Quantcast
Channel: Respect: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM – سلام القدس عليكم
Viewing all 27504 articles
Browse latest View live

“Lest We Forget” The Day Rachel Corrie Died

$
0
0
24 Feb 2014
Rachel Corrie was killed March 16, 2003, by an Israeli soldier who crushed her to death with an American-built Caterpillar bulldozer.
Eleven years later, March 16, 2014, on the anniversary of her death, Rachel Corrie (right) will be remembered by her family and friends.
She will also be remembered on this anniversary, by those who celebrate and cherish a young American woman who said no to Israel’s occupation and no to the constant attacks on Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian homes.

What happened when an American citizen was killed by an Israeli soldier driving an American-built bull dozer? Mother Jones had Israel’s official reaction in 2003:
“The Israeli government, which rarely acknowledges the deaths of Palestinian civilians killed during its military operations, went into damage-control mode. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised President Bush a “thorough, credible, and transparent investigation.” Later Israel declared the killing a “regrettable accident” and blamed it on overzealous Corrie and the other activists working as human shields.”
Subsequent calls for Congress to investigate Rachel Corrie’s death were ignored. A civil lawsuit brought by her family against the Israeli military, was introduced in Israeli courts, March 15, 2005. The Israeli justice system responded slowly.
Seven years after the suit was filed, and nine years after Rachel Corrie’s death, an Israeli court reached a final verdict. Robert Mackey, a New York Times blogger reported:
As my colleagues Jodi Rudoren and Danielle Ziri report, an Israeli judge ruled on Tuesday that the state bore no responsibility for the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to block the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza.
Ms. Corrie, who was a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., joined the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement in January 2003, and was killed two months later in the Gazan town of Rafah, which straddles the border with Egypt.
Photographs published by The Electronic Intifada on March 16, 2003, the day she died, showed that Ms. Corrie confronted heavily armored bulldozers that day wearing a bright orange vest and, until a few minutes before her death, using a bullhorn to amplify her voice. The same Web site also published sworn affidavits recorded within days of the deadly incident by three other international activists who were present when Ms. Corrie was killed.International Solidarity Movement AP.Cjpg
One of those witnesses, a Briton named Tom Dale, sent the following statement to The Lede on Tuesday from Cairo, where he now works as a journalist:
“The verdict in Rachel’s case is saddening for all those who knew Rachel, and for all who believe in what she stood for. It should be disappointing for all those who want to see justice done in Israel and Palestine.
On March 16, 2003, Rachel could not have been more visible: standing, on a clear day, in the open ground, wearing a high visibility vest. On that day, she had been in the presence of the Caterpillar D9 bulldozers used by the Israeli army for some hours.
She was standing in front of the home of a young family which was under threat of demolition by a bulldozer. Many homes were demolished in such a way at that time, and Rachel was seeking to protect her friends, with whom she had lived.”
In the picture at right above, shocked friends from the International Solidarity Movement try to revive a dying colleague. The blue bull dozer continues on its mission to destroy a Palestinian family home.
The juxtaposition of the anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s death and AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference, March 1-4, is repeated each year in Washington, DC. It is a coincidence of timing that epitomizes our nation’s shame.
American media rarely takes note of the March 16 anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s death. But it will provide ample coverage of AIPAC’s annual celebration of the long time love affair between Israel and the U.S. Congress.
Over 400 members of Congress are expected to attend this year’s conference. Some of the representatives and senators will be granted the honor of gaining additional media exposure when speaking to the assembled AIPAC members..
In return for their unswerving obsequiousness, these members of Congress pocket campaign cash contributions and perhaps more importantly, they take home a guaranteed AIPAC PPP (political protection plan).
The plan protects incumbents against primary opponents. The plan also guarantees campaign strategists who comb an opponent’s record for the slightest action or statement available to reshape and brand with the deadly anti-semitic designation.
Religious groups, like the Presbyterian Church USA’s Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN), operate without the protection of AIPAC’s political protection plan. So it was that when the IPMN produced an excellent and well-researched study guide (complete with DVD), appropriately named Zionism Unsettled, a storm of protest rose against them.
Modern Israel’s claim to the lands of Judea and Samaria is rooted in a political ideology called Zionism, a political movement formed in the late 19th century. It is not a biblical promise from the time of Jesus.
The  Zionism Unsettled study guide has both Christian and Jewish Zionists “unsettled”.
ZU-cover_DVD cChris Leighton, Executive Director of the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies, produced an “open letter” on February 6, attacking his fellow Presbyterians for not uniting Zionism and Judaism..
He begins:
The Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) and their allies have once again mounted initiatives that advance an extremist posture with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli impasse. Their agenda threatens to polarize our community, betray relationships with our Jewish colleagues, and ultimately undermine our credibility as “peacemakers.”
Brant Rosen, a congregational rabbi from Evanston, IL, began his response to Leighton on Rosen’s blog, Shalom Rav:
I believe your characterization of my sacred tradition is incorrect – and dangerously so. It is prejudicial in the extreme to equate Zionism with Judaism itself.
Zionism – that is, the movement to create a Jewish nation-state in historic Palestine – is in fact a political movement that was born in 19th century Europe.
As such, it was a conscious and radical break with centuries of Jewish tradition that strongly cautioned against the establishment of an independent Jewish state in the land.
While it is certainly true, as you write, that the yearning for a “return to Zion” is suffused throughout Jewish tradition, it is important to note that this yearning was pointedly directed toward a far off messianic future.
Rabbi Rosen closed his blog posting:
At the very least, there is a growing desire to allow non-Zionist voices to be part of the Jewish communal debate once more.
One notable bellwether of this phenomenon may be found in the Swarthmore Hillel student board’s recent unanimous decision to defy the guidelines of Hillel International and declare itself an “Open Hillel.” In a statement accompanying their resolution, these Jewish students noted:
“All are welcome to walk through our doors and speak with our name and under our roof, be they Zionist, anti-Zionist, post-Zionist, or non-Zionist. We are an institution that seeks to foster spirited debate, constructive dialogue, and a safe space for all, in keeping with the Jewish tradition.”
I trust you would never suggest that these Jewish students are driven by “anti-Semitism.” On the contrary, they are clearly motivated by sacred Jewish values and a courageous refusal to reduce Jewish identity to one political ideology.
The usually cautious J Street, which wants to be a friendly version of AIPAC, also weighed in against IPMN’s study guide. Ali Abunimah covered J Street’s surprisingly unfriendly reaction to Zionism Unsettled.
The Israel lobby group J Street has launched a blistering attack on the Presbyterian Church USA over its new study guide Zionism Unsettled, claiming that the publication promotes “polarization” and “intolerance.”
Zionism Unsettled, published last month by the church’s Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN), is a 74-page study guide examining the role Zionism and Christian Zionism have played in shaping attitudes and events in Palestine and its region.
It is intended to help church congregations and others to learn and talk about Zionism and the devastating impact the practice of the ideology has had on Palestinians, as The Electronic Intifada previously reported.
In a statement yesterday, J Street said it was “deeply offended” by Zionism Unsettled, asserting that “one has to question the IPMN’s motives in publishing this ‘resource.’”
J Street claimed the guide’s authors “had no intention of encouraging thoughtful reflection on Zionism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Jewish perspectives on Israel. Instead, reductive and divisive thinking of this kind exacerbates polarization and intolerance, both of which are not in short supply in this conflict.”
When even the usually cautious J Street feels the need to vilify a highly respected Christian group like IPMN, it becomes obvious that the false linkage of Zionism, a political ideology, with classical religious Judaism, is a sagging reed on which the Zionists now attempt to lean.
Zionism Unsettled explains why that sagging reed will no longer bear the weight Zionists put upon it.
Rudyard Kipling wrote his poem, Recessional, on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897.
Wikipedia reminds us that “The poem defied the celebratory mood of the time, offering instead a reminder of the transient nature of British Imperial power.
In the poem, Kipling argues that boasting and jingoism, faults of which he was often accused, were inappropriate and vain in light of the permanence of God.”
The first four verses of the poem repeat the line, “Lest we forget, Lest we forget”. The poem is often sung as a hymn in Christian churches.
Rachel Corrie was defying an American/Israeli empire when she stood against the destruction of a Palestinian home on March 16, 2003.
Here is verse three from Kipling’s Recessiona:
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
Rachel Corrie, “lest we forget, lest we forget”.
The picture of Rachel Corrie at top is a Getty Image. The picture of Rachel Corrie lying on the field after she was struck by the bull dozer, is from the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. 

Police State Ukraine

$
0
0
February 25th, 2014
by Stephen Lendman

My PhotoWhat kind of government establishes itself by force? What kind does it extrajudicially?

What kind of legitimacy do ultranationalist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi, anti-Semites have? What kind substitutes unrestrained coercion for rule of law principles? What kind rules by intimidation?

What kind eliminates all political opposition? What kind bans all opposition information and opinions? The same kind substituting fascist dictatorship for democracy.

On Saturday, Ukrainian freedom died. Fascist extremism replaced it. Coup plotters seized power. They did so extrajudicially. They began consolidating rule straightaway.

previous article discussed it. Hardline extremists control parliament. An illegitimate temporary president was installed. New ministry heads were appointed.

Terror, fear and uncertainty grip Ukraine. Most people don't realize they were had. Anti-government supporters were deceived. Power-grabbing Western-supported fascists now run things.

Democratic governance is gone. Police state lawlessness replaced it. Ukrainian was declared the sole official language. Russian was recognized earlier.

Nearly 30% of Ukrainians consider Russian their mother tongue. Expect recognition of other regional languages to be ended.

