degree. What scenarios are we looking at here? We have the
Anglo-French war against Syria backed by the Zio-US ongoing. The Anglo-French
and the Zio-US are allied to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the Qataris who in
turn are supporting the Salafist/Takfiri/MBs and Wahhabi terrorists inside
Syria, Iraq and Lebanon who move in and out of Turkey for safe haven and
staging. We have Salafi brigades from Libya and Tunisia and so on in the mix in
Syria, again moving in and out of Turkey as safe haven. The Turks are in a
neo-Ottoman expansionist mode spurred by massive investments from the
Gulfis/Wahhabis who have their own global jihad ongoing. Add in the Muslim
Brotherhood of Egypt and its secret and not so secret branches in other lands
such as Syria. Now we have an escalation of tension between Turkey and Syria.
Turks attack Syria next? With NATO or without NATO? US joins in. One would
then expect a reply from Syria and its allies such as Russia, Iran, factions in
Lebanon. Thus regional war involving Iran? Presumably, Iranians are patriotic
folk who will support their government whether or not they agree with it. This
seemed to be the case in the 1980s. Iranians rally to defend their country.
There are a lot of them and they have some serious organizations such as the Rev
Guards and also asymmetric capabilities. Iran replies by setting the Gulf states
on fire so to speak. Israel cannot defend against CBW. So nukes not needed and
Iran does not have them anyways. In the regional war, if not general war, the
Israelis attempt to "transfer" all Palestinians out of Israel and the West
Bank. This engenders still more chaos. Can Israel and the Zionist experiment
survive in such circumstances? And does the Jewish Agency really care as it
readjusts its strategic global Diaspora management? </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<b><span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">NATO: Attacking
yourself, to obtain the right to defend yourself, from yourself....R2P in
action...</span></span></b></div>
<div>
</div>
<span style="color: #f7074a;">
</span>
<div>
</div>
<span style="color: #f7074a;">
<div>
<small class="date"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"> <b>NATO Uses Turkey,
Who Uses Free Syrian Army, To Self-Authorize NATO Attack On
Syria...</b></span></small></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="entry">
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">[This Israeli
government spokesman is appealing to the world to accept the proposition that
any stray bullets or shells coming across the border from Syria are an "attack"
upon Turkey, and by extension, an attack upon NATO. This statement is intended
to back-up the recent Turkish Parliament authorization for military operations
inside Syria. So Turkey is now ready to do what Israel has been afraid to do,
go to war against Syria. It would almost seem as though Israel and Turkey had
planned all of this from the beginning, were it not for that ugly little
incident with the Gaza Flotilla and the IDF attack upon the MV </span><a href="http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf"><span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Mavi
Marmara</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> aid ship, on May 31
2010. Less than one year later, in March or April 2011. the civil war was
beginning inside Syria. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Is it more likely
that two bitter antagonists could completely reverse their animosity in less
than a year, to suddenly emerge united with one purpose, or is it more
reasonable to assume that Israel and Turkey were secretly working hand-in-glove
all along?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The anti-Syria
project is part of the Greater Middle East strategy of the United States.
Therefore, we are at this critical juncture in the anti-Syrian project (Israel
supporting Turkey's call for NATO intervention, while Obama appears to be
cautioning against it) because that has been the plan all along, to give the
President the appearance of having "clean hands." Either that, or this has been
an Israeli operation from the beginning, to force Turkey and the US/NATO into
eliminating Syria for Israel. For that matter, you would then have to credit
the Israelis for the entire Greater Middle East project, even though the whole
thing fell apart when US/NATO forces failed to pile-on on the side of Israel
against Hezbollah in 2006. If Israelis had been in charge of the terror war at
that time, Syria would have been bombed back to the Stone Age long ago.
Therefore, the only reasonable assumption to make is that Israel has been
handling the CIA's dirty work in laying the groundwork for this latest
anti-Syrian operation, in order to maintain plausible deniability for
Washington. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Turkey and Israel
appeared to be set at odds, in order to elevate Turkey's image in the Muslim
world. Saudi Arabia and Qatar were allowed to conduct their own foreign
policies (which appeared to be going against the desires of Obama) for the same
reason, to elevate their status on the Muslim street. Together, the three
"maverick" Arab governments have appeared to take the lead in the
American/NATO/Arab alliance, creating a so-called "</span><a href="http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/details/117067/"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Islamic NATO</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">," which was
used to overthrow the Libyan government and to murder Muammar Qaddafi. This
Islamist NATO has led the preliminary battles which have been scheduled as the
opening rounds of the bigger war to come, as justification at the United Nations
Security Council to empower the real NATO forces inside Syria, so they can do
the same to the assassin Bashar Assad... </span></span><b><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" id="fbPhotoPageCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption">who
until few years back in 2001/2002 was part and parcel of the Infamous
White House Murder INC, in the Levant and the CIA's rendition and
torture program headed by the monster Assef SHAWKAT... </span></span></span></b><br />
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Turkey has been
America's primary puppet in this grand deception all along, meaning that the
Turkish government has sanctioned the attack which killed eight Turkish citizens
on the MV </span><a href="http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Mavi Marmara</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> in the Gaza Flotilla and probably the PKK attack upon the Turkish
Navy Barracks at </span><a href="http://www.usakgundem.com/haber/54682/sedat-la%C3%A7iner-%C4%B0srail-pkk-ba%C4%9Flant%C4%B1s%C4%B1-%C5%9F%C3%BCphesine-neden-olan-g%C3%BC%C3%A7l%C3%BC-emareler-var.html"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Iskenderun</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> earlier that same morning, as well. In that rocket attack, seven
Turks were killed. State acquiescence to false flag attacks upon their own
citizens seems to be a requirement of all participants in America's terror war,
a pattern set by the example of the US Govt. itself on 9-11-2001 (SEE:
</span></span><a href="http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/usnato-seeking-escape-mechanism-for-new-formula-for-imperial-aggression/"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">US/NATO Seeking Escape Mechanism for New Formula for
Imperial Aggression</span></a><span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">). The "war on terror," a.k.a., "plan for Greater Middle East," is a
Pentagon operation, from the beginning, intended to unleash the power of NATO
through a series of wars of aggression, without upsetting the American image in
the world. In this way, the US military can utilize its power to the fullest,
even violating the nuclear threshold, without turning the world against us.
