RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2011

UN Report on Syria: Based on Witness Accounts….. OUTSIDE of Syria

Humanitarian concerns “dressing up” the military conquest of Syria.

By Tony Cartalucci

November 29, 2011 “Information Clearing House” —   – Wall Street and London’s media machine eagerly churned out headlines like BBC’sSyria security forces ‘commit crimes against humanity‘” announcing the conclusions of a recent UN Human Rights Council report regarding the ongoing violence in Syria. However, even upon reading the BBC article it is soon discovered that, “the investigation team members say they were denied entry into Syria itself,” and that the entirety of their “evidence” is garnered solely from interviews with “223 victims, witnesses and also army defectors to investigate alleged human rights violations.”

BBC’s article raises immediate suspicion over the veracity of the report, as “victims, witnesses, and defectors,” interviewed outside of Syria is not evidence, but rather more hearsay by groups of people with a vested interest in painting the Syrian government in the worst light possible. However, upon actually reading the full text of the UN Human Rights Council report, we see just exactly “how” the report was compiled. Under a section titled, “Methods of Work” we find a shocking admission of the utter lack of substance and immense conflict of interest behind the UN’s predetermined conclusion, that Syria is guilty of “crimes against humanity” and that the UN Security Council must act.

The report states (emphasis added):

“First-hand information was collected through interviews with victims and witnesses of events in the Syrian Arab Republic. The interviewing process began in Geneva on 26 September 2011. Overall, 223 victims and/or witnesses, including personnel who defected from the military and the security forces, were interviewed.

A public call was made to all interested persons and organizations to submit relevant information and documentation that would help the commission implement its mandate. It held meetings with Member States from all regional groups, regional organizations, including the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, non-governmental organizations, human rights defenders, journalists and experts. Reports, scholarly analyses and media accounts, as well as audio and visual material, were also duly considered.

The information collected is stored in a secure database governed by United Nations rules on confidentiality.”

Quite obviously this is not an investigation, nor is the information provided within the report “evidence” by any stretch of the imagination. The report would go on to admit that it received no cooperation from the Syrian government meaning that this publication by the UN is but a one-sided exercise to provide the worst possible image of the Syrian government as told by opposition groups now on record fully armed, foreign-backed, and trying to seize power by force.

The inclusion of “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) should also raise immediate concerns. While the report is entirely negligent in listing any of these contributing NGOs, it is more than likely they include the US government and corporate-funded army of sedition emanating out of the National Endowment for Democracy, Geroge Soros’ Open Society Institute, and their myriad of subsidiaries. It has been these very NGOs supplying a steady stream of similarly baseless “witness accounts” since the unrest began earlier this year, as they’ve done in LibyaBelarusTunisiaThailand, and beyond.

“Alleged” is used throughout the report in various forms further illustrating the tenuous nature of the UN Human Rights Council’s “evidence” while all of the testimony, those who gave it, and apparently the NGOs involved in compiling the UN report are conveniently kept “confidential.” This may be because the United Nations believes that its reputation coupled with global faith in its work is all that is necessary to lend their report the legitimacy it needs to bring Syria one step closer to NATO inflicted genocide.

However, considering Iraq and more recently Libya, and the UN’s complicit role in facilitating genocide in both nations based on similarly tenuous “human rights” reports, a clear pattern emerges. Human rights activists, their Wall Street and London-funded NGOs, and the disingenuous UN are merely dressing up with humanitarian concerns an otherwise naked campaign of military conquest.

Video: Part 1 & 2 of “Lies behind the “Humanitarian War” in Libya.” The outrageous, confirmed, confessed “humanitarian-based” lies used with UN complicity to justify NATO’s invasion by proxy of Libya. Libya is now run by a corporate-backed proxy Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France’s Total, Japan Oil Development Company, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company-sponsoredPetroleum Institute.

It has been pointed out in April’s “Globalists Coming Full Circle,” and more recently in Salon’s “Wes Clark and the neocon dream” that the unrest unhinging the Middle East, North Africa, and slowly creeping toward Moscow and Beijing, is part of a plan 20 years in the making. Those behind it just so happen to populate the boards of the faux-humanitarian front, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), have affiliations with the so-called “liberal” George Soros and his Open Society Institute, and have signed their names to Hitlerian declarations of world conquest within the notorious “Project for a New American Century.”

….

You’re not expected to read the report, let alone research the authors.

Without a doubt, the UN has compiled a tenuous and transparent fabrication of such little substance, those involved in writing it, Paulo Pinheiro, Yakin Ertürk, and Karen Koning AbuZayd, are clearly conspiring to justify an otherwise unjustifiable escalation in Syria’s current unrest. If they did indeed have evidence of Syrian brutality, they surely would have included it in their report and the voices at the BBC, on CNN, in Reuters and beyond would ceaselessly air it. Instead, the impact of the report solely depends on people trusting the legitimacy of the UN and not bothering to even objectively read it. It equally depends on members of the media, including the disingenuous hand-wringing “humanitarians” amongst NED’s vast global network to keep their heads down and not expose this willful duplicity.