On Sunday, the 2012 On State Language Policy law was rescinded. It lets regions declare their own official languages along with Ukrainian.

Many Ukrainians are multilingual. Tatar is widely spoken in Crimea. Oleh Tyahnybok heads Ukraine's neo-Nazi Svoboda party.

He wants use of Russian language criminalized. He wants ethnic Russians stripped of their citizenship.

He wants them denied all rights. He wants them treated like Israel treats Palestinians.

Russian TV channels were banned. Expect greater control over all media content. Expect total information control. Police states operate this way. Opposition isn't tolerated.

Fascist parliamentarians drafted legislation banning the Communist party and former ruling Party of Regions.

On Monday, Rada member Oleg Lyashko said:
"I've already registered the relevant resolution with the parliament. (T)he Party of Regions together with their partners, the Communists, is to blame in the current developments in the country."

Whether this legislation passes remains to be seen. Introducing it suggests other police laws to follow.

Arrest warrants were issued for President Viktor Yanukovych, Party of Regions ministers, and law enforcement officials. Around 50 individuals are targeted.
Some went into hiding for protection. Yanukovych went to Kharkov. It's in Eastern Ukraine. It's close to Russia's border. He has lots of supporters there.

He's a marked man. His life is in danger. So is anyone opposing fascist rule.

Russia's Foreign Ministry expressed concern. It issued a statement saying:
"The position of some of our Western partners doesn't show genuine concern, but a desire to act out of geopolitical self-interest."
"There is no condemnation of criminal actions by extremists, including manifestations of neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism. In fact, these are being encouraged."
"(O)utside sponsors (support) regime change." They reject "national consensus."
"We urge those embroiled in the crisis in Ukraine to show responsibility, and to prevent further deterioration of the situation, to return to the rule of law, and to stop extremists in their bid for power."
Paramilitary thugs in improvised body armor patrol Kiev streets. They do so with baseball bats and shields. They intimidate anyone challenging them.

They still occupy government buildings. Russia's Foreign Ministry said "they continue to carry out acts of violence."

They're enacting laws extrajudicially. They're doing so with a quorum of fascist deputies and Party of Regions defectors.

They mock historical monuments. The "Soviet Soldier" commemorating collective sacrifice against Nazi invaders was toppled in western Ukraine's Stryi, Lviv Oblast (province).

Two dozen Lenin statues were taken down. Dnepropetrovsk's Lenin Square was renamed Heroes of Maidan Square.

Kharkov's UBR TV aired Yanukovych's prerecorded message. "Everything that is happening today is, to a greater degree, about vandalism, bandits and a coup d'etat," he said.

He called what's ongoing Ukraine's greatest crisis since Hitler usurped power.
"We now see the same things that were (happening) in the 1930s," he said. Nazis established dictatorial rule. Opposition political parties were outlawed.

"It's the same now," said Yanukovych. They banned the former ruling party. They "stalk, beat people, (and) burn down offices."

Elements in charge are ultranationalist neo-Nazis. They're allied with likeminded extremists. Hooliganism continues.

Russia's Foreign Ministry accused them of using "revolutionary justification to "forbid (using) Russian language entirely, encourage a lustration, liquidate (opposition) parties," silence media they disapprove of, "and remove the limitations on neo-Nazi propaganda."

Moscow recalled its ambassador. On Monday, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said:
"We do not understand what is going on there. (A) real threat to our interests (exists) and to the lives and health of our citizens."

Coup plotters have no legitimacy, he added. He expressed concern over Western leaders supporting what's ongoing.

"Strictly speaking, today there is no one there to communicate with." he said. "The legitimacy of a number of power bodies is in huge doubt."

"If you consider people in black masks strolling through Kiev with Kalashnikov rifles (representing) a government, then it will be difficult for us to work with such a government," he stressed.

"Some our foreign, western partners hold the opposite opinion. They think these people (are) legitimate power bodies."
"I do not know what constitution and what laws they have been reading, but I hold that it is some sort of conscience aberration when you call something legitimate while in reality it is a result of a mutiny."

Ukraine's future is very much up for grabs. Perhaps balkanization looms. One or more regional authorities may split from Kiev.

Eastern Ukraine, especially Crimea, are likely candidates. They're pro-Russian. Vladimir Putin once called Soviet Russia's dissolution modern history's greatest tragedy.

He expressed most concern about Ukraine. It was part of Russia's heartland, its breadbasket and gateway to the West. Crimea is home to its Black Sea Fleet. It's too strategically important to lose.

If eastern Ukrainian regions reject coup d'etat rule, Russia may likely support them. Quiet diplomacy may help them split away.

Two, three or more Ukraines may result. What happens going forward bears close watching.

Professor Mark Almond believes Ukraine's crisis may have wider impact than most people expect.

It's "a mistake to think we are watching from a safe distance," he said. "(N)ot since the 1850s (Crimean War) has" Ukraine and Western countries "come so close to colliding with Russia."

Eastern Ukraine opposes coup plotters deposing Yanukovych. Possible civil war worries Almond. "But what makes the crisis so dangerous is the international dimension," he stresses.

Ukraine is hugely important for Moscow. Washington wants it part of NATO. It shares a 1,400 kilometer border with Russia.

Imagine US bases close by. Imagine first-strike, nuclear-armed, long-range missiles on alert. What follows remains to be seen. According to Almond:
"If political and economic chaos leads to civil war...Yugoslavia's break-up would seem like a vicarage tea party" by comparison.

Doing so could ignite an East-West confrontation. Eastern Ukraine, especially Crimea, may be Moscow's red line.

Crossing it could be a point of no return. The fullness of time will tell if Washington tries. Imagine risking WW III if Obama dares. He bit off more than he can chew. He's got a tiger by the tail.

Fascist extremists usurped power. On Friday, Right Sector ultranationalist Aleksandr Muzychko said "I'll be fighting Jews and Russians till I die."
It's leader, Dmitry Yarosh, is unapologetically fascist. He and likeminded extremists formed militias. They control Kiev. They have much to say about policies going forward.

Francis Boyle calls events in Ukraine "a brownshirt revolution...Rabid Russia haters like Zbignew Brzezinski and (Islamophobe) Richard Pipes" planned it," he said.

Brzezinski wants Russia balkanized, he believes. He wants it split in about "68 parts." He was Obama's mentor at Columbia University.

He staffed his administration with acolytes and proteges like departing US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. He's a neocon connected to Stanford University's Hoover Institute.

Boyle calls him a "color revolution specialist." He quoted former US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz saying "(w)e are going to get into the business of destroying states."

He had all independent ones in mind. Syria is in the eye of the storm. So are Ukraine and Venezuela. Iran's turn awaits.

Hegemons stop at nothing for unchallenged power. How much Ukraine's crisis escalates further remains to be seen.

A possible major East-West confrontation could follow. Imagine risking what no responsible leader would dare. Global wars start this way.
-###-
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays 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

A New Neocon Push for Syrian War

$
0
0



The neocon agenda of “regime change” in disfavored countries continues unabated with new pressure for a U.S. military intervention in Syria, billed as “humanitarian” and coupled with ridicule for anyone who favors the frustrating course of diplomacy, as ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley explains.


The propaganda that continues to flourish for war on Syria shows many Americans fail to understand the problems posed by “U.S. Empire-building” believing it to be an altruistic force, toppling other governments and starting wars for the good of all mankind.
Two recent articles in the New York Times: “Use Force To Save Starving Syrians” and “U.S. Scolds Russia as It Weighs Options on Syrian War“ are typical of the concerted efforts underway to ramp up U.S. military intervention despite overwhelming opposition voiced by Congress and the American public thwarting Obama’s plan to bomb Syria announced in late August last year.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Aug. 30, 2013, claims to have proof that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but that evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited. [State Department photo]
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Aug. 30, 2013, claimed to have proof that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but that evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited. [State Department photo]
The “U.S. Weighs Options” news piece is easier to expose since it employs an obviously twisted and one-sided reporting lens that puts the primary blame on Russia for the violent conflict in Syria. It was apparently fed to Michael R. Gordon and his NYT colleagues by anonymous Administration officials as well as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the neocon think tank nefariously founded by the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to deceptively appear to be independent of its parent. (AIPAC has been revealed by scholars as the most powerful force in recent decades on U.S. foreign policy, repeatedly pushing the U.S. into wars for Israel.)

It should be recalled that Gordon himself is the same NYT reporter who gave a big assist back in 2002 to Judith Miller, notoriously collaborating with Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide Scooter Libby and other neoconservatives to gin up war on Iraq by writing false front page stories about Saddam’s WMD.

Unfortunately Gordon never was held accountable (in contrast to Miller who was eventually forced out of the NYT and even did some jail time for refusing to testify about one of Libby’s other illegal leaks). It’s therefore not surprising that Gordon and others continue to carry water and blatantly skew the facts for AIPAC and the neocons.

The other push for increased military intervention in Syria, however, could be categorized as “neo-lib.” The “Use Force…” op-ed by long-time advocates of “Right to Protect (R2P)” who want Syrian regime change, Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi, current heads of the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies, is even more insidious. As Professor Rob Prince explains in his insightful counterpoint, “Military Humanitarian Intervention: the Shock Doctrine Applied to Syria:”

“In calling for military intervention in Syria — something not even the U.S. military itself is particularly enthusiastic about — Hashemi and Postel cozy up, as they have before on Iran in 2009 and Libya in 2011, with the likes of AIPAC, along with this country’s band of intrepid and misdirected neoconservatives. These are the same elements that pushed this country into invading Iraq and continue to push the Obama Administration to intervene militarily in Syria.”
Close examination of the facts – rather than shock doctrine emotion – is indeed required because R2P is based on a form of ends-justify-the means, concocted utilitarianism, i.e. Orwellian-type propositions that killing can save lives, that war can bring human rights, democracy and peace. It’s not different from the prevalent argument that torture can be justified as saving lives or “we must destroy the village to save it,” designed to prey on people’s emotions instead of facilitating critical thinking based on actual facts or research.
These two writers urging U.S. military force admit “political interests” typically lie behind R2P interventions.  But they fail to recognize how their own long-standing political interest in toppling the current Syrian government undercuts their own claimed morality mantel. It also casts doubt on their suggestion that such force and aerial bombardment would be used evenhandedly against both Syrian regime forces and/or rebel militias, upon whichever side blocks the delivery of food and humanitarian supplies.

