This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Showing posts with label invasion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label invasion. Show all posts

Monday, March 25, 2013

US military has plans to bomb and send forces in Syria: Washington Post


 
Scores of people, mostly civilians, were rushed to hospitals in Aleppo following the terrorist chemical attack on March 19, 2013.

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/25/295139/us-has-plans-to-bomb-syria-report/

The US military has prepared plans ranging from aerial bombings to deploying troops to “seize [chemical] weapons sites” inside Syria but has reservations against such moves, fearing a political backlash to the US intervention as well as lack of coordination with its regional allies.

“If we had to go in tomorrow, I’d say we aren’t ready,” said an unnamed Obama administration official “involved in the preparations for securing Syria’s chemical weapons” quoted in a Washington Post report on Monday.

“One thing we want to avoid is having one group securing the sites and another group bombing them,” added the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Following reports of a chemical attack near the Syrian major city of Aleppo by foreign-sponsored terrorist gangs trying to overthrow the government of President Bashar Al-Assad, US President Barack Obama said he had directed his “teams” to “find out precisely whether or not this red line was crossed,” the report adds, suggesting an American effort to blame the attack on the Syrian government.

The Obama administration “has sent thousands of protective suits and more than 150 military personnel to help train special forces teams” near Syria’s border with Jordan, where it claims “the largest” chemical arms depots are located, the report adds, citing US and Middle Eastern officials.

Pointing to efforts by the American military to work with “regional allies” to prepare responses “if events require seizing [Syrian] weapons sites, the report does not, however, mention any specific allies and whether the Israeli regime would also be involved in the potential scheme.

More aggressive US military options, according to the report, involve “a plan to destroy Assad’s air force to prevent it from using aerial munitions.”

It further cites American officials as looking into the possibility “to destroy much of Assad’s chemical arsenal,” but fearing that “dispersing chemicals” could cause widespread casualties, they would have to send in “highly trained operatives” to place and detonate explosives at the sites, rather than bombarding them.

The development comes as the US-sponsored anti-Damascus coalition group was reported on a verge of collapse following the resignation of its top leader, Moaz al-Khatib, after a Syrian-born US citizen was appointed a prime minister of a so-called interim government.

CIA aids Arab kingdoms, Turkey in huge surge of arms shift to Syria rebels


 
A member of an anti-Damascus foreign-backed gang with weapons illicitly shipped supplied through a CIA-led network (file photo)

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/25/295121/cia-aids-vast-arms-shift-to-syria-rebels/

US spy agency CIA has played a major role in locating weapon sources and coordinating a huge surge of arms shipments to foreign-backed militants in Syria by governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan.

From “offices at secret locations,” American intelligence agents have aided the US-backed Arab kingdoms “shop for weapons,” including a major Saudi arms purchase from Croatia, and have even determined which terror gang or commander should receive the weapons as they arrive, The New York Times reports Monday, citing American officials that spoke on condition of anonymity.

The scale of shipments was “very large,” with Turkish government exercising oversight over much of the operation, “affixing transponders to trucks ferrying the military goods through Turkey” to monitor shipments as reach Syria by land, the report adds, citing “officials familiar with the (weapons) pipeline and an arms-trafficking investigator who assembled data on the cargo planes involved.”

“A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500 tons of military equipment,” said an illicit arms transfers monitor, Hugh Griffiths, of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, as quoted in the report.

“The intensity and frequency of these flights are suggestive of a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military logistics operation,” Griffiths added.

The shipment of weapons from Qatar and Saudi Arabia climbed drastically in late fall as Turkish government allowed the pace of arms airlifts for anti-Damascus terror gangs to accelerate.

Simultaneously, the report notes, Jordanian cargo aircraft, acting as front for the kingdom’s military, were flying in a major Saudi weapons purchase from Croatia to foreign-backed gangs operating in southern Syria, forming “a cataract of weaponry,” as described by a former US official briefed on the US-facilitated illicit arms transfers.

Qatar, using it Al Udeid Air Base, which serves as “a hub for American military logistics in the Middle East,” has been “an active arms supplier,” the daily underlines, citing US and other Western officials as well as commanders of anti-Damascus gangs in Syria, “so much so that the United States became concerned about some of the Islamist groups that Qatar has armed.”

The report further cites air traffic control data as showing that Jordanian cargo planes “made a combined 36 round-trip flights between Amman and Croatia from December through February” in addition to five flights between Amman and Turkey this January.

While regular Qatari arms airlifts continued, the Royal Saudi Air Force “began a busy schedule too,” the daily adds, “making at least 30 C-130 flights” into Turkey’s Esenboga air base from mid-February to early March of this year.

American officials, the report insists, “have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the [arms] shipments,” further saying that previous CIA Director David Petraeus “had been instrumental in helping to get this aviation network [of illicit arms shipments] moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it.”