The impact of the UN’s report also depends on people not bothering to research the associations of those who compiled it. Should they, they will find that Karen Koning AbuZayd is concurrently a member of the Washington D.C. based Middle East Policy Council, along side current and former associates of Exxon, the US military, the CIA, the Saudi Binladin Group, the US-Qatari Business Council and both former and current members of the US government. It is more than just a coincidence that the UN Human Rights Council report has given the US exactly what it wanted to hear regarding Syria, and one of those compiling the report just so happens to sit amongst an organization full of corporate-financier interests clamoring to despoil the Middle Eastern republic. Clearly, claims that the UN is merely a tool of corporate fascists on Wall Street and within the City of London represent a truth that confronts anyone who researches any of the claims coming out of the UN.


Image: Just some of the corporate members of the US-Qatar Business Council, whose president just so happens to sit on the same board of directors of the Middle East Policy Center as Karen AbuZayd, co-author of the conveniently timed UN Human Rights Council report on Syria.

….


Indeed with this tissue of lies and the associations of the liars peddling them, the UN is truly a disingenuous tool of the world’s elite, used to strip the freedom and humanity of its enemies while simultaneously claiming to uphold such values in the process. The Syrian people are facing a criminal conspiracy of vast proportions in a world increasingly devoid of empathy, intelligence, or courage. Like the Libyans who fought for the better part of a year against the militant aggression of global corporate fascism, the Syrians will soon be fighting too.

For those indeed repulsed by what has transpired in Libya and what is facing Syria at the hands of the global elite, it should be obvious that the corporations, banks, and institutions involved need to be exposed,boycotted, and promptly replaced. It was Libya yesterday, Syria today, and inevitably you tomorrow. Collectively after World War II we said, “never again,” regarding fascism and the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, yet here we are…. again.

Tony Cartalucci – Land Destroyer

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 30, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

Syria: NATO Genocide Approaches

UN Syria Report Co-Authored by Director of US Corporate Think-Tank

Blatant lies told by alleged “human rights activists” led to ignominious NATO-sanctioned brutality and ultimately brought BP, Shell, Total-sponsored Petroleum Institute representative, Abdurrahim el-Keib, into power in Libya. Now, these same corporate-financier interests, through their same networks of propaganda, duplicity and deception, are laying the ground work for a repeat performance in Syria.

It was just recently revealed that the UN Human Rights Council report regarding Syrian “crimes against humanity” was actually co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council, that includes Exxon men, CIA agents, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO’s operations against Libya), and Boeing. The conflict of interest is so monumental it is only outdone by the corporate media’s eager acceptance of the report and their complete negligence in airing the compromised backgrounds of those responsible for compiling it.

The UN report itself (.pdf) contained no verifiable evidence, but rather hearsay accounts recorded in Geneva by alleged “victims” “witnesses,” and “defectors,” put forth by “all interested persons and organizations.” In other words, it was an open invitation for Syria’s enemies to paint whatever image of the ruling government they pleased. While critics claim this is due to the Syrian government’s lack of cooperation with the UN, it is more likely that the UN itself, with a proven track record of doing so in Iraq, the Ivory Coast, and most recently Libya, is merely complicit in providing “window dressing” for Wall Street and London’s otherwise naked military conquests.

How to Start the War

And it is through this purposefully distorted lens that calls for military intervention are being made. After months of denying the opposition was armed, the Wall Street-funded think-tankCouncil on Foreign Relations now openly claims that not only are the “protesters” armed, but there is a resistance army of “15,000.” The CFR claims this “Free Syrian Army” is requesting weapons and air support. It has already been revealed that weapons are freely flowing over Syria’s borders from foreign-supporters, most notably, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now even as far as Libya. The CFR report then goes on to explore the options available to NATO for facilitating “regime change” including the use of “overhead surveillance assets, logistical enablers, peacekeepers, armed drones, combat aircraft, ground troops,” and “smuggled weapons.”

Of course the number of Syrian defectors are as baseless as the UN human rights report. However, even the claim of a large, armed militant force operating inside of Syria directly contradicts the West’s concurrent narrative that Syria’s military is running rampant over defenseless civilians. With an army of “15,000 defectors” attempting to seize the nation by force with the help of foreign money, weapons, and diplomatic support, one finds it difficult to believe the Syrian government would instead be spending its time “massacring civilians.” Just as in Libya, or any number of nations where foreign-backed “revolutions” have been attempted or achieved, Western-enabled violence is always a predetermined part of the equation, fully provisioned ahead of time with the subsequent violence cloaked behind tales of one-sided brutality aimed at the targeted regime.