Any “humanitarian” proposal emanating from Obama and Kerry who similarly announced “Assad must go” from early on would naturally face equal skepticism.  Russia and China certainly remember how they were deliberately misled in UN Security Council discussions to not veto what then U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice sold as a limited “no fly zone” humanitarian mission to protect Libyans in Benghazi but which morphed within days of that vote into thousands of NATO bombing sorties over six months to take out Qaddafi and force regime change upon Libya.
In the case of Libya, a right to “protect” turned out to mean the right to destroy. That probably explains why Postel-Hashemi do not point to Libya as their precedent for R2P success but, rather bizarrely, to Somalia and “Black Hawk Down.”

It’s long been observed that “truth is the first casualty of war.” So fact-checking is needed when these R2P-regime change proponents point to the “humanitarian nightmare in Syria — replete with refugee flows, sarin gas, barrel bombs, and ‘industrial-scale’ killings and torture, (which have) horrified the world.”

BOMBSHELL: Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Lied on Syria Gas Attack - See more at: http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/12/bombshell-seymour-hersh-alleges-obama-lied-on-syria-gas-attack/#sthash.HTdNG9VM.dpuf

Facts are inherently scarce in the fog of war enveloping Syrian atrocities. Eventually truth may emerge. But for starters, very little solid evidence exists as to who was responsible for the sarin attack on Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013. Despite John Kerry’s initially bold claims that the U.S. possessed “undeniable” evidence that Assad’s forces were responsible “beyond any reasonable doubt,” Seymour Hersh and other investigative journalists have reported that U.S. intelligence was never conclusive. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Deceiving the US Public on Syria.”

Evidence does exist of a few hundred Syrians dying in the August chemical attack but the (overly precise) figure the U.S. cited of 1,429 victims is now widely viewed as exaggerated since it stemmed from a sloppy, rushed counting of shrouded images in various videos by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The U.N. too has already backtracked on several of its original key findings about this sarin attack. Whatever bits of intelligence the U.S. does possess remain classified and secret to this day so it’s hard to assess but, at very least, the trajectory “vector  analysis” – referred to by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and relied upon by the NYT and Human Rights Watch (HRW) – has been significantly discredited.

The NYT had to print a retraction of its initial map showing trajectories of sarin-loaded missiles traveling 9 kilometers after it was determined the range of the actual missiles used was no more than 2.5 kilometers. The NYT's and HRW's concocted maps were further undercut by the fact that no sarin was found at the site of the supposed missile landing in Moadamiya, south of Damascus. The only rocket tested and found to be carrying sarin was the one that landed in Zalmalka/Ein Tarma, east of Damascus.

HRW’s errors and, even worse, their failure to admit these errors when they knew their map was being relied upon to justify U.S. bombing of Syria, also calls their agenda into question.  HRW’s hypocrisy using human rights as a pretext for military intervention and its directors’ conflicts of interests is documented elsewhere.

In late January 2014, two weapons experts challenged the ballistic data, concluding ”that under no circumstances can Syria be held accountable for the massacre” (see Flawed US intelligence on Ghouta massacre based on MIT report: “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013″)

War crimes should, of course, always be brought to light and prosecuted. But the recent “smoking gun” report accusing Assad and conveniently made public just when the Geneva II peace negotiations were getting underway is suspicious on many levels. Reportedly commissioned and funded by Qatar, a country arming and funding Syria’s rebels, the report lacks independent, unbiased sources and omits evidence of war crimes being committed by rebel factions in Syria. (Also see “Is Syrian peace conference laying the foundation for war?“)
It’s no secret that the U.S. has a long history of toppling governments that it doesn’t like, even democratically elected ones. And Syria is not the only place right now where the official goal is regime change! The coup orchestration department is working overtime these days with reports of U.S. attempts to topple governments in Venezuela and Ukraine.

(U.S. meddling in the latter, despite the complexity of the situation — see here and here, was recently confirmed through interceptions of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, formerly Dick Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy advisor and married to neocon Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century.)

The use (abuse) of human rights law as justification for orchestrating such “regime changes” in Syria and around the world exemplifies a dangerous form of hypocrisy as it serves to deprive these international principles of legitimacy.

As retired CIA analyst Paul Pillar recently wrote, it is a mistake to see “the United States as an omnipotent global savior or policeman. We ought to bear this principle in mind in contemplating policy about problems anywhere on the globe. It certainly should be borne in mind with the Middle East, where there is a still fairly recent history of forceful U.S. action doing more harm than good…”

Coleen Rowley is a retired FBI agent and former chief division counsel in Minneapolis. She’s now a dedicated peace and justice activist and board member of the Women Against Military Madness and works with the Veterans for Peace chapter in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [This story previously appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus and will appear in the next issue of the Veterans for Peace newsletter.]

Israeli Occupation Police Storm Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque - Hezbollah Salutes Palestinian People, Calls on It to Restore Resistance Position

$
0
0
Hezbollah Salutes Palestinian People, Calls on It to Restore Resistance Position
Local Editor
Hezbollah considered, in a statement, that the Zionist entity utilizes the political conditions in the region to carry out its project of demolishing al-Aqsa Mosque and Judaizing Jerusalem.Hezbollah

The statement added that the Israeli enemy enjoys a continuous Arab and international cover for all its terrorist practices against the Palestinians, taking into consideration and benefiting from the fact that the regional countries are involved in local crises.

Hezbollah further emphasized that the Palestinian resistance is the only party which is able to face the plots and the crimes of Israeli army, calling on all the Palestinians to restore their role of resistance against the Zionist enemy.

Pointing out that storming Aqsa Mosque by the Zionist settlers has become a regular issue, Hezbollah saluted the Palestinians who are facing the Israeli aggressions and called on a wide solidarity campaign with the Palestinians in the Islamic world to prove that al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem will keep the primary and the central cause  and that all what is happening in the region will not divert the nation's attention from this major issue.
Source: Hezbollah Media Relations
25-02-2014 - 21:21 Last updated 25-02-2014 - 21:21





Israeli Occupation Police Storm Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque

Local Editor

Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the yard of al-Aqsa Mosque, after they failed to drive out Palestinian protesters who have been staging a sit-in in demonstration to an Israeli bill which envisages "application of Israeli sovereignty" over the holy compound.

Aqsa Mosque
Palestine Today network reported that 12 Palestinians were injured as occupation forces stormed al-Aqsa Mosque and used stun grenades to disperse the protesters.

Occupation police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP there was "high tension" in the area surrounding the mosque, ahead of discussions expected in the Israeli parliament later Tuesday of a plan to annex the holy site.

The Israeli Knesset, or parliament, is due to debate in the evening a bill introduced by MP Moshe Feiglin, a hardline member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, which envisages the "application of Israeli sovereignty" over the compound.

No vote is envisaged at the end of debate. Netanyahu is opposed to the bill and commentators say it is unlikely to attract much support.


Source: Websites
25-02-2014 - 10:54 Last updated 25-02-2014 - 

Syrian Army Ambushes, Kills 170 Militants including Saudis

$
0
0

بالفيديو: تصوير كامل لعملية إبادة رتل مسلح للنصرة في العتيبة ومقتل 200 مسلح


Local Editor

Syrian army managed to kill up to 170 terrorist militants, including foreigners through a perfect ambush in Eastern Ghouta area which lies in Damascus countryside.

Al-Manar correspondent Jaafar Mhanna reported that the terrorists were trying to flee Eastern Ghouta, noting that they were trying to go either to Jordan or to Qalamoun.

Al-Manar correspoendent and behind him corpses of killed militants
“If they were trying to go to Jordan, then they were planning to join militants who have been preparing to attack Damascus,” Mhannad said.

“There is another scenario: the terrorists were trying to go to Qalamoun in a bid to back the militants in Yabroud against the Syrian army.”

Our correspondent also confirmed that there were foreigners among the militants killed.

There are documents that prove there are Saudi commanders among the militants, Mhanna said.


بالفيديو: مشاهد للمعارك والقصف عند الحدود السورية في الجولان


Video Shows How Syrian Army Ambushed, Killed 175 Militants in Eastern Gouta

Local Editor

The Syrian army ambushed and killed on Wednesday 175 terrorists in eastern Gouta as they were escaping the area into either Jordan or Qalamoun.

The video shows queues of militants moving in the area of Bahret Atayba before two big explosion rocked the group, killing most of its members.

The Syrian army, then, shot dead all the terrorists who tried to flee.


بالفيديو: كمين نوعي للجيش السوري يوقع حوالي 200 قتيل من النصرة و الجبهة الاسلامية

أفادت قناة المنار نقلا عن مصادر عسكرية سورية عن سقوط اكثر من 170 قتيل في صفوف المسلحين في كمين محكم للجيش السوري قرب بركة العتيبة في الغوطة الشرقية بريف دمشق.
وفي المعلومات، أن القتلى الذين سقطوا في الغوطة هم من جنسيات سعودية وقطرية وشيشانية وجرت مصادرة أسلحتهم على محور النشابية وميدعة ودير القصب وعدرا والضمير.
وكانت هذه المنطقة شهدت في مرات عدة كمائن نصبها الجيش السوري للمجموعات المسلحة التي كانت تحاول ادخال مسلحين من جنسيات مختلفة إلى بلدات الغوطة الشرقية عبر منطقة الحدود الأردنية. وقد قتل عددٌ كبير من
المسلحين في تلك الكمائن.