Even as the Obama administration has publicly claimed that it only offers “nonlethal” aid to the gangs trying to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, “the involvement of the CIA in the arms shipments… has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war,” the report emphasizes.

The daily also suggests efforts by the US and its Arab allies for “drawing Turkey and Jordan actively into the war” they have waged on Syria, hoping to “provoke” Iran into the conflict as well.

The development comes as recent press reports have cited Israeli military leaders as claiming with the Syrian military “falling apart,” the Zionist forces are in a position to “focus” their efforts on Lebanon.

This is while US media outlets have widely reported that in his surprise visit to Iraq, American Secretary of State has pressured the nation’s leaders to limit Iranian flights into Syria, while vowing “revitalized” ties with the country they occupied for over seven years, leaving behind what has been widely regarded as a trail of death, destruction, abuse and still ongoing political interference.

The Islamic Republic has expressed full support for the government of President Assad in Syria while urging peaceful resolution of the nation’s crisis among Syrians and without any foreign intervention.

Iran has further maintained that the current Syrian unrest has been incited and financed by the chief backer of the Israeli regime, the US, and largely corrupt Arab kingdoms in the Persian Gulf that have been kept in power with American military backing.

 

Saturday, March 16, 2013

US seeks to expand assassination drone attacks to Syria: Report

Update: March 16th, 1:58 PM EST
Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/16/293811/us-to-launch-drone-attacks-in-syria/

The CIA is considering a secret contingency plan to expand the US assassination drone strikes to Syria, former and current American officials say.

The officials said the Counter terrorism Center, which runs CIA’s drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen, has recently tasked some of its agents to collect further intelligence on the situation in Syria, the Los Angeles Times reported on Friday.

The targeting officers, who are based at CIA headquarters in Langley, have formed a unit with US intelligence agents in Iraq, to examine purported threats against "the US’ interests in Syria," the report said.

The unit is closely working with Saudi, Jordanian and other regional spy services, according to the report.

The CIA and the White House have declined to comment on the issue.

According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, between 2,627 and 3,457 people have been killed by US drones in Pakistan alone since 2004.

Some former CIA officials expressed skepticism about the nature of Washington’s new contingency plan, saying no evidence substantiates existential threats against the US’ interests in Syria.

The news comes on the same day as the summit of EU leaders in Brussels failed to reach an agreement on lifting the body's arms embargo on Syria to facilitate the flow of weapons to militants.

Although the US publicly claims that its role in Syria is merely limited to providing food and medical supplies to the anti-government militants, Croatian newspaper Jutarnji List revealed on March 7 that the US has coordinated weapons shipments from Croatia to the militants in Syria.

According to the report, 3,000 tons of weapons in 75 planeloads have been transferred from Zagreb to the militants in Syria via Jordan and Turkey. The weapons were reportedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the request of the US.


A US assassination drone (file Photo)

 

Saturday, October 13, 2012

What if China Invaded America!




Source Video:
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Ron Paul was cheated but he is not the only “NO WAR” candidate left. Vote wisely America or there will no longer be an America after the election…

CREDITS:
Voice and Music was done by Jeremy Hoop
Video animation was done by Nicholas Bozman and MysteryBox.

Mystery Box US
http://mysterybox.us

Original text:
Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

Islamic hardliners in Mali increase threats as France pushes for intervention


 
Several thousand people march on October 11, 2012 in Mali to call for armed intervention by a west African force to help wrest back the vast north from armed Islamist groups. (AFP Photo / Habibou Kouyate)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/islam-mali-sharia-france-363/

Islamists in northern Mali threaten to “open the doors of hell” to French citizens in the area if France keeps pushing for military intervention. A quarter of a million refugees have fled Mali's north since Sharia law was implemented there in March.

The UN Security Council called Friday for an intervention plan to be drawn up within 45 days after passing a French resolution to revive attempts to end the crisis.

The renewed threat against French expatriates and hostages came ahead of a summit of Francophone nations in Congo, where French President Francois Hollande is expected to urge the formation of an African-led force to rout the Islamists.

Oumar Ould Hamaha, a spokesman for Islamists group MUJWA told Reuters, “If he continues to throw oil on the fire, we will send him pictures of dead French hostages in coming days.” This was an apparent reference to four French nationals seized in neighboring Niger in 2010. All but four have since been released.

“He will not be able to count the bodies of French expatriates across West Africa and elsewhere,” he continued.

MUJWA is one of the Islamist groups that have controlled the northern two-thirds of Mali since the country's military took power in a March coup.


Several thousand people march on October 11, 2012 in Mali to call for armed intervention by a west African force to help wrest back the vast north from armed Islamist groups. (AFP Photo / Habibou Kouyate)

The Saharan branch of al-Qaeda was quick to move into the increasingly lawless area, seizing control of the Tuareg-majority north after the coup, effectively seceding from the rest of Mali.