As mentioned in the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report “Which Path to Persia?” the inclusion of covert armed support for US-backed protests is not just an option, but a necessity when carrying out such operations within a nation possessing competent security forces.

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): “Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it.” “This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

 

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.”

In addition to this confession by the Brookings Institution, this pattern of providing for, or covering up the existence of, armed elements deployed during the opening phases of a color revolution has also been documented in LibyaSyria, and in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010. Just as in Libya where legions of Al Qaeda rebels armed by NATO and fresh back from killing US and British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were initially covered up with tales of street protesting youth being cut down by Qaddafi’s troops, Syria too has been plagued by violent militants since the unrest began earlier this year. In April’s “Globalist War Machine Fixates on Syria,” the first reports of the now ubiquitous snipers terrorizing Syria began to surface. Also noted was the similarity between these sniper attacks and concurrent attacks being carried out in Yemen, and the year before in Thailand – all victims of Western-backed destabilization.

It will be through a perpetual campaign of deceit waged by the West’s various puppet regimes and their compromised corporate-media that this war will be started. The ruling regime in Syria will be portrayed as grotesque human rights offenders while covert arms and support are provided to a mercenary army of ever increasing size, committing ever greater provocations. In time, as the proper “international” legal maneuvers are performed, this mercenary army will be provided NATO air and naval support, NATO special forces, and potentially NATO ground troops – this of course includes Turkey, a NATO member since 1952 and already deeply involved in meddling in Syria’s sovereign affairs.

How to Stop the War

While the power behind this war machine grinding up the planet seems monolithic and unstoppable, the very source of its power looks us back in the mirror everyday. We, through our choices of how we spend our time, money, and attention, are fueling daily its destructive consumption of our world. While protests, elections, and activism are important, what is absolutely essential is to entirely cut this machine off from its fuel. That is, for us to boycott the corporations, institutions, and personalities that constitute it to the point of starvation and submission. We must work ceaselessly to identify and expose who these corporations, institutions, and personalities are through the alternative media, boycott them out of business, and replace them entirely with local solutions derived from both tradition and technological innovation.

The Greatest Generation said “never again” to the rise of fascism in the 1930’s and 1940’s, yet here we are again watching the rise of Wall Street and London to sickening heights of unwarranted power and warmongering. Let this generation say, “not in our names” and starve this beast into submission, just as it has done to so many other sovereign nations.

by Tony Cartalucci

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/syria-nato-genocide-approaches.html

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 30, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

Brian M Downing :Moving towards a military coup in Syria?

The uprising in Syria turned much more violent in the past week and the Bashar al-Assad government is tottering. Civilians have obtained weapons and begun an armed resistance. Syrian soldiers are deserting and forming a Free Syrian Army. While the Arab League on Sunday voted to impose punitive economic and political sanctions on Damascus, fighting is breaking out nationwide between the Sunni majority and Shi’ite minority.

A faltering regime and rising violence often leads to a military coup. They were commonplaces in much of the developing world back in the 1950s and 1960s and a convoluted and incomplete one began in Egypt last fall. Syria is ripe for one now. The Arab

League’s overwhelming approval of sanctions – the first in its 66-year history – increases pressure on Assad.

Deterioration
The Assad government faces violence from several quarters. Civilians in the opposition are arming themselves with weapons brought in from Lebanese markets and western Iraq by the Muslim Brotherhood and smuggling networks which have attached themselves to insurrectionary movements. Syrian security forces can no longer fire into crowds without fear of facing return fire from rooftops and windows. Nor can they move from town to town without fear of attack.

In recent weeks several thousand soldiers – a precise or even rough figure is not yet clear – have deserted the Syrian army and formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Better trained and equipped than the civilian fighting forces, the FSA are mounting attacks on government buildings in Damascus and pulling off deadly ambushes in between restive cities. The heretofore solid support of the armed forces can no longer be relied upon by the government.

Sectarian violence is breaking out in a few cities. The Alawite (Shi’ite) population, from which much of the Assad political, military, and business elite come, is subject to attacks and intimidations. These events will recall the early days of sectarian fighting after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003, which of course devolved into murderous sectarian warfare.

There are still hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis in Syria who fled the warfare and the dismal prospects for their co-religionists in the now Shi’ite-dominated country. Many will eagerly side with Syrian Sunnis against the Shi’ites in and out of the regime. Their ties to the Sunni resistance in Baghdad and Anwar make for a good supply of arms and trained fighters, facilitated by Saudi intelligence.

Approximately 10% of Syria’s 23 million people are Kurds. They have long endured oppression and will likely seek to break away from Northeastern Syria and become part of the Kurdish region in Northern Iraq. Iraqi Kurds took advantage of Saddam’s ouster to break away from Iraq, forming a separate flag, constitution, and army. They are for all practical purposes an independent state and will welcome incorporating a portion of Syria. Northeastern Syria is the location of much of Syria’s oil resources and would make oil-rich Kurdistan all the more wealthy, powerful, and of interest to the West.