Related Articles

Details of Suicide Bombers Confessions Revealed, including Naeem Abbas

$
0
0
Local Editor

Lebanon: The arrested terrorist, Palestinian Naeem AbbasThe arrested terrorist Naeem Abbas, planner of suicide attacks in Lebanon, has confessed during investigation with the Lebanese army intelligence directorate to his involvement in training and arming Takfiri youth and planning for their suicide attacks, local daily Al-Akhbar reported Wednesday.

It is worth noting that two other arrested terrorists have said during interrogations that some clerics are recruiting suicide bombers, and others are assisting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in carrying out terrorist attacks in Lebanon, including Sheikh Houssam Sabbagh of Tripoli.

In his statement before army intelligence investigators, a lot of what Abbas, a Palestinian refugee living in Lebanon, revealed can be classified as «very important». The man is the «authorized agent» for Al-Nusra Front and ISIL in Beirut. He is responsible in full or in part for most of the terrorist attacks that targeted the southern suburb of Beirut, starting from launching rockets at the Shiah neighborhood mid-2013 until his arrest.

Remarkably, Abbas confessed to his contact with «Abu Khaled Al-Souri», companion of Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, and the deputy of Ayman al-Zawahiri in Syria who put him in charge of the arbitration between the Front and ISIL. «Abu Khaled» is also one of the «Islamic Ahrar al-Sham Movement» (free people of Levant Islamic movement) founders and was assassinated in Aleppo three days ago.

All of Abbas statement is serious: the operations he carried out, his operations that didn't manage to succeed, Sheikh Omar Jouanieh, a cleric who used to deliver ISIL funds to him (he handed him a $ 20 thousand dollars). Abbas said that Jouanieh is a member of Taqwa Association (an organization of religious nature) in Beirut.

On the confessions sidelines, other information was not less important. Those are reported by the two suicide bombers arrested by the army after arresting Abbas: Mohammad Bakr al-Mahmoud (born in 1996 in Wadi Khaled ) and Omar Momtaz Khodor ( born in 1991 in Berkayel).

Mahmoud was arrested in the Bekaa, and admitted that he agreed to carry out a suicide attack planned by Naeem Abbas in favor of ISIL against Shiites (according to his statement), and named Sheikh Imad Al-Maliss who recruited him to fight in Syria and to carry out a suicide operation against «the Refuseniks», referring to Shiites.

While Khodor who was detained on his way from Syria, endorsed that he was to interview Sheikh Houssam al-Sabbagh in north Lebanon to hand over money to be used in preparing car bombs.

Khodor also approved that he took part in launching rockets at Hermel town of Lebanon north with al-Nusra Front. Sabbag is one of the most prominent clerics in Tripoli and has a say over almost most of the gunmen, and has strong links with armed groups leaders in the north and in Syria, and has a close relationship with former chief of the Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheikh Salem Al-Rafii.

Lebanese security information indicated that Sabbagh is one of al-Qaeda representatives in Lebanon , and one of its «Shura Council» members, which was commissioned in 2006 to prepare the ground work of the organization in Lebanon and to recruit fighters to fight in Iraq.
Sabbagh is still at large. From time to time he participates in meetings with security chiefs and public officials in Tripoli. In short, he is one of the «red lines» that the state does not dare to touch them, despite being named in the suicide bomber's testimony as one of the participants in preparation for blast operations in Lebanon.

The following are most prominent highlights of Naeem Abbas statement:


Naeem Abbas Mahmoud, nicknamed «Naeem Abbas» or «Abu Suleiman», born in 1970 in Ein al-Helwe Palestinian refugee camp. He joined the Fatah movement in 1986 before moving in 1993 to the Islamic Jihad movement, which he left in 2002 following a rocket attack he carried out against occupied Palestine without the knowledge of the movement's leadership.

In 2005, he went to Iraq and met Saleh al-Qeblawi. He worked in training division of Al-Qaeda and swore allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Qeblawi is Abu Jaafar al-Maqdisi, a Palestinian form Ein al-Helwe refugee camp in Lebanon who was responsible for the security of Zarqawi and was killed with him in Iraq in 2006.

He returned to Lebanon after two months with Zarqawi's deputy, and formed an al-Qaeda-affiliated group with Tawfiq Taha, a leader of the so-called «Abdullah Azzam Brigades», and recruited each of Marwan H., Bashir B., Motlaq J., Ramez K. and Abdul Rahman N. to store rockets in Yarin and launch them (at occupied Palestine).

In 2008, he fled to Syria using a forged identity card by the name of Saeed Mahmoud, and returned to Lebanon after seven months.

Abbas met then with Majed Al-Majed - the Emir of  Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Jamal Daftardar - chief of religious affairs, Tawfiq Taha - the security chief, and Bilal Kayed, a leading figure in the Brigades, and was assigned operational work (inside Ein al-Helwe).

In 2012, Majed sent Abbas to Syria to create cells of the Brigades with Daftardar and Mohammad Jomaa, in coordination with Khaled Hmayyed (who was killed during an army raid to arrest him in Arsal in February 2013).

Abbas returned to Lebanon with Jomaa and met Sirajuddin Zureiqat (a leader of «Abdullah Azzam Brigades») who sent him to Majed in Barada valley in Syria to recruit people. Abbas followed him with Akram Yassin (arrested) and Salim Abu Ghosh (arrested).

In Syria, Abbas met with Ahmad Mahmoud Taha (nicknamed "Abu al-Walid" who belongs to Ahrar al-Sham Brigade). He underwent training on the firing rockets. Taha and Abbas returned to Lebanon and agreed to bomb Dahiyeh in the southern suburb of the capital Beirut. Indeed, Abbas, Taha and Jomaa launched in May 2013 three rockets that landed in the Shiah-Mar Mikhael area, hitting a residential building and a cars gallery.

In 2013, Abbas equipped a car bomb (stolen from Khaldah region in south Beirut) in coordination with Omar S. (nicknamed Abu Farouq), Hussein Z., Ahmad Taha, Mohammad Jomaa and Amin Osman. It was the first booby-trapped car that exploded in Bir al-Abed of Dahiyeh in July 9, 2013 that was parked by Hussein Z . And Saeed H.

According to Abbas' confessions, al-Naameh group (that includes Hussein Z., Mohammad A., Saeed B. Syria and a Syrian young man called Abu Adam) carried out the car bombing in Ruwais of Dahiyeh in August 15, 2013. The same group has collaborated with Abbas in Bir al-Abed bombing, and was chased by the Internal Security and Public Security.

A car containing large quantity of explosives and projectiles was seized with a number of the group members.

In 2013, Abbas spent 18 days in Syria, during which he launched rockets -with Ahmed Taha - at the People's Palace, commissioned by Abu Khaled al-Souri. Abbas acknowledged that they had struck a center for special forces near the Syrian Parliament.

In December 2013, commissioned by ISIL emir in Yabroud, Taha moved a Grand Cherokee car bomb to Beirut to carry out a suicide operation, and parked it Sabra neighborhood, but the operation doomed to failure after four people killed, one in Ouwali and three in Majdalyoun areas, south of Lebanon.

On December 20, 2013, Abbas went to Yabroud where he met Al-Nusra Front emir, Abu Malek, who asked him to work with the front for bombing cars in Dahiyeh, to receive suicide bombers in his apartment, and to work on targeting Hezbollah headquarters and Al-Manar television building, in addition to civic institutions have been identified in the meeting.

For his part, Taha met Abu Abdullah Iraqi (from ISIL) in Yabrood and agreed to work with him in preparing for car bomb attacks in Dahiyeh. Iraqi told Taha that he would send the car bombs and would hand over to him  the funds he demands.

Based on the Yabroud agreement, Abbas received the suicide bomber Qoutaiba Al-Satem (of Lebanese nationality) in his apartment in the Cornish al-Mazraah before taking him on a tour to Dahiyeh, and specifically to the street where Satem carried out the suicide bombing in January 2014.

Abbas also acknowledged receiving a Kia Sportage-typre car from Omar S. (Abu Farouq), and handed it over to another suicide bomber near Khashqji mosque in Beirut, named Mohammad Hussein Abdullah (of Syrian nationality), who also blew himself up in the Arid Street in Haret Hreik neighborhood.

Abbas also admitted that he equipped the suicide bomber who blew himself up in Choueifat on February 3, 2014, and that he rented a warehouse in Saadiyat, in which he stored the projectiles and explosives.

Translated by Al-Manar English Website Staff.

Related Articles

PRESIDENT AL-ASSAD AFFIRMS IMPORTANCE OF REGIONAL COOPERATION TO CONFRONT EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM

$
0
0
Feb 26, 2014
Damascus, (SANA)
President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday received Chairman for the Foreign Policy and National Security Committee at the Iranian Shura Council, Alaeddin Boroujerdi and an accompanying delegation.