Hamaha added that ransom payments from France and other Western nations are his group's primary source of funding.

“The top country who finances the jihadis is France – I wonder what the international community would say if we took the French president hostage,” he boasted.

Fundamentalist Islamic law has been implemented across northern Mali, with suspected thieves dismembered, single mothers persecuted and suspected criminals flogged.


Several thousand people march on October 11, 2012 in Mali to call for armed intervention by a west African force to help wrest back the vast north from armed Islamist groups. (AFP Photo / Habibou Kouyate)

Over the last six months, a quarter of a million people have fled Mali for refugee camps in neighboring countries.

A journalist in neighboring Senegal told Euronews that he is worried about the unrest spreading to nearby capitals. “Mali has Pakistani, Afghan and Algerian forces involved in the crisis, which is becoming international. The international community should intervene in the north in its own interest. The Islamists have imposed Sharia law, and that could seriously affect the African continent – and then the whole world.”

Journalist Gerald Horne told RT that “what is happening in Mali is a humanitarian crisis and a disaster” and “a direct outgrowth of the North Atlantic countries' intervention in Libya in 2011.”

“The North Atlantic nations turned the tables on Gaddaffi, aligned with his former antagonists and overthrew him – and now the inevitable has happened,” he continued.


Several thousand people march on October 11, 2012 in Mali to call for armed intervention by a west African force to help wrest back the vast north from armed Islamist groups. (AFP Photo / Habibou Kouyate)

Mali: US Africa Command (AFRICOM) Prepares for Another “Humanitarian” Military Intervention?

 

By: Patrick Henningsen
http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/12/africom-is-a-go-obama-prepares-a-new-intervention-in-mali-using-somalia-as-his-model/

Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/applying-the-somalia-model-us-africa-command-africom-prepares-for-humanitarianmilitary-intervention-in-mali/5308015

Obama has been carrying the AFRICOM ball down the field after the directive was launched under George W. Bush in 2007. Washington DC, led by African Secretary, Jonnie Carson, speaks to its public at a level deserving of an uninformed, Helen Keller-esque populace, claiming that Somalia was ‘a big success’ because Washington spooks spent $500 million backing an “African Proxy Force” that allegedly “drove out al Qaida” in that country. And it is no coincidence that massive untapped oil reserves in the Puntland region in northeastern Somalia were recently announced in early 2012.

Just as Washington’s corporate interests are hidden behind ‘humanitarian interventions’, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron will run the same facade. Last February he hosted an international conference on Somalia, where he pledged more aid, financial help and measures “to fight terrorism” in Somalia. Cameron does not tell you that those so-called terrorist forces are funded and supported, and ultimately steered – by the western intelligence agencies – whereby they control all sides of the local conflict. Note they are using the same recycled narrative in Mali now, fighting “Islamic extremists” there – promoting freedom and democracy in the region etc.

Mali’s vast potential wealthlies in mining, agricultural commodities, and oil - and these proven reserves are not currently exploited. Interestingly enough, Ghana and Mali together account for 5.8% of total world gold production. These assets are the true focus of US and UK interests in Africa – not humanitarian concerns.

 
The 2012 Somalia Oil Conference was a mere pre-negotiation meeting to discuss how oil assets would be divided up between the US, UK and other remaining energy players – demonstrating what is the real agenda with AFRICOM. Obama supporters will naturally give this President a free pass on Africa because he is of part African descent, not realizing that he is running the exact same agenda as his Republican predecessor. What corporate agents like Jonnie Carson does not tell electorate plebs is that the US has recently infested itself in Libya, Uganda, Somalia, North Sudan and elsewhere, and now has its eyes set on Mali. The initial goal of US domination of Africa is outlined in the AFRICOM documents, and names theeviction of China from the continent as task number one.

Africa Pulse spells it out: “Strong economic growth in the past decade among African countries rich in oil and minerals has failed to make a significant dent on their poverty levels, according to a World Bank report.”

In other words, the Anglo-American imperialists would like to eliminate competition for Africa’s bountiful resources, continuing a centuries-old policy of raping the Dark Continent and leaving nothing but perpetual internal strife and poverty behind.

America’s Secret War in Africa



Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americas-secret-war-in-africa/5307958

The U.S. secret warfare is alive and well. In addition to its military command in Africa (AFRICOM), America has been deploying special forces all over the continent according to an AP article from October 2, 2012:

Small teams of special operations forces arrived at American embassies throughout North Africa in the months before militants launched the fiery attack that killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya. The soldiers’ mission: Set up a network that could quickly strike a terrorist target or rescue a hostage. (Kimberly Dozier, White House widens covert ops presence in North Africa, AP, October 2, 2012.)

The U.S. is spreading its clandestine army all over Africa. As reported by Nile Bowie back in April, the goal is to balkanize the African continent:

At an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared the guiding principle of AFRICOM is to protect “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market”, before citing China’s increasing presence in the region as challenging to American interests [36].