The military perspective
Armies are not always the steadfast servants of the government they claim to be. They at times act in their own institutional interests, usually commingling with nebulous ideas of honor and virtue and duty. Most of the Syrian army leadership is dedicated to, and part of, the Assad regime. Loyal officers are rewarded with promotions and upon retirement may expect sinecures in the regime’s business sector (as for example do their colleagues in the Egyptian and Pakistani armies).

Other officers may see their interests shifting away from Damascus as the regime is failing to serve the nation’s interest, particularly as the new sanctions impact on business. It can no longer maintain law and order; indeed, it is the chief cause of unrest. It can no longer guarantee the integrity of national boundaries, and if the oil-producing region were to break away, the nation’s economy would weaken badly. Further, Assad’s rule is leading to the gradual disintegration of the institution the military cares most for – itself.

For the Syrian officer corps, national considerations as well as institutional ones make a military coup desirable. Two scenarios are plausible: an elite group and a more broadly based one.

An elite coup would entail parts of the Assad regime’s military, political, and business notables deposing Assad and perhaps a few high-ranking figures, with or without their permission. Assad would be sent off into exile or confined to some sort of protective custody, although a more definitive removal is possible even by pragmatic loyalists.

Assad is not a strong-willed person or leader. An opthamologist by training, he was not slated to succeed his father to the presidency until his elder brother was killed in an automobile accident in 1994. He was then rapidly groomed for succession with perfunctory positions in the state and army and an attendant publicity campaign.

He worried parts of the regime after he ascended to the presidency in 2000 when he began to enact economic reforms, replacing party apparatchiks with more technically trained experts. Democratic reform in the undetermined future was alluded to. Many older parts of the regime saw him as a threat well before the uprisings last spring and may be ready to oust him.

Such a coup would be presented to the public as a substantive change and as a victory for the public opposition. The new leaders would then appeal for calm and support for the new government. It would appeal to the Alawite minority and others who have benefited from Assad rule over the decades, and perhaps also to others who see the opposition as leading to civil war, sectarian strife, and foreign invasion.

Iran and Hezbollah would welcome such a coup as the only way to retain a sympathetic government in Damascus. Russia and China would be supportive but skeptical as to its viability. The Syrian opposition is unlikely to find such a government as welcome, viable, or even new. In fact, such a move would be a sign of regime weakness. It would only strengthen opposition and accelerate military desertion.

A more plausible coup scenario, if only somewhat, is one based on a broader portion of the officer corps, including high-ranking but sub-elite colonels and generals. These officers see their advancements to the highest ranks blocked off by the regime’s preference for Ba’ath loyalty and Alawite piety. In this respect they could appeal to some in the opposition who also feel stifled by the regime and also to the Sunni majority.

A coup ousting the Alawite, pro-Iran government would be so advantageous to Saudi Arabia that the prospect is likely being diligently pursued by Saudi intelligence in conjunction with Salafist networks inside Syria (and Lebanon) that enjoy Saudi funding. Detaching Syria from longstanding ties to Iran would be a serious blow to Tehran, partially compensating Saudi Arabia for Tehran’s gain from the rise of the Shi’ites in post-Saddam Iraq. It would also join with a Sunni region in western Iraq in opposing Iran and Shi’ite Iraq.

A coup of either sort will be difficult to plan let alone successfully execute. Many dictatorships (Gamal Abdel Nasser, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad) came to power through military coups and constructed safeguards to prevent another ambitious colonel from seizing power the same blunt way. Officers are screened for loyalty and placed under routine surveillance. In times of stress, the regime increases its watch over the officer corps.

Even a coup led by officers genuinely committed to reform and representative government would be regarded with suspicion. The Syrian public, like counterparts around the Arab world, is deeply suspicious of generals purporting to be on their side. They seem to be willing to toss aside a dictator and general or two in order to maintain their high positions if not expand them.

Brian M Downing is a political/military analyst and author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK29Ak01.html

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 29, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

LIES AND TRUTHS ABOUT SYRIA

Lies and truths about Syria

By Thierry Meyssan
Voltaire Network

Created in Paris under French sponsorship, the Syrian National Council aims to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. It is chaired by Burhan Ghalioun, professor of sociology at Sorbonne University (he is seen here with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, 23 November 2011).

For eight months, Western leaders and some public media have been agitating for a war in Syria.

The extremely serious accusations leveled against Assad intimidate those who question the justification for a new military intervention.

But not everyone, because – on the initiative of Voltaire Network – some came to Syria to investigate for themselves and were able to measure the extent of NATO’s propaganda. Thierry Meyssan reports on the state of the media war.