During the meeting, President al-Assad said that cooperation among countries of the region is key to confront extremism and terrorism, affirming the importance of coordination among parliaments of these courtiers and the friendly countries in this regards, as well as practicing more pressures to stop all forms of support offered by some states to the terrorist groups and extremist powers.
The president expressed the Syrian people’s appreciation for Iran’s stances in support of Syria on all levels in the interests of the two friendly countries, affirming that the victory achieved by the Iranian people in the nuclear file will be positively reflected on all peoples adhered to their sovereignty and independence of their decision.
For his part, Boroujerdi reiterated Iran’s firm stance in support of Syria’s struggle which stands in the first trench of resistance, saying that the successes gained by the Syrian people in the face of the most arrogant colonial powers and their tools in the region will form a juncture, not only in Syria’s history, but in the future of the peoples in the whole region.
Later, Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi discussed with Boroujerdi the economic and trade relations and means of developing them as well as activating the credit line between both countries.
In the same context, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem met Boroujerdi, briefing him on the events of the first and second rounds of Geneva 2 conference
Boroujerdi: Solution to crisis in Syria comes through dialogue… the US cannot impose its dictatorial opinion on Syrian people
Chairman of the Foreign Policy and National Security Committee at the Iranian Shura Council, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, reiterated Iran’s support for Syria’s people and government in their war against terrorism.
At a press conference held in Damascus on Wednesday following his talks with Syrian officials , Boroujerdi said that one of the most important issues he discussed during his visit to Syria was supporting Syria which is at the forefront of resistance against the Zionist entity, in addition to discussing with Syrian officials political efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria.
Boroujerdi asserted that the Syrian people will decide upon their fate via free elections, and that all countries must accept this, stressing that the United States cannot impose their dictatorial opinion on the Syrian people.
“We have discussed the latest developments on the political and military arenas in Syria regarding the crisis which is imposed on it,” Boroujerdi said, adding that he dealt with the political efforts exerted to end this crisis, particularly Geneva 2 conference in detail during his meeting with Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem.
He noted that the role played by UN Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi during the Geneva 2 talks between the Syrian government and the so-called opposition wasn’t impartial; rather his role was biased in favor of the other side and this was quite surprising.
Boroujerdi said that the situation in Syria today is much better than it was before, saying that the alliance between armed terrorist groups and the Zionist entity is regrettable, expressing astonishment at watching those terrorists and how they received treatment in the hospitals of the Zionist entity, and the visit of the occupation entity’s prime Minister to them.
“President Bashar al-Assad, despite all the pressure exerted on him, stands in the front of resistance against the Zionist entity, and there are many who support this direction and adherence to stances,” he said.
Boroujerdi added that when the Americans and those who claim democracy say that President al-Assad shouldn’t run for the upcoming presidential elections, they through aside all what we know about democracy in the world.
He also affirmed that the danger posed by takfiri movements doesn’t threaten the region’s country; rather it threatens the entire world, calling on countries which didn’t deal through logic in the crisis in Syria and tried to have unrealistic ways, to retreat from these ways and return to the right way.
Boroujerdi said that the US and western countries which support terrorists with weapon and money and send hundreds of European and western-nationals to Syria should know that this support will pose a threat to their national security in the future inside their countries as the crisis in Syria will come to an end and those terrorists will have no place in the country.
Syrians alone have right of self-determination through ballot boxes
Speaker of the People’s Assembly Mohammad Jihad al-Laham affirmed that the Syrian people alone have the right of self-determination and elect their representatives through free, fair elections.
“Those who call themselves as external opposition fear to go to the ballot boxes because they have no popular base to depend on in any upcoming elections,” al-Laham added during a meeting with Chairman for the Committee of Foreign Policy and National Security of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran Alaeddin Boroujerdi and an accompanying delegation.
He appreciated Iran’s stances in support of the Syrian people, its wise polices and morals, in addition to its standing by Syria in the face of the terrorist war against it, calling for setting strategic plans for cooperation between the Syrian people’s assembly and the Iranian Shura Council in the next stage.
Boroujerdi, for his part, said that Syria is targeted today by the western and imperialist countries because it stands in the first line in the war against the Zionist entity.
“In spite of the US plots against Syria to foil Geneva 2 Conference, the crisis in Syria will end in the interest of the Syrian people and government,” Boroujerdi added.
He affirmed that the armed terrorist groups in Syria seek to distort the moderate real image of Islam through their acts of heinous crimes and systemized violations against civilians.
The Iranian official said that the delegation’s visit to Damascus comes within the framework of the activities of Parliamentary Friendship Committee at the Iranian Shura Council.
M. Ismael/ Mazen

Media Disinformation and the Framing of the Syrian War


WHY WESTERN “EXPERTS” ON HIZBULLAH CANNOT PREDICT ITS RESPONSE

$
0
0


GALLERY  

By Amal Saad

I was just reading some of the reactions on Twitter to Hizbullah’s latest statement in which it confirmed that Israel had struck a Hizbullah base in the Bekaa on Monday, while denying the strike had caused any casualties or targeted any weapons’ caches. The problem with dismissing Hizbullah’s threat to respond at “a time and place of its own choosing” as empty rhetoric is part and parcel of the wider problem of all-purpose punditry and the industry of self-styled Hizbullah “experts” . This phenomenon has become all the more acute in the wake of the war on Syria, whereby  Western pundits and Arab social media activists, emboldened by the mainstreaming of “citizen journalism”, have become overnight “experts” on Syria, Hizbullah and the Resistance Axis.

As someone who has been studying and writing about Hizbullah for the past 18 years, I have always been particularly wary of the western journalist or pundit who claims to have spoken to Hizbullah officials, let alone Resistance commanders. Not only are such claims usually flagrant  lies, but the notion that Hizbullah trusts these people and is so eager to please the white man that its officials will gladly bypass the Hizbullah Media Office (which, incidentally has not granted a single interview to western journalists in years) and divulge the movement’s strategic plans in Syria and Lebanon, is both incredibly condescending and insulting to the intelligence.

I am equally skeptical of western “expert” claims of any special insights on Hizbullah, not least because THEY NEVER GET IT RIGHT. The depth of expert knowledge is not hard to measure, for as in the natural sciences, knowledge in the social sciences is gauged by its predictive value. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Western, Israeli , and colonized Arab “experts” just haven’t been able to reliably predict Hizbullah’s future actions. There are many reasons for this intelligence gap but the principal one is that they are outside observers who view Hizbullah from a western-centric lens. Their understanding of concepts like power and interest emanate from a Euro-American dominated political science tradition that is peculiar to western historical experiences.

As one of the more colonial disciplines, Western anthropology introduced the role of the “participant-observer” who both observes and participates in the life of the group she is studying . Despite the scientific and ethical shortcomings of this colonial “going native” approach, it did signal a recognition of the western observer’s limitations in understanding non-western cultures from a geographic and social distance.  Unfortunately, today’s epistemic community of academics, policy wonks and journalists are far less cognizant of these limitations than some of their old-school colonialist predecessors.

Any meaningful insights into the mind of Hizbullah will continue to elude all those who do not share its worldview. By that I don’t simply mean the Hizbullah supporter in the abstract sense, but those who view political reality through the same lens, share the same purpose, and are deeply committed to the same cause. Only “committed-observers” can understand Hizbullah and predict its future actions because they do not have to second-guess its intent and motives, or make assumptions about its priorities; they know them because they live them.

They do not view Hizbullah as an organization that is external to them, nor do they support it on a partisan “Team Hizbullah” basis. Hizbullah is synonymous with Resistance which belongs to all its adherents. Supporters of Hariri don’t know the Future Movement in the same way that Hizbullah’s committed-observers know Hizbullah, and that is because the former are not bound by any shared cause, beyond a reactivity to Hizbullah cemented by sectarianism. In this sense, Hizbullah is a culture not a party with card-carrying members. And as a political culture it has its own unique mindset and rationality.

 It is precisely this rationality that I invoke whenever I am interviewed by media on Hizbullah. Of course, as an analyst my knowledge of the movement is based on empirical evidence I have observed, but my assessment of Hizbullah’s actions and intentions, my prognostications of its future actions come from this resistance rationality that I share with it. When I am asked “how will Hizbullah respond” I essentially ask myself “how should we [who are committed to the Resistance project] respond?”  And I am usually able to provide an accurate response or prediction, not because I possess any superior intellectual abilities, but because I, like many others in Lebanon and beyond, share the Resistance’s priorities and concerns, and my analysis is guided by the same political values and rationality as them. In fact, I am very confident that a committed 18 year old Hizbullah supporter would yield more valuable insights on the movement and offer more reliable predictions of its behavior than a western academic or journalist who claims expert knowledge.

And I am equally confident that if any committed observer is asked “will Hizbullah really respond to Israel’s attacks on Monday?” he or she will tell you that as the first such attack since the end of the July War in 2006, Hizbullah has no choice but to respond, irrespective of how deeply mired it is in the Syrian conflict and in safeguarding Lebanon from terrorist infiltration. It has to respond because confronting Israel will always constitute the larger part of its raison d’etre, even if its mission has expanded over the years. And it will respond because to not respond would upset its doctrine of deterrence and “balance-of-terror” with Israel which it painfully earned after two decades of blood and sacrifice. Hizbullah will respond because there is no precedent of Hizbullah not retaliating for an Israeli attack (I am not including assassinations here) and it is highly unlikely that it would want to set a new precedent for its enemies. We just have to wait and see when and how it will do so, because no matter how committed we are as observers we are not privy to Hizbullah’s military strategy.

Hezbollah: Israeli Drones Struck Resistance Garrison, We Will Respond

Hezbollah said on Wednesday that Israeli drones stroke on Monday February 24 night a garrison for the resistance at the Lebanese-Syrian border, near the Bekaa area of Janta.Hezbollah flag

In a statement released by Hezbollah Media Relations, the party said that the Israeli strike didn’t kill or injure any of the resistance Mujahedeen (Fighters), noting that it only caused material damage.