In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham commented on AFRICOM’s strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” (Nile Bowie, COVERT OPS IN NIGERIA: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization, Global Research, April 11, 2012.)

The “War on Terror” fraud serves to cover up the destabilization of Africa with a view to taking control of its resources. The Balkans were destabilized for the same purpose in the 1990’s:

In Liar’s Poker The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future, Michel Collon explains how the Balkans were destabilized “to control oil pipeline routes, dominate Eastern Europe as well as weaken and get a hand over Russia” as well as” insure [the establishment of US] military bases [in Eastern Europe and the Balkans].” (Michel Collon, Liar’s Poker The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future, Editions Aden, 1998, p. 129.)

A similar process, over a large geographic region, is occurring in the Middle-East:

“Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an agreement for a gas pipeline in July 2011, which plans to link the Iranian South Pars field – the world’s largest – to Syria and therefore to the Mediterranean Sea. Another important oil field was discovered near Homs in Syria, which could become an alternative hub of energy corridors in opposition to those passing through Turkey and other routes controlled by U.S. and European companies” (Manlio Dinucci, L’art de la guerre. Syrie : l’Otan vise le gazoduc, October9, 2012)

America’s clandestine army will resort to drone warfare to assert control over the African resources. Although the U.S. and its allies have financially and materially supported Al-Qaida-linked mercenaries to topple the Libyan government and are operating in the same fashion in Syria, we are told that the “counter terror effort indicates that the administration has been worried for some time about a growing threat posed by Al Qaeda and its offshoots in North Africa.” (Dozier, op.cit.)

Although the Pentagon assures that “[t]here are no plans at this stage for unilateral U.S. military operations”, the article states quite to the contrary that a unilateral drone warfare is what awaits Africans:

Delta Force group will form the backbone of a military task force responsible for combating al-Qaida and other terrorist groups across the region with an arsenal that includes drones. But first, it will work to win acceptance by helping North African nations build their own special operations and counter terror units. (Ibid.)

The hypocritical discourse that follows indicates in which African states the“free flow of natural resources to the global market” and “access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources” will be protected under the “War on Terror” pretext:

The Obama administration has been concerned about the growing power and influence of al-Qaida offshoots in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and North Africa. Only the Yemeni branch has tried to attack American territory directly so far, with a series of thwarted bomb plots aimed at U.S.-bound aircraft. A Navy SEAL task force set up in 2009 has used a combination of raids and drone strikes to fight militants in Yemen and Somalia, working together with the CIA and local forces.

The new task force would work in much the same way to combat al-Qaida’s North African affiliates, which are growing in numbers and are awash in weapons from post-revolutionary Libya’s looted stockpiles. They are well-funded by a criminal network trafficking in drugs and hostages.

Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM, and Nigerian-based extremist sect Boko Haram are arguably the two largest and most dangerous affiliates.

The top State Department official for African affairs said Tuesday that the militants in Mali “must be dealt with through security and military means.” (Ibid.)

And even though we are told there are “no plans at this stage for unilateral U.S. military operations”, Johnnie Carson, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs seems to contradict this claim:

“any military action up there must indeed be well planned, well organized, well resourced and well thought through” and, how thoughtful, “be agreed upon by those who are going to be most affected by it.” (Ibid.)

Monday, October 1, 2012

Pressure Builds for Full-Scale War on Syria


By: Stephen Lendmen

Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/pressure-builds-for-full-scale-war-on-syria/

Rhetoric hides intent. Turkey wants safe zones, and perhaps a no-fly zone. Britain and France both said no options are ruled out, including a no-fly zone. Ahead of US November elections, Washington is more low key, but not entirely.

Obama stresses he’s open to all options. On September 27, Hillary Clinton met openly with Assad opponents at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. She did also privately with so-called Friends of Syria.

She announced millions of dollars more aid. She claimed it’s mostly for humanitarian purposes. America does nothing that way. Everything it does has ulterior motives.

Washington will also supply more communication equipment. It “includ(es) satellite-linked computers, telephones, and cameras, as well as training for” opposition elements and supporters, she said.

She expressed frustration about lack of more aggressive Security Council action. She suggested Washington may bypass the body, saying:

“It is no secret that our attempts to move forward at the UN Security Council have been blocked repeatedly, but the United States is not waiting.” She said it before. She left little doubt what she means. Obama’s UN address was also belligerent against Iran and Syria.

Expect military intervention ahead against both countries. It’s longstanding policy. Post-November 6 elections, it’s coming. All independent governments are vulnerable.

Syria and Iran top Washington’s target list. NATO countries and regional allies are pressured to go along. Some need no prodding. Israel urges it. Britain willingly partnered with America’s imperial agenda for decades.

It’s always ready to go to war if asked. It has a belligerent reputation to uphold. David Owen once served as foreign secretary. On September 27, he headlined a London Telegraphop-ed “Only a no-fly zone brokered with Russia can bring peace.”