Now, all that is left is for NATO forces to be successfully brought to bear in
Syria, squaring the circle, without making us the "bad guys" against a global
"Arab Spring." NATO is still perfecting the mechanism which will enable them to
reliably use "false-flag operations" to create "fault-free" wars of aggression,
attacking yourself, to obtain the right to defend yourself, from yourself.] </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #f7074a;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></span></div>
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">
</span></div>
HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-28164748788334817262012-09-13T03:50:00.002-07:002012-09-13T03:51:54.357-07:00Mr. Blowback rising in Benghazi....<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMmdVK1DTLASTToAlwbflE35N_afEOFEU4bqOIj_u6QKmll2WXXwbCGRTkoriVFvS8Phtaf02OSZEYTDX3DPmFQK8LzQq5WgxIsw0ogEyKAH_Ao0_aREifdTw2Y70kn40eRkzU9IZ4h9wJ/s1600/Islamists%253B+false+flag+operations.....JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 198px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMmdVK1DTLASTToAlwbflE35N_afEOFEU4bqOIj_u6QKmll2WXXwbCGRTkoriVFvS8Phtaf02OSZEYTDX3DPmFQK8LzQq5WgxIsw0ogEyKAH_Ao0_aREifdTw2Y70kn40eRkzU9IZ4h9wJ/s400/Islamists%253B+false+flag+operations.....JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5787612346919606866" border="0" /></a><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">Mr. Blowback rising in Benghazi....</span></strong></div> <div><strong><br /></strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">By Pepe Escobar<br /><br />"Daddy, what is blowback?"<br /><br />Here's a fable to tell our children, by the fire, in a not so-distant post-apocalyptic, dystopian future.<br /><br />Once upon a time, during George "Dubya" Bush's "war on terra", the Forces of Good in Afghanistan captured - and duly tortured - one evil terrorist, Abu Yahya al-Libi.<br /><br />Abu Yahya al-Libi was, of course, Libyan. He slaved three years in the bowels of Bagram prison near Kabul, but somehow managed to escape that supposedly impregnable fortress in July 2005.<br /><br />At the time, the Forces of Good were merrily in bed with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya - whose intelligence services, to the delight of the Bush administration, were doing their nastiest to exterminate or at least isolate al-Qaeda-style Salafi-jihadis of the al-Libi kind.<br /><br />But, then, in 2011, the Forces of Good, under new administration, decided it was time to bury the oh so passe "war on terra" and dance to a new, more popular groove; humanitarian intervention, also characterized as "kinetic military action".<br /><br />So al-Libi was back from the dead - now fighting side by side with the Forces of Good to topple (and eventually snuff out) "evil" Col Gaddafi. Al-Libi had become a "freedom fighter" - even though he was openly calling for Libya to become an Islamic Emirate.<br /><br />The honeymoon didn't last long.<br /><br />In September 2012, for the first time in three months, al-CIAda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, aka The Surgeon, released a 42-minute video special to "celebrate" the 11th anniversary of the most Barbaric False Flag attacks of 9/11, finally admitting the snuffing out of his number two.<br /><br />His number two was none other than Abu Yahya al-Libi - targeted by one of US President Barack Obama's cherished drones in Waziristan on June 4.<br /><br />An immediate effect of al-Zawahiri's video was that an angry armed mob, led by Islamist outfit Ansar al Sharia, set fire to the US consulate in Benghazi. The US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed. It didn't matter that Stevens happened to be a hero of the "NATO rebels" who had "liberated" Libya - notoriously sprinkled with Salafi-jihadis of the al-Libi kind.<br /><br />Stevens was rewarded by Washington with the ambassadorial post only after "evil" Gaddafi was finally sodomized, lynched and killed by, what else, an angry mob.<br /><br />So finally the blowback serpent was able to bite its own tail.<br /><br /><b>Terra, terra, terra</b><br />What happened in Benghazi may have been just an out-of-control protest against a crude, amateur, made-in-California movie produced and directed by an Israeli-American real estate developer and certified Islamophobe (an identity now being reported as a guise), financed with US$5 million from unidentified Jewish donors, depicting Islam "as a cancer" and Prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, a pedophile and most of all, a fraud. The movie was duly promoted by wacko Florida pastor and Koran-burning freak Terry Jones.<br /><br />Yet the killing of the US ambassador in Libya is just an hors d'oeuvre to what may happen in Syria - where scores of "freedom fighters" supported by the CIA, the Turks and the House of Saud are al-Qaeda-linked, either via the supposedly reformist Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) or acronym-infested subcontracting gangs such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) or al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM).<br /><br />So how will Washington "bring the perpetrators to justice" in Libya? After all this is the same gang that was hailed as "heroes" when they sodomized, lynched and snuffed out "evil" Gaddafi.<br /><br />Asia Times Online has been warning for over a year about blowback in Libya - and potentially in Syria, where medieval Saudi sheikhs frantically issue fatwas legitimating a widespread massacre of "infidel" Alawites. This is all a rerun of the same old 1980s' Afghan jihad movie; first you call them "freedom fighters", but when they attack us they revert to being "terrorists".<br /><br />Now we have NATO-armed Salafi-jihadis in Libya, and House of Saud-financed and Turkey-based Salafi-jihadis in Syria - deploying "terra" antics such as suicide bombers to bring down the Assad regime - all wired up and ready to roll. It certainly adds a new meaning to Obama's "kinetic action" gig.<br /><br />Blowback - as in Afghanistan - might have taken years. This time Mr Blowback reared its ugly head in only a few months. And that's just the beginning.<br /><br />So what now? Who're you gonna bomb? Who're you gonna drone to death? What about bombing Benghazi a year after condemning Gaddafi to death because he might have threatened to ... bomb Benghazi?<br /><br />Ask US Secretary of State Hillary "We came, he saw, he died" Clinton, who claims to talk on behalf of the "Libyan people". Maybe she will come up with a policy of retroactively aligning the US with Gaddafi.<br /><br />And since this is an electoral year, why not ask invisible former president Bush himself? After all, he proclaimed on September 20, 2001 that "either you are with us, or you are with the terra-rists."<br /><br />Well, Mr Blowback would say, beware of what you get when you are in bed with the terra-rists.<br /><br /><i><b>Pepe Escobar</b> is the author of</i> </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0978813820/simpleproduction/ref=nosim"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;"> (Nimble Books, 2007) and </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Zone-Blues-snapshot-Baghdad/dp/0978813898"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;">. His most recent book is </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Does-Globalistan-Pepe-Escobar/dp/1934840831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233698286&sr=8-1"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Obama does Globalistan</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;"> (Nimble Books, 2009). </span></div>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-59681361142905665162012-09-09T00:39:00.001-07:002012-09-09T00:41:50.996-07:00Passions around the Caspian Sea...