In 1999, during the Kosovo warVoltaire Network was outraged that France could be going to war alongside NATO without a vote from the National Assembly, with the passive complicity of the parliamentary group leaders. We considered that the refusal by the President and the Prime Minister to hold an open debate portended the opacity with which this war would be conducted. So, we took the initiative of publishing a daily bulletin on the conflict.

The Serbian government websites having been immediately destroyed by the Atlantic Alliance, we had no access to the Serbian version of events. In the absence thereof, we took out subscriptions to news agencies in the region (Croatian, Bosnian, Greek, Cypriot, Turkish, Hungarian etc.).

Throughout the conflict, we presented a daily summary of NATO’s press conferences in Brussels and a summary of the reports by journalists from neighboring countries, some of which were engaged in a serious dispute with Serbia, but whose governments gave a mutually consistent account of the events. Eventually, NATO’s version and that of the local journalists drifted apart to the point of having nothing in common.

In the end, we were dealing with two radically different stories. We had no way of knowing who was lying and whether one of the two sources was telling the truth. Our readers had the impression of being schizophrenic, especially since the West European media were relaying exclusively NATO’s version; our readers, therefore, were only exposed to the two parallel versions when reading us. We continued this exercise for the three months of fighting.

When the guns fell silent and it was possible for our colleagues and friends to go there, they noted with astonishment that the “propaganda was not on both sides.” No, NATO’s version was entirely false, while that of the local journalists turned out to be entirely true.

In the months that followed, parliamentary reports were released in several Member States of the Alliance establishing the facts. In addition, several books were published on the method developed by Tony Blair’s media adviser that enabled NATO to manipulate all of the Western press: the “story telling“.

Indeed, it is possible to intoxicate Western journalists en masse and to hide the facts from them if they are told a children’s tale, provided the narrative is never interrupted, that it is charged with references stirring up buried emotions, and that its consistency is maintained.

I did not have the reflex to visit Serbia before the war started and I could not do so after the fighting broke out. However, dear reader, today I am in Syria, where I took the time to investigate and from where I am writing this article. With full knowledge of the facts, I can say that NATO’s propaganda is currently operating in the same way Syria as it did in Serbia.

The Alliance began telling a story out of touch with reality, which aims to justify a “humanitarian military intervention,” according to the oxymoron coined by Blair. The parallel ends there: Slobodan Milosevic was a war criminal who had to be portrayed as a criminal against humanity so that his country could be dismembered; Bashar al-Assad is an opponent of imperialism and Zionism, who backed Hezbollah when Lebanon was under attack and supports Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in their quest for the liberation of the Palestinian homeland.

Four NATO lies

- 1. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, for eight months mass demonstrations have taken place in Syria to demand more freedom and the departure of President Bashar al-Assad.

Not true. There have been demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad’s, in some cities, at the call of Saudi and Egyptian preachers speaking on Al-Jazeera, but which rallied only some 100 000 people at the most. They were not claiming more freedom, but the establishment of an Islamic regime. They demanded the resignation of President al-Assad, not because of his politics, but because these protesters adhere to a sectarian strand of Sunni power, Takfirism, and they accuse Assad of being a heretic (he is Alawi) and of usurping power in a Muslim country, which they claim can only be legitimately governed by a Sunni from their theological school.

- 2. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, the “regime” responded by using live ammunition to disperse the crowd, leaving at least 3,500 dead since the beginning of the year.

Not true. In the first place, it is not possible to suppress demonstrations that never existed. Then, from the outset, the authorities realized that efforts were afoot to provoke sectarian strife in a country where secularism has been the mainstay of the state since the eighth century. Consequently, President Bashar al-Assad prohibited security, police and army forces from using firearms in any circumstance where civilians might get hurt.

The purpose is to prevent that the injuries, or even death, of a person belonging to one creed or the other, be exploited to justify a war of religion. This prohibition is respected by the security forces at the risk of their own lives, as we shall see later. As for the dead, their number should be cut in half. The majority are not civilians, but soldiers and police, as I was able to observe during my visits to hospitals and morgues, both civilian and military.

- 3. After we managed to break the wall of silence and got the big Western media to acknowledge the presence in Syria of death squads from abroad, setting up ambushes against the army and murdering civilians in the heart of the cities, NATO and its Gulf allies reported on the existence of an army of deserters. According to them, a group of military (not police) who had received the order to fire on the crowd allegedly rebelled. They apparently went underground and constituted the Free Syrian Army, already 1500 men-strong.

Not true. The deserters are only a few dozen, having fled to Turkey where they are supervised by an officer associated to the Hakim Rifaat el-Assad/Abdel Khaddam clan, famously linked to the CIA. There is, however, an increasing number of young people who refuse to do military service, more often under pressure from their families than by personal decision. Indeed, those soldiers who are caught in an ambush don’t have the right to use their firearms to defend themselves if civilians are on the scene. They have no choice but to sacrifice their lives if they are unable to escape.