Establishing a no-fly zone or safe havens in Syrian territory assures war. Washington’s war on Libya proved what Owen and other observers understand well.

Effectively he advocated belligerent intervention. He quoted Prime Minister David Cameron in New York saying: “The blood of these young (Syrian) children is a terrible stain on the reputation of the United Nations.”

He avoided explaining US and UK involvement. Their bloodstained hands are too obvious to ignore. He was silent on Western aggression on Syria. His government is directly responsible for lost lives.

He pointed fingers the wrong way. He blamed Security Council members with veto power. He wants Russia and China to yield to US/UK/French rage for war on Syria.

He wrongfully called conflict there civil. There’s nothing civil about it. Syria was invaded. Mercenary death squads were recruited from regional countries. They’re given safe havens in bordering countries.

Washington, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and perhaps other imperial allies have been arming, funding, training, and directing them. They’re responsible for thousands of deaths. Assad’s doing his best to restore peace. He faces stiff headwinds.

Owen said he “was one of the first to argue for a no-fly zone over Libya.” He knew full well what would follow. He wants it repeated for Syria. “NATO is the only organization” able to enforce no-fly zone protection, he added.

He wants Russia pressured to go along. His notion of restoring peace is first wage war. Hasn’t he paid attention to what’s happening in Libya? At age 74, perhaps he’s prematurely senile.

More likely, he wants another country ravaged and dominated by Western powers. He’s comfortable perhaps with tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths to make it possible.

In 2011, The New York Times promoted war on Libya. It backs intervention now against Assad. It practically mocked the cold-blooded murder o Press TV correspondent Maya Naser.

A Western-recruited death squad sniper assassinated him. He was doing his job. He was alone and live on air at the time. He was vulnerable from where he reported.

The Times claimed he was embedded with Syrian forces. None were close by when he died. Press TV’s Damascus Bureau Chief Hosein Mortada was attacked and injured at the same time.

Both were covering twin Damascus blasts and ensuing fighting. Heroically, they put their lives on the line daily doing it.

Press TV News Room Director Hamid Reza Emadi said:

“We hold Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who provide militants weapons to kill civilians, military personnel and journalists, responsible for killing Maya.

“Press TV will pursue the matter of the murder of Maya and would not let those who killed the correspondent feel like they can kill the media people and get away with it.”

Last February, The Times claimed its Syrian correspondent, Anthony Shadid, died from asthma complications. It seemed far-fetched at the time. Death by drowning is more likely. perhaps cover-up was Times policy.

Shadid’s cousin Ed Shadid said he told his wife: “If anything happens to me, I want the world to know that The New York Times killed me.” By that he meant he didn’t want to go and got little support while there.

That aside, Times executive editor, Jill Abramson, praised him, saying:

“Anthony died as he lived – determined to bear witness to the transformation sweeping the Middle East and to testify to the suffering of people caught between government oppression and opposition forces.”

On the one hand, Abramson lied both about Shadid and what’s ongoing regionally. On the other, Shadid was praised in contrast to how Maya Naser was mocked.

Most important is what’s been ongoing in Syria since March 2011, where it’s likely heading, and how consistently The Times misreports.

Russia’s been out in front trying to restore calm and peace. On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov addressed the UN General Assembly. He reiterated comments he made earlier. The way to end conflict is to adhere to last June’s Geneva Agreement, he said.

“We proposed to adopt a resolution in the UN Security Council that would endorse the Geneva communique as the basis for negotiations at the beginning of the transitional period, but this proposal had been blocked.”

“Those who oppose the implementation of the Geneva communique in fact push Syria even deeper into the abyss of bloody sectarian strife.”

“Extremist organizations including al-Qaeda have become more active in Syria – they perpetrate terrorist attacks against innocent civilians and civil infrastructure.”

He also condemned any unilateral sanctions “imposed by a state or a group of states sidestepping the United Nations to advance their political goals.”

Without naming names, he left little doubt he blamed Washington and key NATO allies for ongoing Syrian conflict.

On September 28, China’s Xinhua New Agencyheadlined “Outside Meddling in Syria Threat to Whole World Order: Russian Official,” saying:

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:

“The attempts to look for ways out of the crisis in Syria outside the U.N. Security Council would have very destructive and dangerous consequences for Syria itself, for the Middle East region and, eventually, for the current world order as a whole.”

“Implementation of the Libyan model, supporting only one side in this confrontation is a way to nowhere.”

He also warned about worrisome regional “deep changes.” They’ll cause serious repercussions elsewhere for a long time, he added.

On September 28, Russia’s Foreign Ministry SpokeswomanMaria Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva called “inadmissible clauses” in the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Syrian resolution unacceptable, saying:

“One can’t agree with the unilateral conclusions concerning the tragedy in El-Houleh as well as with the fact that these murders are similar to other such incidents in Syria.”