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAoN5v7QDT7DLknPxDBdqXKqeQf3evomJO5eJ1-t1cenYRs_IqGiwwXLiVe2gik0q2teS6fsyWkD1NmwZ7eIoxTg6Ai361Rjlxl_PiP91uKBpeIKFtjVuBpjvboeGpM-DChBl1tZqoaWfY/s1600/Russian+Naval+Flotilla+Docks+In+Syria....jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 245px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAoN5v7QDT7DLknPxDBdqXKqeQf3evomJO5eJ1-t1cenYRs_IqGiwwXLiVe2gik0q2teS6fsyWkD1NmwZ7eIoxTg6Ai361Rjlxl_PiP91uKBpeIKFtjVuBpjvboeGpM-DChBl1tZqoaWfY/s400/Russian+Naval+Flotilla+Docks+In+Syria....jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5786078880581849922" border="0" /></a><br /><div> <p><span style="color:#8b4513;"><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">[The following article gives a detailed analysis of the forces in and around the Caspian, each of them actively defending their own piece of turf. It also spells-out the growing US presence within these national forces, as well as the problems the Imperial presence is causing. Russia has a slight window of opportunity to checkmate the US expansion plans for the Caspian itself, by virtue of the vastly superior Russian naval, ground and air forces already deployed there. Just as the US grand scheme has been to open-up a multitude of small confrontations between the Zioconned US forces and Russian allies throughout the Asian theater, Russia has the opportunity to reverse the process in several of these small conflicts at once (Syria, Caspian, Caucasus), so as to overcome US forces there, while simultaneously bolstering allies. </span></span></p> <p><span style="color:#8b4513;"><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">We are living in the most troubled time in all human history, how we resolve those troubles will determine the future of our single race. Russia is the only power on earth separating civilization from a new barbarism (which paradoxically and hypocritically masquerades as "humanitarianism"). Does the human race live on, to grow and to prosper as a single tribe or family, or will our race be relegated to the dustbin of history, to be replaced by another new, more savage neanderthal race? Like this supposition, or not, but it sure looks as though Vladimir Putin gets to decide the future of the human race.] </span></span></p> <p><span style="color:#008080;"><a href="http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/high-noon-on-the-caspian-sea-where-is-wyatt-earp/gundogar-4/" rel="attachment wp-att-57659"><span style="color:#008080;"><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-57659" title="gundogar" alt="" src="http://therearenosunglasses.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gundogar.gif?w=510" /></span></span></a></span></p> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><span style="font-family:Arial;"><img alt="" src="http://www.gundogar.org/photos/3700999622799853.jpg" border="0" height="213" width="279" /></span></td> <td><span style="font-family:Arial;"><img alt="" src="http://www.gundogar.org/images/blank.gif" border="0" height="1" width="17" /></span></td></tr> <tr> <td align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;">09/05/2012</span></td> <td><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <p><strong><a href="http://www.vpk-news.ru/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">Military-Industrial Courier</span></a></strong></p> <p align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The ever-increasing excitement about the energy resources of the Caspian Sea has given impetus to the formation of political-military knot of contradictions.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The ever-increasing excitement about the energy resources of the Caspian Sea has given impetus to the formation of political-military knot of contradictions in the region, creating one of the most dangerous conflict zones in contemporary world politics, which has already received a “code” international title – the southern arc of instability.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In addition, as expected in zones of instability, the Caspian states are constantly arming, increase its naval presence. And leadership in this process in some areas seems to have been transferred from Russia to Azerbaijan, which should not be overlooked Russian political and military leadership.</span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">The geopolitical situation in the region</span></strong></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">After the Soviet collapse interstate differences came to the fore in the geopolitical situation in the Caspian region.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Five Caspian littoral states (Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Russia and Kazakhstan) have long been vainly trying to reach an agreement on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. But she had a problem Caspian slowly becoming an increasingly volatile and unpredictable.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The ratio of the Navy in the past have had a significant impact on the region, but it is at present the military factor is strongly associated with the foreign policy aspirations of the Caspian states to protect and promote their interests at the regional level through military force, or at least acts of intimidation.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">For Russia, the Caspian Sea region is not so much a resource positions, but as the area of geostrategic importance in terms of national security in the south.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Feature of the region in the Russian Federation is that almost all of the factors that influence the course of events, working against Russia. This requires that the Russian foreign policy to prevent the impending demolition of the safety line to the south.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">There are many variants of division of the Caspian Sea. For example, Russia and Kazakhstan propose to divide the seabed and its resources between all coastal states to determine quotas of these countries in the fishing industry, but to leave the waters of the sea in common use.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Azerbaijan calls allocate all resources on the basis of the international law of the sea, that is split at the bottom, and the clear waters of the sea borders between the states.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In an embodiment of Turkmenistan proposed to allocate the share of each country in the region in the production of energy and fisheries resources, but to leave shared by the central sector of the Caspian Sea.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In this issue is the most rigid position of Iran – Allocate to each country to 20 percent of the area and the bottom of which is opposed by, inter alia, Azerbaijan. However, this option also remains unresolved the question of determining the coordinates of the median line of the sea, which will be determined by the boundary of the national sectors in the Caspian region of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Alternatively Iranian waters remain in common use, but for each country should be fixed equal share in the development of oil and gas and fisheries resources.</span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">Interference of third countries</span></strong></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Despite the high level of interest of many international organizations in matters of cooperation with the countries of the region, development of the overall situation of concern.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In 2004, the U.S. administration has launched an initiative “Caspian Guard» (Caspian Guard) to assist a number of Caspian CIS countries to establish systems of control of the Caspian Sea as well as the formation of the special forces to protect the export pipelines.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The program of “Caspian Guard” with the following main objectives: to build a system for monitoring air and sea space, the creation of rapid reaction forces and border control, training of troops participating countries and the provision of economic and political support to partners. U.S. plans to help Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to develop naval forces.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Russia expressed its dissatisfaction with the U.S. initiatives, and in turn create an initiative in the Caspian collective rapid reaction forces generated from the military only littoral states. Iran supported Russia.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Contributes to the militarization of the Caspian Sea and Europe – the EU proposed the idea of a stabilization plan for the Caspian region and the joint forces under the aegis of the OSCE. Russia’s position is unequivocal and unambiguous. ”Since the Caspian Sea is an inland sea coastal countries, the protection of maritime borders – the prerogative of these states themselves, which are services of third countries do not need,” – said the representative of the Russian Embassy in Azerbaijan.