- 4. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, the cycle of revolution/repression has paved the way for the start of a “civil war“. 1.5 million trapped Syrians would be suffering from hunger. It is therefore essential to set up “humanitarian corridors” to deliver food aid and allow civilians to flee the combat zones.

Not true. Considering the number and the cruelty of the attacks by death squads from abroad, population displacement has been minimal. Syria is agriculturally self-sufficient and its productivity has not declined significantly. On the other hand, with most of the ambushes taking place on major roads, traffic is frequently interrupted. Moreover, when attacks spring up inside the cities, merchants shut down their shops immediately.

This results in serious distribution problems, including food. The real issue lies elsewhere: economic sanctions have wrought disaster. While for the past decade Syria had registered a growth of around 5% per year, it can no longer sell its oil to Western Europe and its tourist industry has been hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and income, having to save on everything. They are subsidized by the government, which distributes free food and heating fuel. Under such circumstances, it would be more fitting to say that if it were not for the Al-Assad government, 1.5 million Syrians would be suffering from malnutrition because of Western sanctions.

Ultimately, while we’re still in the stage of unconventional warfare, with the use of mercenaries and special forces to destabilize the country, the narrative spewed out by NATO and its Persian Gulf allies has already strayed from reality. This gap will widen more and more.

As far as you are concerned, dear reader, there is no reason why you should believe me rather than NATO, since you are not on the spot. However, there are several elements that should send up a red flag.

Bernard-Henry Levy, who boasted of having embroiled France in the war on Libya to serve Israel’s interests, told “Le Parisien” that he has a hit list of countries.

Four clues carefully hidden by NATO

- 1. One would think that the charges concerning the alleged repression and the number of victims were carefully looked into. But not at all. They originated from a single source: the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, based in London, whose leaders demand anonymity. What is the validity of such grave accusations if they are not cross-checked and why do institutions such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights rubber stamp them without verifying their authenticity?

- 2. Russia and China vetoed a draft Security Council resolution meant to pave the way for an international military intervention. NATO political leaders have forlornly explained that the Russians are protecting their naval base at Tartus and that the Chinese will do anything to scrape together a few barrels of oil. Should we accept the Manichean view that Washington, London and Paris are guided by good intentions, while Moscow and Beijing are essentially selfish and insensitive to the martyrdom of the population? How to avoid noticing that Russia and China have much less of an interest in defending Syria than Westerners have in destroying it?

- 3. It is somewhat bizarre to observe who makes up the coalition of so-called well-intentioned states. How can it escape anyone’s notice that the two main sustainers of the Arab League and promoters of the “democratization” of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are puppet dictatorships in lockstep with the United States and the United Kingdom? Should not one wonder how credible the West can be – after having successively ravaged Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and killing more than 1, 2 million people in ten years, thus showing how little value they attach to human life – when it waves a humanitarian banner?

- 4. To avoid being manipulated on the events unfolding in Syria, the best thing is to put them in context. For NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, whose armies invaded Yemen and Bahrain to savagely quell peaceful demonstrations, the “Syrian Revolution” is an extension of the “Arab spring“, perceived by them as peoples in the region who dream of a market democracy and the comfort of the American Way of Life.

On their part, the Russians and Chinese, apace with the Venezuelans and the South Africans, recognize the events in Syria as the continuation of Washington’s plan “to remodel the Greater Middle East“, which has already claimed 1.2 million lives and which anyone truly concerned about protecting human lives must strive to put an end to. They haven’t forgotten that on 15 September 2001, President George W. Bush green-lighted a plan to wage seven wars.

Preparations for the attack on Syria formally began on 12 December 2003 with the adoption of the Syrian Accountability Act in the wake of the fall of Baghdad. Since that day, the president of the United States – today Barack Obama – is under an order from Congress to attack Syria and is dispensed from any further clearance before launching hostilities.

Therefore, the question is not whether NATO has found a divine justification for going to war, but whether Syria will find a way out of this situation, in the same way she outmaneuvered all the previous pitfalls and defamatory accusations leveled against her, such as the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the Israeli raid against an imaginary nuclear military plant.

Western mainstream media testify

At the end of this article, I would like to underscore that Voltaire Network facilitated a press visit to Syria, organized at the initiative of the Catholic Information Center of Middle East Christians, as part of the opening towards Western media announced by President al-Assad at the Arab League.

We assisted mainstream journalists to travel to combat zones. At first, our colleagues were wary of our presence, both because they had negative preconceived ideas about us to us and because they thought we were trying to brainwash them.

They eventually came to realize that we are normal people and that the fact of having chosen our camp did not mean we had renounced our critical spirit. In the end, though still convinced of NATO’s benevolence and while failing to share our commitment to anti-imperialist, they opened their eyes and ears to the truth.