She added that other powers supported and encouraged Syrian violence. She left little doubt which ones she meant. It’s no secret.

It’s also well-known the HRC provided cover for Washington’s war on Syria since last year. Its reports are shameless and one-sided. They have no credibility whatever.

On September 28, it extended the mandates of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Syria, saying:

On September 24, its resolution A/HRC/21/L.32 addressed human rights in Syria. It was adopted 41 – 3. Russia, China and Cuba voted no. India, Uganda, and the Philippines abstained.

Supportive countries will have to explain why they supported bald-faced lies. It’s not first time and won’t be the last.

HRC “condemn(ed) in the strongest terms the massacre of the village of Al-Houla near Homs, where the forces of the Government of Syria and members of the Shabbiha were found by the Commission of Inquiry to be the perpetrators of outrageous and heinous crimes….”

HRC and voting countries know Assad had nothing to do with it. Eyewitnesses blamed death squad killers. HRC lied saying otherwise. Doing so support imperial lawlessness.

It called on all parties to cease violence. Mercenaries are entirely responsible. Well-known facts are suppressed. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay defiled her mandate.

Instead of responsibly “strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights,” she spurned them in deference to Western interests.

HRC’s so-called COI is an imperial body established to lie. It suppresses truth and full disclosure. It consistently points fingers the wrong way. Its reports ignore credible eye-witness testimonies. Clear evidence is consistently left out.

Washington said it was proud to co-sponsor the resolution. No doubt it’s gratified by ravaging one country after another and the millions of deaths it caused.

HRC systematically avoids condemnation. Instead it welcomes a rogue state member in good standing. How many more millions of corpses will it tolerate?

America’s responsible for more global violence, deaths and destruction than the rest of the world combined. Perhaps HRC can explain why this goes entirely whiewashed and unnoticed.

Perhaps one day a real HRC will replace the sham one now in place. Perhaps truth and full disclosure will have a chance it’s been denied for so long.

Syria commented on HRC’s latest act of shame, saying:

“(S)peaking as the concerned country, (Syria) condemned the presentation of the draft resolution because it made libelous statements and because the Human Rights Council was based on fundamental principles of dialogue and cooperation, and those were the ways to promote human rights.”

“This draft resolution did not reflect the reality in Syria; on the contrary, it was based on accusations and fictitious reports, such as on the Al-Houla massacre, which the Government had condemned in the strongest terms.”

“The Commission of Inquiry had not visited Syria, had not arrived to definite conclusions concerning the massacres and had not taken into account the results of the Ad Hoc Committee established by Syria to investigate the crimes.”

“The seven co-sponsors had ignored aspects of the Commission of Inquiry’s report on the barbaric acts committed by armed groups in Syria.”

“Moreover, the Commission of Inquiry had highlighted the adverse impact of sanctions on Syria, and those were also not included in this draft resolution.”

“Some of the co-sponsors forgot that they did not have the right to give advice because they were directly involved in killing the Syrian people and could not call on others to respect human rights before they respected them at home.”

“Syria rejected the draft resolution and urged all countries that sincerely wished to help the Syrian people to vote against.”

Imperial countries, supportive bodies, and go-along media never say they’re sorry. Hegemons ravage humanity for wealth, privilege, and dominance. Supporters back what they should condemn.

Millions everywhere suffer horrifically. They’re on their own to survive and change things. Hopefully they’ll try before it’s too late.
------------------------
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

 

Western Powers Double Down on Syria’s Destruction


 
By: Shamus Cooke

Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/western-powers-double-down-on-syrias-destruction/

“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those, who in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” – Dante

The world watches as a nation is torn, slow motion, at the seams. Money and geopolitics has caused a feeding frenzy of western nations biting and tearing at Syria, all hoping to profit from the regime’s destruction.

Toward this effort, England, France, and the United States announced increased support to the “rebels” of Syria. The Obama administration promised $45 million more in funding for aid that has now totaled $175 million (is it any wonder there are budget problems inside the U.S.?).

And although much of the U.S. aid is designated as “humanitarian,” this money will directly help the military mission by bolstering the prestige of opposition groups, who will use the U.S. aid to gain adherents by being able to feed and house refugees fleeing the destruction (assuming that not all of this money will simply be used to buy guns).

Of course there is no accounting of the amount of money and arms the CIA is funneling into the country. But even The NewYork Times has admitted the CIA’s involvement; in June it wrote:

“A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers…the weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”

There you have the Syrian opposition in a nutshell: groups of mercenaries funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States and France, and the Muslim Brotherhood inside Syria. All of these groups have their own self-interest in toppling the Syrian government, while destroying the country and its people in the process.