</span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">Increased military presence</span></strong></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">After the collapse of the USSR Soviet Caspian Flotilla was divided between the newly independent states of the Caspian Sea, and the command of the naval forces of the United Forces of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan originally performed exclusively by Russia.Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in the voluntary-involuntary abandoned its interest in the section of the flotilla.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The composition of Azerbaijan includes Navy surface ships crew, consisting of patrol division, battalion landing ships, minesweepers Division, Division of SAR vessels and training division of vessels and ships brigade of water region. Almost all ships and boats are based in Baku. Also included in the structure of the Navy Marine battalion (2,000), reconnaissance and sabotage center of the special-purpose coastal units and divisions, military Shipyard (formerly the 23rd Military Plant Soviet Navy).</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In total, the Azerbaijani Navy has 14 warships and boats, 23 auxiliary vessels. Auxiliary fleet is represented by more than two dozen different courts. Total strength of the VMC Azerbaijan for 2008 – 3500. The reserve is in the Coast Guard crews patrol ships.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Baku intends to combat international terrorism, placed along the Caspian coast seven radar. With Pentagon Azerbaijan established a unit of naval special forces.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Air support for Navy and Coast Guard can provide the Air Force of Azerbaijan, on the Caspian coast only they have three air bases, “pumping”, “Lankaran” and “Kala”. The air force has a frontline bombers Su-24, MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-21, Su-25, helicopters for various purposes, military transport aircraft.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iran now – the second naval power in the Caspian Sea after Russia. National Navy in this region are represented by two different commands security forces: Navy Army and Navy IRGC. Their battle of the Coast Guard has units and lungs (katernye) division. In service with the army and the IRGC Navy Iran on the Caspian Sea are from 50 to 90 combat and support units of the ships, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and naval aviation – only up to 3000.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">At present, Iran is able in a short time and a half times increase the grouping of their ships in the Caspian Sea by boat transfer from the Persian Gulf.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Until 2003, Kazakhstan has the Caspian Border only boats and one patrol boat. The main strength of his fleet now consists of 16 patrol and patrol boats, two offshore trawlers, two hydrographic boats, personnel – 3000. In Aktau and Atyrau – airbases naval aviation: six Mi-8 and six Mi-6. In addition, in Aktau brigade deployed base of coastal defense, in Atyrau deployed Marine battalion.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">For the defense of the naval forces at sea, conduct maritime reconnaissance and attacks on surface targets Kazakhstan could use its air force aircraft (Air Defense Forces). Only at the air base “Aktau”, located in the immediate vicinity of the Caspian Sea, has 14 Su-25s, two Su-25UB, 16 Su-27P, two Su-27UB.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The naval forces of Kazakhstan strengthen coastal defenses in the Caspian Sea with a new antiship missile system Exocet MM40 Block 3, the letter of intent was signed by the Navy of Kazakhstan, JSC “NC” Kazakhstan Engineering », MBDA and INDRA Sistemas in the international exhibition of military equipment KADEX -2012 in Astana. Coastal defense system based Exocet can take control of a greater volume of the Caspian Sea and also able to withstand a serious threat.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Turkmenistan has also continued to build up its military presence in the Caspian, and the Navy plans to buy for the most advanced military boats and weapons.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">All patrol boats brought to the brigade of water region patrol ships. Most modern ships: two boats “Sable” Project 12200 missile boats and two Project 12418 of the “Lightning”. In the Navy a battalion of a brigade of marines, it actually tasked with coastal defense. The number of personnel in the fleet, along with the coastal services – about 2000.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Air Forces of Turkmenistan are up to 250 helicopters and aircraft, including the MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-23/MiG-23U, MiG-21 and Su-25.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Air Force used in Turkmenistan including the patrolling of the Caspian Sea, thereby compensating the lack of power of the fleet. At the same time, it can be employed to combat missions in the area.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Changing the priority of Russia in the Caspian Sea was in 2000, this was due to increased military and political presence in the coastal areas of the Caucasus and Central Asia in the early 2000s. In this regard, Russia has gone on increasing its military forces in the Caspian Sea region, can ensure security of energy fields, protect the economic interests of Russian and objectives for the protection of the southern borders of the state.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">At present the Russian Caspian fleet consists of 14 combat ships and boats, including two frigates project 11661K “Tatarstan” and “Dagestan”, two small artillery ships Project 21630 “Astrakhan” and “Volgodonsk.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The composition of the fleet includes 847-th separate coast missile battalion (Astrakhan), 77th Separate Guards brigade of marines (Kaspiysk), a division of supply vessels and the Division of rescue vessels and a helicopter squadron.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Recently coastal units Flotilla latest missile system “Ball.” In addition, for it is already enshrined four small rocket ship of project 21631 of the “Hail Sviyazhsk.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The Coast Guard also has the Russian border guards modern ships, for example, in the Caspian Sea are the boat project 14310 “Mirage” and Project 12150 “Mongoose”, soon to join the PSKR “Brilliant” (plant number 502) of the project 22460.</span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-family:Arial;">Some Results</span></strong></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Today the situation in the Caspian region escalates amid stalled negotiations, that the hand of external actors, especially the U.S. and, according to some international experts, China. But who will lose – this is Europe, drawing attention to the Caspian oil into the war against Libya and pinned high hopes on the region.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Many analysts are afraid of Russia, the development of naval forces of Azerbaijan. While they do not cause much concern major naval rivals in the Caspian Sea – the Russian Navy and the Iranian navy, especially since there is no part of their naval aviation and ship structure has mostly obsolete ships. In the medium term, things can change very serious in this country partners: U.S., IsraHell and Zio-Turkey...</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"><br /></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-1584876182256826672012-09-02T09:20:00.001-07:002012-09-02T09:22:31.348-07:00The main point is that as the war drags on, the entire MENA region is exploding....<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii6CSuM24lLHyu9stfIxsjbpGj_6jBcfcoxGEfnFhuIEhqLf9KSj07yqprSDEW8BHPMgHS4UDT0RVHu6mYVUNejTK1STwqLHju0tWBZYrLGMeV9fX67yLjY4WqNj37rS4CEYBr8t-vJk0Y/s1600/Obamateurism+of+the+Day.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 226px; height: 236px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii6CSuM24lLHyu9stfIxsjbpGj_6jBcfcoxGEfnFhuIEhqLf9KSj07yqprSDEW8BHPMgHS4UDT0RVHu6mYVUNejTK1STwqLHju0tWBZYrLGMeV9fX67yLjY4WqNj37rS4CEYBr8t-vJk0Y/s400/Obamateurism+of+the+Day.