In this context, Hezbollah stressed that reports on targeting artillery or rocket sites, or even that there were martyrs in the strike are baseless.

“This new assault is a flagrant aggression against Lebanon, its sovereignty and territories, not against the resistance only.”

“The attack confirms the hostile nature of the Zionist entity and requires frank and clear position from all,” Hezbollah said referring to all Lebanese sides.

Meanwhile, the resistance stressed in its statement that the Israeli attack will be met by appropriate retaliation.

“The resistance will choose the appropriate time, place and way to retaliate.”

Al Manar

Hezbollah: Resistance will choose right time and place to respond to Israeli aggression


Feb 26, 2014

Beirut, (SANA) 

Hezbollah on Wednesday said that on February 24, the Israeli warplanes shelled a site for Hezbollah on the Lebanese-Syrian borders near Jinta area in the Lebanese al-Bikaa.

Lebanese al-Manar TV said that Hezbollah asserted that the resistance pledged to respond and will choose the right time and place and the proper way to respond.

The Lebanese party considered the Israeli aggression as a flagrant aggression against Lebanon, its sovereignty and territory not only against the resistance, calling for a clear stance by all sides.

ISIL to Christians in Syria’s Raqqa: Pay Gold Levy in Return for Your Safety

$
0
0
an image shows a church in Raqqa before and after ISIL control of the city
Local Editor

Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group imposed gold levy on Christians in the Syrian city of Raqqa in return for their protection, as it obligated them to curb displays of their faith.

The so-called “Islamic State in Iraq and Levant” which is composed of Takfiri militants is engaged in violent and brutal struggle with the Syrian government as well as its rival extremist militants.

ISIL said it would ensure Christians'“safety” in exchange for the levy and their adherence to restrictions on their faith, citing the Islamic legal precept of 'Jizyah'.



It said Christians must not make renovations to churches or other religious buildings, display religious insignia outside of churches, ring church bells or pray in public.

It demanded every Christian man pay a tax of up to 17 grams of gold. The directive also bans Christians from owning weapons and from selling pork or wine to Muslims or drinking wine in public.

Its directive to Christians in the eastern city of Raqqa is the latest evidence of the group's ambition to establish a state in Syria founded on Takfiri principles

SYRIA: AL-NUSRA FRONT DECLARES WAR ON ISIS

$
0
0
GALLERY  
Al-Nusra Front has declared war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Abu Mohammed al-Golani gave ISIS five days to provide proof of its innocence regarding the killing of Abu Khaled al-Souri along with an ultimatum: either stop the fighting, withdraw apostasy edicts and return to the community or face a war, even in Iraq. Now all eyes are on the two groups as a violent confrontation might erupt between them at any moment.
A conflict broke out between ISIS and al-Nusra Front after the killing of Abu Khaled al-Souri. Even though the leaders of ISIS denied their involvement in the killing of one of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s top men, the leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, warned of a relentless war when he said: “The nation will fight ignorant and aggressive thought,” referring to ISIS.
Al-Golani did not say it explicitly in his speech in which he mourned his friend al-Souri, but the echo of his speech entitled “I wish you lamented me” clearly beat the drums of war. Supporters of ISIS and al-Nusra Front speculated about the implications of the speech and wondered whether it was coordinated with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
After failed attempts to reconcile the two groups for about a year, the killing of al-Souri was the final straw for al-Nusra Front. Al-Golani had it with the practices of ISIS so he surprised everyone by putting forth unnegotiable conditions. For the first time, he was upfront with ISIS supporters and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whom he previously respected.
Like a judge trying a suspect, he asked them for a formal explanation and ordered them to submit their evidence to three prominent clerics – Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatada al-Falastini and Suleiman al-Alwan – pending their trial proceedings. However, the three clerics that al-Golani wanted them to appeal to are languishing in prison. He gave them a five-day deadline and put conditions such as ending the infighting and cancelling apostasy edicts issued against other jihadi groups.
In his address to ISIS, al-Golani compares them to the Awakening Movement in Iraq saying: “The awakening forces in Iraq stopped fighting America and the rafidah (a derogatory term for Shia) to fight the mujahideen, while the awakening forces in Syria stopped fighting the Nusayris (a derogatory term for Alawites), and are instead fighting those fighting the Nusayris.”
He openly accused ISIS fighters of being “misguided awakening forces whose goal is to undermine the jihad.” Addressing them, he said: “The awakening project was nearly impossible here but the infighting that you instigated opened a gaping hole in the land of the Levant.” Al-Golani demanded an official response and reminded his adversaries that the front has not been mobilized yet. He issued a threat saying: “In the name of God, if you reject God’s judgement again and do not withhold your scourge on the believers, then the believers shall fight your ignorant aggressive thought and you know hundreds of virtuous brothers are awaiting a signal from the nation in Iraq.”
Al-Golani’s speech was unexpected. His intensity surprised many even within the ranks of al-Nusra Front. As soon as the voice recording spread, a war broke out on Twitter. He was violently attacked. The campaign against him was boosted by the discovery that the United States removed his name from the list of global terrorism only days ago. ISIS followers and supporters shared a letter entitled the “The list of honor which does not include al-Golani?”.
The so-called declaration of war against ISIS fighters was widely condemned. Some ISIS followers accused al-Golani of being an American agent because “he has now a common goal with America and its allies.” Statements were issued by dozens of leaders in the global jihad movement in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, and North Africa.
The position of al-Qaeda leader Maamoun Hatem took prominence. He wrote a message entitled “An urgent appeal” to al-Golani in which he held him responsible for the blood that will be shed and argued that declaring war against ISIS is tantamount to declaring a war on al-Qaeda because this war will “spoil the fruit of the entire jihad.”
Hatem reminded al-Golani that he was “the first to divide the jihad project when you disobeyed your leader who did not command you to commit an act of transgression, so you betrayed him and those who followed you.”
The message of the leader Abu Abdallah al-Afghani also came in the same context. He did not see “the relationship between al-Souri’s eulogy and al-Golani’s threats against ISIS.” He asked a number of questions that held al-Golani responsible for what is going on and for the river of blood that will be shed.
In addition, some of al-Golani’s speeches were replayed in which he praised ISIS fighters and its leader al-Baghdadi. They accused him of breach of trust and theft of ISIS money and weapons that their leader al-Baghdadi had entrusted to him, and for attempting to exercise a monopoly over the Levant.
ISIS followers shared on their websites a possible upcoming message by ISIS spokesperson, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, to respond to al-Golani’s speech and threats.

Israel’s Bubble of Denial

$
0
0
by JONATHAN COOK
The 24-hour visit by German chancellor Angela Merkel to Israel this week came as relations between the two countries hit rock bottom. According to a report in Der Spiegel magazine last week, Merkel and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been drawn into shouting matches when discussing by phone the faltering peace process.
Despite their smiles to the cameras during the visit, tension behind the scenes has been heightened by an diplomatic bust-up earlier this month when Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament and himself German, gave a speech to the Israeli parliament.
In unprecedented scenes, a group of Israeli legislators heckled Schulz, calling him a “liar”, and then staged a walk-out, led by the economics minister Naftali Bennett. Rather than apologising, Netanyahu intervened to lambast the European leader for being misinformed.
Schulz, who, like Merkel, is considered a close friend of Israel, used his speech vehemently to oppose growing calls in Europe for a boycott of Israel. So how did he trigger such opprobrium?
Schulz’s main offence was posing a question: was it true, as he had heard in meetings in the West Bank, that Israelis have access to four times more water than Palestinians? He further upset legislators by gently suggesting that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was preventing economic growth there.
Neither statement should have been in the least controversial. Figures from independent bodies such as the World Bank show Israel, which controls the region’s water supplies, allocates per capita about 4.4 times more water to its population than the Palestinians.
Equally, it would be hard to imagine that years of denying goods and materials to Gaza, and blocking exports, have not ravaged its economy. The unemployment rate, for example, has increased 6 per cent, to 38.5 per cent, following Israel’s recent decision to prevent the transfer of construction materials to Gaza’s private sector.
But Israelis rarely hear such facts, either from their politicians or media. And few are willing to listen when a rare voice like Schulz’s intervenes. Israelis have grown content living in a large bubble of denial.
Netantahu and his ministers are making every effort to reinforce that bubble, just as they have tried to shield Israelis from the fact that they live in the Middle East, not Europe, by building walls on every side – both physical and bureacratic – to exclude Palestinians, Arab neighbours, foreign workers and asylum seekers.
Inside Israel, the government is seeking to silence the few critical voices left. The intimidation was starkly on display last week as the supreme court considered the constitutionality of the recent “boycott law”, which threatens to bankrupt anyone calling for a boycott of either Israel or the settlements.
Tellingly, a lawyer for the government defended its position by arguing that Israel could not afford freedom of expression of the kind enjoyed by countries like the US.
Illustrating the point, uproar greeted the news last month that a civics teacher had responded negatively when asked by pupils whether he thought Israel’s army the most moral in the world. A campaign to sack him has been led by government ministers and his principal, who stated: “There are sacred cows I won’t allow to be slaughtered.”
Similarly, last week it emerged that a Palestinian from East Jerusalem had been interrogated by police for incitement after noting on Facebook that his city was “under occupation”.
Outside Israel, Netanyahu is indulging in more familiar tactics to browbeat critics. Tapping European sensitivities, he accused those who support a boycott of being “classical anti-semites in modern garb”. Netanyahu justified the allegation, as he has before, on the grounds that Israel is being singled it out.
It looks that way to Israelis only because they have singularly insulated themselves from reality.
Western critics focus on Israel because, unlike countries such as North Korea or Iran, it has managed to avoid any penalties despite riding roughshod over international norms for decades.
Iran, which is only suspected of secretly developing nuclear weapons, has been enduring years of savage sanctions. Israel, which has hidden its large stockpile of nuclear warheads from international scrutiny since the late 1960s, has enjoyed endless diplomatic cover.
Contrary to Netanyahu’s claim, lots of countries around the world have been singled out for sanctions by the United States and Europe – whether diplomatic, financial or, in the case of Iraq, Libya and Syria, military.
But the antipathy towards Israel has deeper roots still. Israel has not only evaded accountability, it has been handsomely rewarded by the US and Europe for flouting international conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
The self-styled global policemen have encouraged Israel’s law-breaking by consistently ignoring its transgressions and continuing with massive aid handouts and preferential trade deals. In Germany’s case, one of the most significant benefits has been its decision to supply Israel with a fleet of Dolphin submarines, which allow Israel to transport its rogue nuclear arsenal around the high seas.
Far from judging Israel unfairly, Schulz, Merkel and most other western leaders regularly indulge in special pleading on its behalf. They know about Israel’s ugly occupation but shy away from exercising their powers to help end it.
The reason why popular criticism of Israel is currently galvanising around the boycott movement – what Netanyahu grandly calls “delegitimisation” – is that it offers a way for ordinary Americans and Europeans to distance themselves from their governments’ own complicity in Israel’s crimes.
If Netanyahu has refused to listen to his external critics, western governments have been no less at fault in growing impervious to the groundswell of sentiment at home that expects Israel to be forced to take account of international law.
Both Merkel’s diplomatic niceties and her shouting matches have proven utterly ineffective. It is time for her and her western colleagues to stop talking and to start taking action against Israel.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi.