Saudi Arabia has used the Muslim Brotherhood as a key tool in its foreign policy for decades, funding the organization in countries all over the Middle East and North Africa. When Saudi Arabia beckons, the Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups can be used to destabilize “unfriendly” regimes in the name of “jihad” — officially declared by clerics who work in tandem with the Saudi Arabian government to recruit fighters for the effort. This is why there are “terrorist” groups now fighting to overthrow the Syrian government, including Al Qaeda — itself born from the purse strings of Saudi Arabia, like the Taliban (there is an excellent chapter about this dynamic in Vijay Prashad’s book, the Darker Nations).

It is very revealing that, after the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and large amounts of weaponry has been trafficked into the country, the Syrian government still controls the vast majority of the country. This is because the majority of people inside Syria do not support the so-called Syrian Opposition. If this were the case, the Syrian government would have long since been overthrown. The revolutionaries of Egypt and Tunisia did not need any outside help in toppling their government, nor large amounts of money or weaponry.

Therefore, the steady destruction of Syria will continue until it reaches a Libya-like crescendo: a “no fly zone” will be the goal of the western powers, with the motive of toppling the regime.

But like in Libya, a no fly zone equals total war. Syria has advanced Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, which must be destroyed to enforce such a no fly zone. Syria also has fighter jets that must be destroyed. Additional ground support must be destroyed. And like Libya, once the bombs start dropping, the mission quickly changes from a “no fly zone” to “regime change,” i.e., war.

But Syria has a much more powerful army than Libya, requiring that the U.S. military become directly involved in the war, as opposed to outsourcing the conflict to England and France as they did in Libya. Only the U.S. military and its subordinate allies have the required weapons to deal with Syria’s Russian-made weaponry.

But the American people hate war, and thus the U.S. government must introduce the Syrian war slowly, through non-stop anti-Syria media coverage, in the hopes that opinion polls shift enough to allow direct military intervention, as opposed to the current indirect type.

What do the people of Syria really want? The NewYork Times revealed that, inside Syria, a group of twenty opposition groups recently met in Syria’s capital to demand that Syria’s democratic transition happen peacefully, in effect denouncing the armed rebels who are being funded by foreign nations.

The international implications of this war have already begun to manifest. Neighboring countries are experiencing stress and destabilization by the flood of refugees from Syria. The Kurds in Syria may soon call for independence, which will incite further violence from Turkey. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and Iran will work doubly hard to re-enforce the Syrian government as western powers do the opposite.

Ethnic and religious tensions are being stoked in all neighboring countries, which has already led to violence and will be used by politicians in those countries for political aims, leading to more violence. It’s also possible if an official war is declared against Syria, other powers will use the chaos as a shield to pursue their own interests —Israel for example, may opportunistically bomb Iran. Whatever the course of events, the emerging war in Syria has the potential not only to turn the Middle East into dust, but to drag larger powers like Russia — an ally of Syria — into conflict with the United States.

All working people in the United States have a duty to denounce this U.S.-made humanitarian tragedy and the future threat of war.


Shamus Cook is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

Notes:



 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Millions of Indians protest foreign competition to mom-and-pop shops


 
Demonstrators from the Samajwadi Party, a regional political party, shout slogans after they stopped a passenger train during a protest against price hikes in fuel and foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail, near Allahabad railway station September 20, 2012 (Reuters / Jitendra Prakash)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/india-strike-retail-reform-550/

India is going through a nationwide strike on Thursday, as shopkeepers, traders and workers protest a governmental reform allowing foreign retail giants into the domestic market. Activists fear the move would leave millions bankrupt.

­The day-long strike and protests were called by opposition parties and trade unions after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the planned reform last week.

Protesters blocked railroads in Kolkata in West Bengal state, squatting on the tracks, a regional official told AFP. Thousands of police were deployed to prevent possible violence. Bihar state in north India saw train and bus stations occupied by activists, leaving thousands of passengers stranded.

Bangalore, the capital of the southern state of Karnataka, was completely shut down. The state has strong support of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is one of the major backers of the strike. India’s largest cities, including New Delhi, are bracing for large protest rallies.

According to the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) forecast, some 50 million people may participate in the action in some way. The protest was triggered by government’s plan to allow international companies like Walmart and Tesco trade directly with customers. Currently they can only own shares in retail businesses jointly with domestic companies and sell only to smaller retailers.

The move is aimed to bring foreign investment into the slowing Indian economy, but critics say it will expose small stores, called kiranas, and other retail-related small businesses to crushing international competition.

Kiranas are an important part of Indian culture, with some dubbing the country spurring world-highest shop density “a nation of shopkeepers”. There are an estimated 50 million such shops across the country, and 220 million people depend on them for their livelihoods, CAIT says.

There are fears that exposure of the market to better-organized internationals would drive kiranas out of business, as they would not be able to offer competitive prices.

"If these big guys storm in and wreck what I've fostered for decades, then my family and I will have to resort to a different business," kirana owner Goel, told Reuters.