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5783615507705060562" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:Arial;">I have been informed that this, <em><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fobama-wrong-over-syria-action-says-top-general-8096881.html&ei=CDtDUOfnIciX6AHByYGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGKewDvQypnVUKeAR4aL0viPgCrlA&sig2=q2LGW05uwy81-CELCpVvPw">Obama wrong over Syria action, says top general</a> Dempsey,</em> was the original title of a recent devastating article in the Zioconned MSM is USA... You know just how far Zioconned America has gone off-course, whenever the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff goes public with his opinion that the Commander-In-Chief is wrong about the latest soft and hard Zioconned wars... We are witnesses to one of those defining moments in history when civilization has stood on the precipice, with the Zioconned barbarians pounding on the gates... It appears that the holding actions of the Joint Chiefs may, once again, keep the mercenary Zioconned barbarians outside the gates and civilization perched precariously on the edge. We should take hope in that Gen. Dempsey's bravery for speaking-out for the rest of the World now, instead of bowing in silence under the weight of those stars on his shoulders, while we all descended even further into hell. The war will be in a worse place because of Obama's Zioconned Syrian aggression, just as it is worse off today because of US's last Zioconned war on Iraq. The fate of all mankind would have looked even more bleak, if the Iraq aggression had been allowed to carry the Zioconned USA over into Iran, just like the cowardly attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was soundly defeated by the bravery of the Valiant Lebanese Resistance.... But USA avoided that fate primarily because the previous two Joint Chiefs before Gen. Dempsey (Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. Peter Pace) held the line against Zioconned Bush and basically refused to allow an anti-Iranian aggression on their watches. This is as good of an explanation as any, to explain why the Arab Spring/humanitarian warfare R2P angles are being followed today, as the latest road to Lebanon's Valiant Resistance and Tehran.... , while the naked aggression of the Zioconned Bahraini and Saudi Regimes against their peaceful populations go unchallenged....</span></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">There is an invisible "red line," that the Joint Chiefs will not let their Zioconned commander cross, one that will bring about the destruction of the United States (along with everything else). The war against Syria is inherently, an American/Russian war, which would inevitably lead to some level of nuclear exchange. It is the top general's fate to be the one man standing between the Zioconned Commander of US nuclear forces and the series of events which will allow him to push that mesmerizing "big red button."</span></span></div> <div><span style="color:#ff0000;"> <div> <div id="ecxnode-23800"> <div> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">Turkey’s acting as the “subcontractor” for the Zioconned Anglo-Obama attack on Syria and World War III is rapidly becoming a “debacle,” and is being seen as such in Turkey, as the country become more and more destabilized. An op-ed in <em>Hürriyet</em> by senior commentator Semih Idiz said that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will come back empty-handed from the Zioconned United Nations Security Council meeting this week, in terms of help on the refugee situation: “The upshot is that Turkey faces a potential debacle such as it has not had before due to Syria. The question is how much of this is the result of the government’s Zioconned hasty and overambitious Syrian policy, and how much of it is the product of an inevitable chain of events. Clearly, Turkey would have faced a refugee crisis anyway … but critics feel that it should not only have moved more realistically from the start and allowed international agencies in much earlier, but also that it should have had a more regional approach which did not alienate Iran and Iraq and millions of Shiites in the Middle East.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">“Not having done that, Zioconned Turkey is forced now to issue futile appeals as the refugee problem grows and the Syrian crisis deepens along sectarian lines. In other words, the government is facing a crisis for which it has no answers, and a public at home that is growing increasingly uneasy over this. If this is not a debacle, then what is?”</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">Meanwhile, the Zioconned Turkish government announced it will allow a delegation of the parliamentary human rights commission to visit the Apaydin refugee camp in Hatay province, where Zioconned Syrian military defectors are being held, and which is believed to be a base for running Zioconned operations into Syria. Ankara had to make the decision after the opposition reminded it that such actions are totally unconstitutional. The Turkish Constitution clearly prohibits, as <em>Hürriyet</em> reported, foreign troops or paramilitary elements, “free something army,” or any such armed foreign elements, without the approval of parliament.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">Tensions have risen dramatically in Hatay province, where the Agaydin and other Syrian refugee camps are located, since the local population are predominantly Alawite, and maintain close ties to the Alawite population on the Syrian side of the border. Turkish press report that the Zioconned Syrian Sunni opposition fighters who are operating out of Turkey, are creating tensions with the local population in Hatay.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">On top of this, there are fears that an “Alawite state” would be created that would extend from Latakia in Syria and encompass Turkey’s Hatay province. Such fears are cutting both ways. Some are claiming the Assad regime is behind it, while others fear “international players” are behind it as part of a design to redraw the map of the Syria and the region, and creating Greater Kurdistan as well....</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;">The main point is that as the war drags on, the entire MENA region is exploding....</span></p></div></div></div></span></div> <div><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span><br /></div>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-83941341280617552762012-09-02T01:42:00.000-07:002012-09-02T01:43:42.519-07:00Fragmentation of Syria, MENA, Africa, then on to Russia, China and India soon...all this is a US strategy cloaked in ZIO-shenanigans....<div><span style="font-family:Arial;"> <div class="post-header"> </div> <div id="post-body-7960505183838215869" class="post-body entry-content" itemprop="articleBody"> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" dir="ltr"> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; CLEAR: both" class="separator"><a style="MARGIN-LEFT: 1em; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1em" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf_A_9CPz46nZ5siJUdwK7xM1OLdIWREfHuRWBLLXYarboTSZJDJ16FVCGIfaXoZbKlboZqK-_3210It_ZpT7o3svh00SYHL5mdnzvFfiCx161zeuRRVLFkFt1Gd-P5-bDiC0UKt_m81M/s1600/borderlines-syria-blog427.jpeg"><span style="color:#000000;"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf_A_9CPz46nZ5siJUdwK7xM1OLdIWREfHuRWBLLXYarboTSZJDJ16FVCGIfaXoZbKlboZqK-_3210It_ZpT7o3svh00SYHL5mdnzvFfiCx161zeuRRVLFkFt1Gd-P5-bDiC0UKt_m81M/s320/borderlines-syria-blog427.jpeg" border="0" height="281" width="320" /></span></a></div> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><b><span id="more-43359"></span><br /></b><br /><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;color:#990000;"><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">The Yinon Thesis Vindicated: Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria, MENA, Africa, then on to Russia, China and India soon...all this is a US strategy cloaked in ZIO-shenanigans....