Cheerleading Ukrainian Fascism

$
0
0
Cheerleading Ukrainian Fascism 
 
Major media scoundrels praise what demands condemnation. They reinvent history doing it. Managed news misinformation substitutes for legitimate journalism. More on this below.
Ukraine's fascist coup against its democratically elected government was made in the USA. 

Washington's dirty hands manipulated things. Billions of dollars were spent doing it. Obama got another imperial trophy - if he can keep it.
Events remain fluid. It's uncertain how they'll play out. For now, neo-Nazis control western Ukraine. Eastern areas reject them. Internal conflict may follow.

Kiev fascists are consolidating power. They ordered dozens of former ruling Party of Regions' officials arrested.

They have a growing enemies list. Anti-neo-Nazi Ukrainians are being attacked. They're stoned and beaten. Some are lynched.

Intimidation is widespread. Police states operate this way. Opposition isn't tolerated. Eliminating it is prioritized.

Natalia Vitrenko is a Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine leader. She's fiercely populist.

She's strongly anti-Western. She condemns predatory monied interests. She does so for good reason. In late 2009, she predicted something similar to what unfolded.

On February 23, she headlined"USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory."

Fascist coup plotters "us(ed) armed force" to seize power, she said. They "committed criminal acts."

"Washington and Brussels" lied. They "told the world and all mankind that Euromaidan (was) a nonviolent action of the Ukrainian people, to make a European choice and protect democracy and European values..."

The instituted "a Nazi coup." They enlisted "insurgents" and "terrorists..." At issue is "serv(ing) the geopolitical interests of the West."

"Indisputable evidence" proves it, she said. Government by coup d'etat is "unconstitution(al)."

So is exceeding "the powers of the Parliament..." Democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych "was deprived of his constitutional powers in gross violation of the Constitution."

Parliamentary coup plotters defend the indefensible. They're "militants and terrorists." They usurped power lawlessly.
They're "carry(ing) out lynchings or exercise blackmail and kidnapping(s)."
"...(N)eo-Nazi repressive state machinery" runs things.  Washington and Brussels express support.

Fundamental freedoms are disappearing in plain sight. Coup plotters "are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like..."
They "publicly announced" criminal prosecutions against anyone opposing their ideology and goals.

"On behalf of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, we declare that we do not recognize the legitimacy of this coup (or its) authorities."

"We appeal to the European Parliament and the UN Security Council" for "immediate intervention" against what happened.

European leaders support Ukraine's coup. They helped instigate it. They partnered with Washington.

They allied with fascist extremists. They called violent street thugs heroes. So did Washington.

On February 25, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns called it "an honor to pay tribute, on behalf of President Obama and the American people, to the many brave Ukrainians who gave their lives in the pursuit of a just and democratic Ukraine."

He lied calling fascist street thugs "peaceful protesters."

"All of us are inspired by the acts of genuine heroism, and selflessness, and sacrifice that we have seen here," he added.

Ukrainians "can count on the strong and continued support of the United States."
On February 24, White House press secretary Jay Carney expressed similar views.

He said parliament coup plotters acted lawfully. Yanukovych "undermined his legitimacy," he claimed.

Washington supports the new coup d'etat regime. It backs a similar one in Egypt.
It endorses some of the world's worst despots. It turns a blind eye to their ruthlessness.

It's longstanding US practice. Independent democratic governments are deplored. They're targeted for regime change.

Ukraine is Washington's newest victim. Other independent leaders await similar treatment.

Media scoundrels cheerlead lawlessness. They endorse Ukrainian fascists. They turn a blind eye to their extremism. Imperial priorities matter most.

A previous article discussed New York Times editors' support for Ukrainian coup plotters. They lied claiming Washington and EU partners aren't "promoting a government dominated by (ultra)nationalists."

They accused Putin of inventing "Western conspiracies behind all challenges to his will."

They falsely claim Ukrainians "believe their future is with the values and practices of the West."

Tens of millions of Ukrainians feel otherwise. Expect many more to join them once events further take shape.

Once they realize they were had. Once they taste IMF-mandated neoliberal harshness. Once freedoms they cherish end. Once reality replaces illusions.
Slawomir Sierakowski masquerades as a left-of-center political observer. His opinions reveal otherwise.

Times editors gave him featured op-ed space. He took full advantage headlining"Has the West Already Lost Ukraine?"

He called toppling Yanukovych the right thing to do. EU membership "is an attractive economic arrangement" for Ukraine, he claimed.

It makes Ukraine low-hanging fruit for plunder. It assures the worst of neoliberal harshness.

It includes mass layoffs, deregulation, deep social spending cuts, wage freezes or cuts, unrestricted free market access for EU corporations, corporate friendly tax cuts, marginalizing trade unionism, and harsh crackdowns on nonbelievers.
Sierakowski one-sidedly supports Western interests. At the same time, he bashed Putin.

He's concerned that Russia and China may "outbid" their Western counterparts.
He ludicrously claimed "neither the European Union nor America can resort to the same type of brutality (these) nondemocratic regimes" employ.

He called Western power "soft." He turned a blind eye to its imperial ravaging.
"Thanks to Ukrainians," he said, "the new situation offers an opportunity to reverse the West's drift."

Washington and EU partners "must make clear to Russia that it will not abide further meddling in Kiev's political course," he said.

On the one hand, he turned a blind eye to neo-Nazis usurping power. On the other, he urged strong Western support for their lawlessness.

Times editors shamelessly feature what no respectable counterparts would touch. Doing so is longstanding NYT practice.

Washington Post editors are neocon propagandists. New WaPo owner Jeff Bezos has CIA ties. He's in bed with the devil.

He has a disturbing history currying favor with national security officials. His CIA connection mocks free press reporting and opinion.

It shows in one-sided editorials. On February 24, WaPo editors headlined"Ukraine's next chapter," saying:

Ukraine's "corrupt president" is gone. So is "the immediate prospect of domination by Russia."

"Kiev is now controlled by pro-Western parties..." They'll join the EU, they say. Further trouble is possible.

Ukraine needs bailout help. Without it, sovereign debt default looms. In 2001, Argentina faced the same dilemma.

It made the right choice. In December, it halted all debt payments to domestic and foreign creditors. Earlier IMF debt bondage didn't help.

Nearly $100 billion in debt was restructured. It was done on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Bondholders agreeing to terms took stiff haircuts.

They had no other choice. It was better than losing everything. In 2010, most holdouts capitulated on similar terms.

From 2003 - 2007, sustained economic growth followed. Debt restructuring and currency devaluation helped enormously.

Ukraine can benefit by adopting a similar policy. Not with pro-Western fascists in charge.

Expect ordinary Ukrainians to bear the burden of debt bondage. IMF structural adjustment harshness will impoverish them more than already.

Don't expect WaPo editors to explain. They want Western interests served. They want popular ones sacrificed in the process.

They're concerned about a possible "split along geographic lines as Russian speakers in the east of the country, perhaps supported by Moscow, reject the new political order."

They want Western leaders telling Putin "not to obstruct Ukraine's change."
"What's not clear is whether" he'll agree, they said. First signs aren't encouraging, they believe.

"A foreign ministry statement Monday alleged that 'a course has been set to use dictatorial and sometimes terrorist methods to suppress dissenters in various regions."

WaPo editors disagree. They turned a blind eye to neo-Nazi extremism. Doing so shows support. Their scoundrel media counterparts do the same thing.
Wall Street Journal editors endorsed Ukrainian coup plotters. Bret Stephens is deputy editorial page editor. On February 24, he headlined "Ukraine vs. Homo Sovieticus."

The revolution was televised, he said. "Will it now be squandered," he asked?
On the one hand, he acknowledged the legitimacy of Yanukovych's 2010 electoral victory. He quoted international observers calling it an "impressive display of democracy."

On the other hand, he claimed his presidency was "brutal and venal." In other words, toppling him lawlessly was OK.

Stephens exchanged emails with Ukrainian friends, he said. "It was encouraging," he added.

One said: "Bringing back to power people who already were accused of corruption would be a betrayal to (dozens of) people who died."