People skeptical about the protest say opposition politicians are trying to capitalize on people’s fears and the real impact of the reform would not be as bad as they picture it. The shops would have the strength of advantageous placement in residential areas and customer loyalty won over decades.

"The traditional kirana stores and outlets in India have been able to compete very successfully with modern retail for a very long time,"
said a study released by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Their presence in the midst of a residential area is a big advantage."

The Indian government so far remained steadfast in proceeding with the reform.

 

Demonstrators from the Samajwadi Party, a regional political party, shout slogans as they gather around an effigy on a railway track during a protest against price hikes in fuel and foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail, near Allahabad railway station September 20, 2012 (Reuters / Jitendra Prakash)

Friday, September 7, 2012

Dempsey Backs Away from Obama’s Threat to Intervene in Syria


 
By: John Glaser
http://antiwar.com/

Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/dempsey-backs-away-from-obamas-threat-to-intervene-in-syria/

The top general of America’s military last week backed away from President Obama’s threats to intervene militarily in Syria against the Assad regime, warning that the worst-case scenario would be some kind of failed state in the embattled country.

Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff General Martin Dempsey stressed while on a trip to London that direct military action in Syria, even simply no-fly zones, might be beyond the US and NATO’s capabilities and counter to their interests.

Last week President Obama warned that his “calculation” to refrain from direct military intervention in Syria “could change” if Syria’s chemical or biological weapons begin “moving around or being utilized,” describing the WMD issue as a “red line” that would prompt direct military action, like setting up safe zones, no-fly zones, or worse.

But Dempsey explained it wouldn’t be that easy. He said frequent comparison of the Syrian situation with that in Libya, where a “no-fly zone” was imposed following a United Nations resolution, is at best a source of “amusement.”

General Dempsey warned that possible safe zones for refugees were not being considered for inside Syria, cautioning that imposing them could open the path to a breakout of war.

“If you chose to establish [a safe zone/no-fly zone] you would assume the responsibility for protecting it. If you are tasked to protect it you have to look at those who might seek to attack it or to influence it and that could take you, depending on weapons systems, it could take you to a limited no-fly zone it could take you to the point of having to interdict air and ballistic missile systems,” he said.

As far as forcibly ousting the Assad regime, Dempsey said, such a move would be far too destabilizing. He said a failed state in Syria would be the worst-case scenario and warned against allowing armed extreme jihadists and rebels with ties to al-Qaeda to increase their influence and expand control in a post-Assad Syria.

 

Monday, August 6, 2012

US-led sanctions on Iran, invasion of a nation’s rights: Analyst


US President Barack Obama (R) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (file photo)

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/06/254799/iran-bans-invasion-of-a-nation-rights/

A prominent political analyst says illegal US-engineered sanctions against Iran, which have been in place almost since the Islamic Republic's inception, constitute, “an invasion of a nation’s rights.”

“It is transpiring gradually that a country does not need to wage a military war against another nation in an effort to paralyze it and that imposing brutal sanctions or tightening them can be well tantamount to an act of war,” Dr. Ismail Salami wrote in an article published on the Press TV website.

“The US war against Iran has already started,” Salami said, proceeding to catalogue the US hostilities toward the Iranians in the mold of sanctions ever since the early 1980s when the Islamic Republic was in the grip of the Iraqi war.

“Washington has long been making unflagging efforts to push Iran to the farthest margins of political and economic isolation even when Iran was not working on its nuclear energy program,” the Iranian author stressed.

Last week, the US House of Representatives repeated a Senate action in voting for additional illegal sanctions against Iran. The congressional action, pushed by the influential American pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, intends to further punish all banks, insurance firms and shipping lines involved in Iran’s oil exports.

The so-called compromise bill would supposedly build on the oil trade sanctions signed into law by US President Barack Obama back in late December, expanding penalties on foreign firms that conduct business with Iran’s national oil company and tanker fleet. It intends to make it more difficult for the Islamic Republic to receive payments for the sale of its petroleum products.

Dr. Salami said the West has yet to realize that Iran “is not a country solely dependent on oil resources. Rather, it has at its disposal myriad natural resources to rely on.”

“Ergo, blocking Iran’s oil flow to other countries will not be so damaging to the country as the West imagines. On the contrary, such an act will surely prove irreversibly damaging to world economy; the oil prices will rocket up beyond control; the global economic security will be caught up in an unmanageable whirlpool and the rest of the world including the US and Europe will have to suffer immensely for this strategic folly.”

Many prominent international lawyers, including Franklin Lamb and Francis Boyle, contend that Iran is entitled to file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice against the US, France, the UK and their allies, on behalf of all Iranian citizens being harmed by illegal and political economic sanctions.

“To a critical mind, the sanctions are to be seen as a metaphorical declaration of war on Iran,” Dr. Salami said, “Albeit the US and its allies will be the ones who will suffer most.”