</h3></span><br /><br />Israel does not want Assad to be removed or any fake puppets of the CNS, NATO-qatar-saud backed mercenaries-contras to replace him. Israel is playing a long internal civil war making sure that the majority of the Sunnis never get access to kind of military organisation capable of resisting any ground invasion from Tel Aviv, destroying the AGP and Iranian pipelines. The majority of the Syrian people, Sunnis do not believe in the Saudis nor the Qatar, seen as Zionist puppets, nor they believe Russia will help them. Syrians understood clearly these facts as Iraq invasion remains in their minds. Israel will face a military defeat when Netanyahu and Barak will try to grab South of Lebanon and Damascus. </b><br /><br /><b>By Stephen J. Sniegoski, </b><br /><br />It is widely realized now that the fall of President Bashar Assad’s regime would leave Syria riven by bitter ethnic, religious, and ideological conflict that could splinter the country into smaller enclaves. Already there has been a demographic shift in this direction, as both Sunnis and Alawites flee the most dangerous parts of the county, seeking refuge within their own particular communities. Furthermore, it is widely believed in Syria that, as the entire country becomes too difficult to secure, the Assad regime will retreat to an Alawaite redoubt in the northern coastal region as a fallback position. <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/world/breakaway-alawite-state-may-be-assad-s-last-resort/article_ec3c91da-6d38-59e4-9730-22b578f0ae7d.htmlbit.ly/PLZjBo"><span style="color:#000000;">link</span></a> </div><a name="more"></a><br />Syrian Kurds, about ten percent of the country’s population, are also interested in gaining autonomy or joining with a larger Kurdistan. The Syrian Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD)—linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has engaged in a separatist insurgency in Turkey’s Kurdish southeast region for nearly three decades—has gained control of key areas in northeast Syria. While Turkey has supported the Syrian opposition, it is terrified of a Kurdish autonomous zone in Syria, believing that it could provide a safe haven for staging attacks into Turkey. Moreover, Kurdish autonomy would encourage separatist sentiment within the Turkish Kurdish minority. Turkey has threatened to invade the border areas of Syria to counter such a development and Turkish armed forces with armor have been sent to Turkey’s border with the Syrian Kurdish region. A Turkish invasion would add further complexities to the fracturing of Syria.<br /><br />What has not been readily discussed in reference to this break-up of Syria is that the Israeli and global Zionist Right has long sought the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies so as to weaken them and thus enhance Israel’s primacy in the Middle East. While elements of this geostrategic view can be traced back to even before the creation of the modern state of Israel, the concept of destabilizing and fragmenting enemies seems to have been first articulated as an overall Israeli strategy by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment in the years of Likudnik Menachem Begin’s leadership. Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s article was titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”<br /><br />In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use military means to bring about the dissolution of Israel’s neighboring states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of homogenous ethnic and sectarian groupings. Yinon believed that it would not be difficult to achieve this result because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and religious divisions, and held together only by force. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of powerless mini-statelets unable to confront Israeli power. Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s model for the entire Middle East. Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.” <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf%20%20http://bit.ly/mOYAHJ"><span style="color:#000000;">link</span></a><br /><br />Eminent Middle East historian, Bernard Lewis, who is a Zionist of a rightist hue and one of the foremost intellectual gurus for the neoconservatives, echoed Yinon with an article in the September 1992 issue of “Foreign Affairs” titled “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he wrote of a development he called “Lebanonization,” stating “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity. . . . The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.” Since Lewis— credited with coining the phrase “clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against the Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy.<br /><br />In 1996, the neoconservatives presented to incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu their study “A Clean Break” (produced under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), which described how Israel could enhance its regional security by toppling enemy regimes. Although this work did not explicitly focus on the fragmentation of states, such was implied in regard to Syria when it stated that “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” It added that “Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.”<br /><br />David Wurmser authored a much longer follow-up document to “A Clean Break” for the same Israeli think tank, entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant.” In this work, Wurmser emphasized the fragile nature of the Middle Eastern Baathist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria in line with Lewis’s thesis, and how the West and Israel should act in such an environment.<br /><br />In contrast to some of the Western democracies as well as Arab states, Israel did not publicly call for Assad’s removal until a few months ago. This, however, does not mean that the Netanyahu government did not support this outcome. This tardiness has a number of likely reasons, one of which being the fear that an Islamist government would replace Assad that would be even more hostile to Israel and more prone than he to launch reckless attacks. Moreover, instability in a country on Israel’s border is of tremendous concern to its security establishment. It is feared that in such a chaotic condition, Assad’s massive chemical weapons arsenal and advanced surface-to-air missile systems could end up in the hands of terrorist groups like the Lebanese Hezbollah, which would not be hesitant to use them against Israel. <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/03/01-syria-byman"><span style="color:#000000;">link</span></a><br /><br />Unlike the armchair destabilization strategists and the neocons, the actual Israeli leaders, including hardline Likudniks such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have to be concerned about facing the immediate negative political consequences of their decisions even if they believe that the long-term benefits would accrue to the country. This invariably leads to the exercise of caution in regard to dramatic change. Thus, the concern about the immediate security risks cited above likely had a significant effect on their decision-making.<br /><br />Furthermore, it could have been counterproductive for Israel to express support for the Syrian opposition in its early stages. For Assad has repeatedly maintained that the opposition is orchestrated by foreign powers, using this argument to justify his brutal crackdown. Since Israel is hated by virtually all elements in the Middle East, its open support of the opposition could have turned many Syrians, and much of the overall Arab world, against the uprising. While Israel did not openly support the armed resistance, there have been claims from reliable sources that Israeli intelligence has been providing some degree of covert support along with other Western intelligence agencies, including that of the United States. <br /><br />Since May of this year, however, the Israeli government has become open in its support for the overthrow of the Assad regime. In June, Netanyahu condemned the ongoing massacre of Syrian civilians by Assad, blaming the violence on an “Axis of Evil,” consisting of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. “Iran and Hezbollah are an inseparable part of the Syrian atrocities and the world needs to act against them,” he proclaimed. This inclusion of Iran and Hezbollah illustrates Israel’s goal of using the Syrian humanitarian issue to advance its own national interest.<br /><br />If the Assad regime were to fall, Israel would certainly be more secure with a splintered congeries of small statelets than a unified Syria under an anti-Israel Islamist regime. Consequently, staunch neoconservative Harold Rhode presents the fragmentation scenario in a positive light in his article, “Will Syria Remain a Unified State?” (July 10, 2012). In contrast to what has been the conventional Western narrative of the uprising against the Assad regime, which presents a heroic Sunni resistance being brutally terrorized by government forces and pro-government Alawite militias, Rhode writes with sympathy for the pro-government non-Sunni Syrian minorities: “In short, what stands behind most of the violence in Syria is the rise of Arab Sunni fundamentalism in its various forms – whether Salafi, Wahhabi, or Muslim Brotherhood. All of those threaten the very existence of the Alawites, the Kurds, and other members of the non-Sunni ethnic and religious groups. <br /><br />“It is therefore much easier to understand why the ruling Alawites feel they are fighting a life and death battle with the Sunnis, and why they believe they must spare no effort to survive. It also explains why most of Syria’s other minorities – such as the Druze, Ismailis, and Christians – still largely support the Assad regime.”