Currently, their reports honestly reflect the actions perpetrated by the armed gangs that are terrorizing the country. Of course, they have refrained from openly contradicting the Atlantic version and tried to reconcile it with what they saw and heard, which called for some awkward contortions around the concept of a ’civil war’ allegedly pitting the Syrian army against foreign mercenaries.

Nevertheless, reports by Télévision Belge (RTBF) and La Libre Belgique, to name a few, now clearly reveal that for eight months NATO has masked the actions of death squads and falsely attributed their crimes to the Syrian authorities.

Source : “Lies and truths about Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 28 November 2011,www.voltairenet.org/a171975

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 29, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

DEBKAfile -Arab sanctions find Syria’s 7 neighbors on alert. Russian missiles for Assad

Arab sanctions find Syria‘s 7 neighbors on alert. Russian missiles for Assad

Russian Yakhont blockade breaker

Twenty-four hours before the Arab League Sunday, Nov. 27, clamped down sanctions on the Assad regime, the first ever against a member state, the armies of Syria’s seven neighbors were already scrambling into position on standby on its borders for acts of retaliation. Military suspense mounted after the Arab League vote to cut off transactions with Syria’s central bank, withdraw Arab funding from projects and other painful sanctions over Bashar Assad’s refusal to halt his crackdown on protest.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report Israeli armored brigades pushed forward up to the Lebanese and Syrian borders; Ankara placed three armored brigades, its air force and navy in astate of preparedness, likewise Hizballah and the Lebanese and Jordanian armed forces, while the US and Russia are in the midst of a naval buildup opposite Syrian shores.

Military sources in the Gulf report that 150 Iranian Revolutionary Guards specialists had landed at a military airport south of Damascus on their way to Lebanon to join Hizballah which began bringing its rockets out of  their hideouts.

Ahead of the Arab League vote, Qatar and Turkey were reported to be airlifting “volunteers” from Libya to fight alongside the rebel Free Syrian Army, some also transporting weapons, whereas Russia has begun another airlift to deliver top-notch missiles for Assad’s forces.
Our sources report the two key items are advanced Pantsir-1 (SA-22 Greyhound) anti-air missiles for breaking a no-fly zone against most types of aircraft should one be imposed and supersonic Yakhont (SS-26) missiles for targeting vessels blockading Syria’s shores at a distance of 300 kilometers.
On Nov. 25, DEBKAfile reported:

Israeli and Jordanian armed forces declared a state of preparedness Friday, Nov. 25, after the Syrian General Command accused an “armed terrorist” group of an ambush killing 10 airmen including 6 elite pilots on the Homs-Palmyra road Thursday, “with the involvement of foreign parties, the foremost of which is Israel.”

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report the ambush was another of the major operations against Assad regime’s most sensitive targets executed by the Free Syrian Army this week.

It took place at a point on the highway east of Palmyra on the fringe of the Syrian Desert and close to the Syrian Air Force base at Tiyas.

The official statement aired on Syrian state TV said the attack claimed the lives of six elite pilots, one technical officer and three technical sub-officers of the airbase.
Our sources add that the rebel army must have penetrated the highest levels of Syria’s military intelligence command for the attack and was clearly receiving targeting data from inside the armed forces.
The attack took place two days after the Free Syrian Army using rocket grenade launchers and heavy machine guns smashed into the Air Force Intelligence base of Harasta near Damascus, killing at least 10 Syrian troops. The ruling Baath party headquarters in Damascus was also attacked on Thursday.

The official statement broadcast Friday described the pilots as “qualitatively trained in piloting modern military aircraft” and “prepared to carry out “the sacred duty of liberating the land and restoring the usurped rights.”

It went on to say: “The General Command… considers that the beneficiaries of this terrorist act are the enemies of the homeland and the nation, foremost being Israel.”

The Syrian military vowed “to cut every evil hand that targets Syrian blood, and decisively confront all who threaten the homeland’s security and stability.”

The 24-hour lapse between the attack and the official statement indicated the level of dismay and confusion in Damascus over the sudden assault on the most stalwart buttress of the Assad dynasty in the nine-month crisis and a body blow to his regime.

Bashar Assad cannot afford to avoid retaliating. If he does, it will be an admission that the backbone of his armed forces is falling apart and out of control.

Since there is no knowing what form his revenge will take, Israel, Jordan and most likely Turkey too were braced Friday for trouble.

Assad no doubt took into account that bombing Free Syrian Army training bases across the border in Turkey would bring forth a Turkish military strike. So for now, he decided to point the finger at Israel, a reliable standby when the regime has its back to the wall. Jordan, through which large arms supplies reach the Syrian opposition, may seem to Damascus to be easy prey for the bombardment or raid of bases hosting Syrian rebels.
In the heat of the crisis, the Syrian ruler allowed the deadline set by the Arab League of his acceptance of hundreds of monitors go by Friday without an answer. “It is a last chance, a new chance for Syria,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters in Istanbul at a joint news conference with his Jordanian counterpart Nasser Judeh. By missing the deadline, Damascus faces possible economic sanctions spearheaded by the Arab League, which earlier this month suspended Syrian membership, amid growing international isolation.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 27, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya   Global Research November 26, 2011

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.