<br />http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3157/syria-unified-state <br /><br />For a short aside, the neoconservative background of Harold Rhode is of considerable relevance, providing further evidence for the much denied neocon support for the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies. (The mainstream view is that the neocons are naïve idealists whose plans to transform dictatorships into model democracies invariably go awry.) Rhode, a longtime Pentagon official who was a specialist on the Middle East, was closely associated with neocon stalwarts Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. He was also a protégé of Bernhard Lewis, with Lewis dedicating his 2003 book, “The Crisis of Islam,” to him. Rhode served as a Middle East specialist for Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the administration of George W. Bush, where he was closely involved with the Office of Special Plans, which provided spurious propaganda to promote support for the war on Iraq. Rhode was a participant in the Larry Franklin affair, which involved dealings with Israeli agents, though Rhode was not charged with any crime. Alan Weisman, the author of the biography of Richard Perle, refers to Rhode as an “ardent Zionist” (“Prince of Darkness: Richard Perle,” p.146), more pro-Israel than Perle, which takes some doing since the latter has been accused of handing classified material to the Israelis. Rhode is currently a fellow with the ultra-Zionist Gatestone Institute, for which he wrote the above article.<br /><br />Obviously the very removal of the Assad regime would be a blow against Israel’s major enemy, Iran, since Syria is Iran’s major ally. Significantly, Assad’s Syria has provided a conduit for arms and assistance from Iran to Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, to use against Israel. If Israel and Iran had gone to war, these arms would have posed a significant threat to the Israeli populace. Moreover, a defanged Hezbollah would not be able to oppose Israeli military incursions into south Lebanon or even Syria.<br /><br />A fragmented Syria removes the possible negative ramifications of Assad’s removal since it would mean that even if the Islamists should replace Assad in Damascus they would only have a rump Syrian state to control, leaving them too weak to do much damage to Israel and forcing them to focus their attention on the hostile statelets bordering them. Moreover, Israel is purportedly contemplating military action to prevent Assad’s chemical weapons from falling into the hands of anti-Israel terrorists. With such a divided country there is no powerful army capable of standing up to an Israeli military incursion.<br /><br />The benefits accruing to Israel from the downfall of the Assad regime and the concomitant sectarian fragmentation and conflict in Syria go beyond the Levant to include the entire Middle East region. For sectarian violence in Syria is likely to cause an intensification of the warfare between Sunnis and Shiites throughout the entire Middle East region. Iran might retaliate against Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s support for the Syrian opposition by fanning the flames of Shiite Muslim revolution in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich and majority Shiite Eastern Province. Both areas have witnessed intermittent periods of violent protest and brutal government suppression since the Arab Spring of 2011. And Iraq remains a tinderbox ready to explode into ethno-sectarian war among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, with violence already on an uptick since the formal departure of American troops in December 2011. <br /><br />In assessing the current regional situation, American-born Barry Rubin, professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (Herzliya, Israel) and director of its Global Research in International Affairs Center, writes in the Jerusalem Post (“The Region: Israel is in good shape,” July 15, 2012) : “The more I think about Israel’s security situation at this moment, the better it looks.” He goes on to state: “By reentering a period of instability and continuing conflict within each country, the Arabic-speaking world is committing a self-induced setback. Internal battles will disrupt Arab armies and economies, reducing their ability to fight against Israel. Indeed, nothing could be more likely to handicap development than Islamist policies.” <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=277579"><span style="color:#000000;">link</span></a><br /><br />It should be noted that the “period of instability and continuing conflict” in the Middle East region has been the result of regime change and is in line with the thinking of Oded Yinon who, along with the other aforementioned geostrategic thinkers, pointed out that the major countries of the Middle East were inherently fissiparous and only held together by authoritarian regimes.<br /><br />America’s removal of Saddam in a war spearheaded by the pro-Israel neoconservatives served to intensify Sunni-Shiite regional hostility and, in a sense, got the destabilization ball rolling. Iran is targeted now, and Israel and its neocon supporters seek to make use of dissatisfied internal elements, political and ethnic—the radical MEK, democratic secularists, monarchists, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and Azeris— to bring down the Islamic regime. And while Saudi Arabia is currently serving Israeli interests by opposing Iran, should the Islamic Republic of Iran fall, Israel and their supporters would likely turn to Saudi Arabia’s dismemberment, seeking the severance of the predominantly Shiite, oil-rich Eastern Province, with some neocons already having made such a suggestion—e.g., Max Singer, Richard Perle, and David Frum (schemes which have been put on ice while Israel and its supporters have focused on Iran). If everything went according to plan, the end result would be a Middle East composed of disunited states, or mini-states, involved in intractable, internecine conflict, which would make it impossible for them to confront Israeli power and to provide any challenge to Israel’s control of Palestine. The essence of Yinon’s geostrategic vision of Israeli preeminence would be achieved.<br /><br />Best,<br />Stephen Sniegoski<br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><br /><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/"><span style="color:#000000;">http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/</span></a></div> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div></div></div></span></div>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3536640973092345800.post-64685163402374582042012-08-28T05:46:00.001-07:002012-08-28T05:48:14.691-07:00Drones take South China Sea plunge...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitX4uGTaEJwfkMJzEF98zaWbH-UhZopyVhPNr6VTYXvaBj5b49diO3lz_T43zHR3BDimCSgTAcwsuOkQxi1GhqEKgT4wqINbwruS9gFL2zIwJPmunQL4iQX90vmn2c8Wrq-BV-wAgjlVKp/s1600/MQ-1+Predator+UAS-+A+MQ-1B+Predator+aircraft.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 224px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitX4uGTaEJwfkMJzEF98zaWbH-UhZopyVhPNr6VTYXvaBj5b49diO3lz_T43zHR3BDimCSgTAcwsuOkQxi1GhqEKgT4wqINbwruS9gFL2zIwJPmunQL4iQX90vmn2c8Wrq-BV-wAgjlVKp/s400/MQ-1+Predator+UAS-+A+MQ-1B+Predator+aircraft.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5781704955105353634" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:Arial;"><strong>Drones take South China Sea plunge...</strong><br />By Carl O Schuster<br /><br />HONOLULU - While unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), widely known as "drones", have grabbed headlines and engaged heavily in America's ZIOCONNED overseas criminal wars, the technologies involved and their military advantages have quietly inspired a revolution in naval vessels, tactics and operations. The innovations promise to add new strategic dimensions to global maritime hot spots, including simmering tensions in the South China Sea.