The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.

Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…

Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time. Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House. Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University). A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors. A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus

The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011. The 1996 document states: “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.” [1]

As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.” The authors write: “But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And 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.” [2]

Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures. The document states: “[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3] This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.

The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4] This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]

The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria. It states: “Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6] With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.

In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means for balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

There are unknown snippers who are targeting Syrian civilians and the Syrian Army with a view of causing chaos and internal fighting. The Christian communities in Syria are also being targeted by unknown groups. It is very likely that the attackers are a coalition of U.S., French, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and Khalij (Gulf) Arab forces working with some Syrians on the inside.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It has been reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be either the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region or demarcate them into enclaves. Both could be objectives.

This project is meant to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations and falls into accordance with both the Yinon Plan and the geo-political objectives of the U.S. to control Eurasia. A major war may be its outcome. Arab Christians now have a lot in common with black-skinned Arabs.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In regards to Africa, Tel Aviv sees securing Africa as part of its broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” became a basis of geo-strategy for Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” against the Arabs that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies during the Pahlavi period, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” was conceptualized with the inclusion of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya against the Arab states and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is why Israel has been so deeply involved in the balkanization of Sudan.

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; and, finally, (3) religion. To secure the realm, it also so happens that the the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the Israeli think-tank that included Perle, also pushed for the creating of the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.  The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

After Iraq and Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic are both important points of regional destabilization in North Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. What happens in Libya will have rippling effects on Africa, as what happens in Syria will have rippling effects on Southeast Asia and beyond. Both Iraq and Egypt, in connection with what the Yinon Plan states, have acted as primers for the destabilization of both these Arab states.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [9] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [10] Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [11]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning writer from Ottawa, Canada. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.

NOTES

[1] Richard Perle et al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), 1996.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Barak Ravid, “Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran,” Haaretz, June 1, 2009.
[6] Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[7] Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, September 30, 2009.
[8] Richard Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[9] Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[10] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
[11] Ibid.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 26, 2011 in Uncategorized

 

Naval Airpower Expo, prelude to Syrian Desert Fox

 

aircraft carrier…
…vs. the Russian
Kuznetsov aircraft carrier
***


The naval build up along Syrian shores, where the latest move is Russia‘s last ditch attempt to match the slight naval deployment the USA has deployment, cannot decide the faith of the doomed Syrian regime, the Iranian contagion or the Petroleum supply side since Syria simply lacks any i.e. the year 2002 declaration by which Petroleum would have been found in Syria simply excused Iraqi Petroleum deliveries by road from Iraq. Iran isn’t going to respond since this American direct power projection has already denied it of its only strategic asset abroad, shrinking its line of defense down to its Petroleum refineries, i.e. from the foreign diggings in Lebanon back to a genuine bunker mentality at home.


Each of the two navies has deployed deployed a single aircraft carrier,thus sufficient for fleet defense rather not for amassing an attack by means of naval air power.While the American Frigates are focused on Tomahawk launch capabilities,then the Russian ones are primarily focused on ring fencing the Russian deployments of air-defense Radar systems throughout Syria, which are being revitalized of late within larger context of S-300 SAM and Yakhont anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles.


The American MOP(Mode of Operation) here is reminiscent of the year 1998 Desert Fox power-projection campaign against the Iraqi Baath political Party by means of cruise-missile (Tomahawk) based bombardment. This time round it is pitted against the Syrian Baath political Party i.e. Assad’s regime. 


The Russian move repeats its deeds during the aftermath of the Israeli strike on the Syrian nuclear infrastructure in year 2007: production, launch capabilities and deployments. 


This isn’t effective against the present host of threats to Syrian defenses:
1. Tomahawk barrages from Sea and Air e.g. B52 on long haul flights.
2. Turkish invasion under the crawling umbrella of Patriot SAM batteries, 
    following the pattern of an attrition war, which is the optimal MOP 
    against under armed Arab dictators.
3. Any western raids via Jordan.
4. USA armored columns progressing from Iraq in to Damascus,
    via its unprotected eastern flank.
5. Ha & H3 airbases in Iraq’s corner facing Syria and Jordan.


Russia is about to loose the Indian Naval airpower market,which it has dominated with Su-33 & Mig29 MKI when a western European winner is declared in the MMRCA contest: either the French Rafale or theEurofighter Typhoon. Thus flexing its military-industrial complex muscles vs. those of the USA promotes the existential interests of both overseas counterparts like it was during the ‘Cold War’ era. For Russia the defense exports are its sole large scale industrial exports sector, thus it is obliged to make a loud international presence.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2011 in Uncategorized