<br /><br />Unmanned naval surface vessels were used as a form of guided weaponry in World War II, and the Cold War saw the advent of remotely piloted surface and underwater vehicles for the hunting and sweeping of naval mines. Those early "naval drones" were controlled by guidance signals sent over a wire that trailed from the back of the vehicle or, in the case of West Germany's "Troika" minesweeping system, via radio signals from a mother ship.<br /><br />Technological advances have spurred the introduction of a growing range of unmanned underwater and surface vessels - UUVs and USVs, respectively. Autonomous variants, or AUVs and ASVs, are now also under development. Most have a reconnaissance mission but attack variants have already entered service and enhanced models are reportedly on the drawing board.<br /><br />Like their aerial counterparts, unmanned naval vessels are intended to extend a commanders' view of the battle space and expand the fleet's area of control without increasing the number of ships, submarines and crewmen. They are smaller, more maneuverable and much harder to detect than manned systems. They typically are also cheaper to build and operate, a key factor as US defense spending faces significant future belt-tightening.<br /><br />AUVs and UUVs also share their aerial brethren's reduced political sensitivity in their operations, witnessed in the mostly muted response to remote-controlled assassinations of terror suspects in theaters such as Afghanistan and remote areas of neighboring Pakistan. That may change, however, after the first USV is captured or recovered in a foreign harbor or contested maritime areas such as the South China Sea.<br /><br />As was the case of UAVs, Israel has pioneered the use of modern unmanned naval vessels. Their so-called Protector USVs have been in service since 2009, used primarily to patrol off Lebanon's coast and monitor Hezbollah's activities and movements.<br /><br />The Protector's small size - nine meters in length, 4,000 kilograms displacement and light composite material construction - make it especially difficult to detect and track. Its 50-knot maximum speed and high maneuverability, meanwhile, complicate any enemies' efforts to engage it.<br /><br />Although light, its stabilized small-caliber automatic weapons system is accurate and sufficient to engage light craft utilized by terrorist groups trying to infiltrate or attack the Israeli coast. The latest model to enter production has a high-pressure hose system for non-lethal engagements against blockade runners trying to reach the Gaza Strip. It also has a second engine for propulsion, providing redundancy and increased reliability.<br /><br />The US has followed Israel's example with a range of USVs now in testing. The first prototype was the Spartan Scout, a crewless rigid-hulled inflatable boat tested from 2001 through 2006. Weighing under two tonnes and carrying a .50 caliber machine gun, the Spartan Scout carried a range of electro-optical and infrared sensors as well as a small surface search radar.<br /><br />Intended for operations from a standard surface ship, it was initially viewed as a means of extending a ship's presence and reach in surface surveillance and control missions. It was also viewed as a "proof-of-concept" vehicle to determine the future practicality and utility of USV operations.<br /><br />The Spartan Scout's successful demonstration led to the Fleet-class USV designed for employment from America's Freedom- and Independence-class littoral combat ships. These unmanned units, classified as ships by the US Navy, are intended to extend littoral combat ships' presence, surveillance area and range of missions. Significantly, these USVs can be employed in mine, electronic and anti-submarine warfare as well as anti-piracy operations.<br /><br />At 12 meters in length and displacing 7.7 tonnes, the Fleet-class USVs are larger than Israel's Protector and have a top speed of 35 knots and can carry up to 2,300 kilograms of equipment, either sensors, weapons or a combination of both. They are designed for up to 48 hours of autonomous operations and can be converted into a manned platform in under 24 hours. First delivered in 2008, the four units currently in fleet inventory are undergoing operation testing and expected to achieve initial operational capability by 2015.<br /><br /><b>Armed and dangerous</b><br />Three other USVs are under development in the US. The 16.5 meter Piranha USV concept, built almost entirely of the latest carbon-nanotube composite material and displacing just 3,600 kilograms, began testing in 2010. The naval drone can reportedly carry a payload exceeding 6,800 kilograms out to a range of over 2,170 nautical miles. It is being considered for a range of missions by the US Navy and Coast Guard, including harbor and coastal patrol, search and rescue, anti-piracy operations and anti-submarine warfare.<br /><br />The US Navy is also testing autonomous and unmanned underwater vehicles (AUVs and UUVs). Autonomous underwater vehicles operate entirely along pre-programmed parameters, while UUVs include the capacity for control by a human operator and may be programmed to respond to changing circumstances that fall outside pre-mission expectations.<br /><br />Commercial versions, used mainly for underwater surveys, marine biology research and maritime mapping, were first introduced in the 1990s. Modifying them for military applications and operations, however, required extensive development and testing programs of the technology needed for reliable control and recovery.<br /><br />UUVs primary mission has focused on extending the surveillance capability and reach of the navy's submarine fleet. Early UUVs were designed specifically for launch from submarine torpedo tubes, with the first such mission launched in 2007. Although the launch was successful with the UUV returning to the mother sub, recovery proved complex.<br /><br />That motivated the development of a Universal Launch and Recovery Module that enables a submarine to launch and recover larger, more capable UUVs. The module incorporates a powerful robotic arm that is used to recover the UUV and bring it aboard. Four Ohio-class former ballistic missile submarines have reportedly been modified into UUV carriers and the latest Virginia-class units will also be UUV, as well as UAV, capable.<br /><br />Although fully capable autonomous AUVs and UUVs are not yet operational, the US Navy's 2004 Master Plan calls for a range of such units to be in service by 2015. Equipped with active sonar, and perhaps even non-acoustic sensors, they and their surface counterparts will be able to range far from their mother ships. They will specialize in conducting covert reconnaissance and surveillance of harbors, coastal and deep ocean waters, as well as searching for mines and submarines, without risking their mother ship's location.<br /><br />It isn't clear yet how AUVs and UUVs will report what they find back to the mother ship, but the advent of blue-light laser communications systems will likely feed into a complex buoy-to-satellite-to-submarine system. While the command and control aspects of such operations have proven to be the greatest challenge in development, latest indications are that these technological hurdles are surmountable.<br /><br />With naval drones promising to expand the capabilities of manned naval platforms and reduce both long-term and short-term personnel and operating costs, a growing range of nations apparently view these systems as an attractive option for meeting their maritime security needs.<br /><br />Britain, Canada, France and India, to name but a few, have all stated their interest in naval drones; it would not be surprising to learn that other countries, including China and Russia, are studying, if not pursuing, development of their own unmanned naval systems.<br /><br />Unmanned aerial and naval vehicles promise to revolutionize naval operations and warfare over the next decade. Their reliance on digital networks, computers, computer systems, and data links suggest that any fleet hoping to rely on unmanned systems must also dedicate a resources to dominating the electromagnetic and cyber spheres. In today's and tomorrow's strategic theaters, success in the physical world of maritime operations may well be determined by victory in virtual dimensions.<br /><br /><i><b>Carl O Schuster</b> is a retired United States Navy Captain based in Honolulu, Hawaii.</i></span></div>HKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03583773682140307056noreply@blogger.com