Another said: "Maidan is not ready to compromise for what we were fighting (for) - freedom, responsibility for action and honesty."

One more added: "What I can say for sure (is that) Ukrainians started to identify themselves as a nation. And we don't want 'new' politicians...acting in the same way - corruption, nepotism, impunity."

According to Stephens, these voices are "authentic ones - the winning ones."
He'll maintain "faith with (his) brave and idealistic friends who risked their necks at the barricades."

He reflects virtually universal scoundrel media opinion. On the one hand, lawless coup plotting is ignored. Rule of law principles don't matter.

On the other, toppling a democratically elected independent government is OK as long as a subservient pro-Western one replaces it.

Other Western editors and commentators expressed similar views. Los Angeles Times contributor David Horsey headlined "Ukrainians steal their future back from Yanukovych and Putin."

Ukrainians "yearning to be free have spoken loud and clear," he said. Like other scoundrel media commentators, he ignored what readers most need to know - the truth.

Chicago Tribune editors said "(e)lected governments that trample freedom forfeit their legitimacy."

They endorsed Egypt's illegitimately toppling democratically elected Mohammed Morsi.

They wrongfully blame Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for US-manipulated street violence.

They blame Yanukovych the same way. They hold him responsible for fascist thug street rioting. Toppling him was OK, they believe.

Leaders they dislike "may be evicted by popular (or any other kind of) movements," they said.

"(O)nly people who deserve to be trusted with power" should have it, they added.
They ignored US police state lawlessness. They turned a blind eye to Obama and likeminded congressional members trampling on fundamental freedoms.
They're mindless of their intent to destroy them altogether. No nation causes more harm to more people than America.

None abuse power more egregiously. None more reprehensibly ignore rule of law principles. None more imperil humanity's survival.

Don't expect Tribune editors to explain. Or their scoundrel media counterparts.

EXCLUSIVE MANAR TV FOOTAGE OF THE SYRIAN ARMY’S STUNNING AMBUSH IN EASTERN GHOUTA

$
0
0
GALLERY  



The video shows queues of militants moving in the area of Bahret Atayba before two big explosion rocked the group, killing most of its members.
The Syrian army, then, shot dead all the terrorists who tried to flee.

***

More than 170 terrorists were killed in an ambush earlier today in al-Otayba in Damascus Easter Countryside “Eastern Ghuta”


“If you came to fight our state then we are the men of the Syrian Arab Army, and if you came to fight for religion then we are the men of God.”
One of our officers right after al-Otaybea ambush.

Telegraph: West Can Get Rid of Assad or Fight al-Qaeda, But Can’t Do Both

$
0
0

Via Al-Manar


Peter Oborne - The Daily Telegraph



For the past three years, when seeking enlightenment about the Syrian crisis, I have often talked to Alastair Crooke, a former MI6 officer. Mr Crooke, who left government service a decade ago after a long career, now runs a think tank called Conflicts Forum, which maintains contact with organisations such as Hizbollah and governments such as Iran, when official contact has been broken off.

I have learnt to respect and trust Mr Crooke, who has the invaluable habit of being right. When the British and American governments both claimed that President Assad of Syria would fall within weeks, he told me this was wishful thinking. 

When Western governments hailed the Syrian rebels as a democratic movement of national liberation, he said:
hang on a moment. At the heart of the rebellion, he pointed out, was a group of armed gangs funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, dedicated to the establishment of a militant Sunni caliphate across the Middle East. He uttered this warning right at the start of the Syrian conflict, and at last the penny is (ever so painfully) beginning to drop in Whitehall and Washington.

So when Conflicts Forum invited me to a seminar in Beirut, I accepted with alacrity. It was over the weekend in an otherwise deserted seaside hotel. Lebanon, so prosperous and thriving when I was here four years ago, now conveys an air of desolate menace, as the country struggles to accommodate more than a million Syrian refugees. Parts of the country, including the second city of Tripoli, are increasingly dominated by jihadists.

At the seminar, there was a different world view to the one normally presented in the British media, and a more exotic cast of characters. Mr Crooke had assembled an adviser to President Putin, several Iranian diplomats, as well as representatives from Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – all three organisations labelled as terrorists by Western governments.

To many Telegraph readers, this might sound like a rogues’ gallery. But what they had to say was very interesting. Everyone there took for granted that President Assad has won the war, though they admitted that there may be some time to go before it ends. In the north, they said, the rebels have turned on each other. A crucial battle is now being fought at Qalamoun, in the west. The Syrian army and rebel forces are engaged in a ferocious battle for this strategic ridge, which controls the all-important supply line between Lebanon and rebel territory. We were told that the Battle of Qalamoun was all over bar the shouting, and that it will fall to Assad’s forces quite soon.

The second message was that by far the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East is not Iran, as so often claimed, but Saudi Arabia. This may seem surprising: the Saudis remain among Britain’s closest allies, and only last week Prince Charles paid a happy visit to the kingdom. Yet they have been far and away the most important and deadly sponsor of global terrorism – a fact very well understood by all intelligence agencies, even if the British and American governments cannot bring themselves to admit it, let alone to come to terms with the consequences.

Several participants drew attention to the haunting parallel between Pakistan during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, and Saudi Arabia today. Back then, the Pakistan intelligence services, urged on by the CIA, channelled money and arms to rebel forces. But they catastrophically failed to foresee that these very groups would create mayhem back home when the war ended.

This is the danger that faces Saudi Arabia today. The kingdom has been providing – indirectly – a vast amount of cash and resources to extremist groups advocating the takfiri mutation of Islam, an orientation that brands other Muslims as targets for killing. These takfiris deny the legitimacy of any state or secular power – including King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. A comparable problem is starting to emerge in Britain, where M15 is fretting about what British jihadists fighting in Syria might do on their return. This concern has created a potential conflict with the more gung-ho SIS, which has effectively been egging on these very same jihadists.

It was the third message from the seminar, however, that continues to haunt me. The international sponsors of Assad’s Syria – Iran and Russia – see eye to eye: they have been consistent in their support, whatever the consequences. But some of the rebels’ backers – Saudi Arabia, the United States, Britain and Israel – are in bitter conflict with one another, and share no coherence of vision or common purpose.

The British Government has consistently rejected the analysis I have recorded above, and I would not expect many people to agree. But I was impressed by the power of the views I have heard over the past few days, especially when contrasted with the contradictions, emotionalism and wishful thinking from so many Western experts and policy-makers. At the very least, these voices are worth listening to. Yet British officials are forbidden from even speaking to Hizbollah. No wonder thinking in Whitehall has been so stale and misguided – even though the United Nations, South Africa and several European countries were all represented at the seminar at senior level, and all paying attention.

Yet there have been interesting indications over the course of the past few days, although not widely reported, that Western leaders are starting to change course. The first concerns the mysterious disappearance of Bandar bin Sultan. Two years ago, prompted by the United States, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave Prince Bandar the task of destroying President Assad. Since then, the prince has poured the Saudi kingdom’s unlimited resources into his mission, backing a wide range of rebel groups, from the so-called moderates to the takfiris who now cause increasing anxiety within the House of Saud. Prince Bandar seems to retain his official title of National Security Adviser and Intelligence Director. But he was missing from a secret meeting of intelligence chiefs recently held in Washington to discuss Syria. He is out of action.


Meanwhile, Robert Ford, the American diplomat who has been the chief US organiser for the Syrian rebels – herding them in and out of negotiations during the failed Geneva talks two weeks ago – has also got the chop. These changes of personnel come amid reports that the Obama administration has confronted the Saudis with a file full of evidence of their involvement in terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. This report can be found in Al-Akhbar English, a Lebanese newspaper seen as close to Hizbollah. The newspaper hints at the possibility that Saudi could yet be formally classified by the UN security council as a state sponsor of global terrorism. That sounds fanciful, but President Obama’s visit to Riyadh next month now looks pregnant with significance.

As the Beirut meeting closed, I asked Mr Crooke, who wears a tweed jacket and might at first appearance be a country solicitor or land agent, whether President Assad would survive. He said there was no doubt. The United States and Britain are, nevertheless, still pressing for his removal. But the signs are mounting that the Western powers are beginning to understand that they have a choice. They can get rid of Assad, or they can fight al-Qaeda. But they can’t do both. That option was never really there.


Source: Websites
27-02-2014 - 12:45 Last updated 27-02-2014 - 12:45

’Israel’ Opens Sirens As Hezbollah Vows Retaliation

$
0
0

Local Editor

Hezbollah fightersZionist entity on Wednesday ordered troops on the northern border with Lebanon to be put on high alert, shortly after Lebanese party of Resistance, Hezbollah, vowed to retaliate the enemy strikes against Lebanon Monday evening.

According to Zionist newspaper Yediot Aharonot, the army asked Galilee residents to stand away from the border fence with Lebanon. It also ordered civil defense forces near the Lebanese border to be placed on alert.

Northern Command in the Zionist army decided to raise the level of readiness in all bases and military positions along the border with Lebanon for fear of rocket attacks from Lebanese territory.

According to military correspondents in the Zionist mainstream media, the army command ordered its military units stationed on the border to carry out preventive procedures to prevent soldiers from leaving positions , for fear of sniper attacks from behind the border.

During the evening news feeds broadcast, Zionist reporters informed about a state of stress and mass panic prevailing settlers, following the army announcement of alert and its order to settlers to deport from the border.

"Settlers moved away from areas that are problematic under the army instructions and closed their shops, while farmers moved away from their fields for fear of Hezbollah 's response ." Zionist Channel 10 said.

Moreover, security sources in Tel Aviv expressed fear of Hezbollah targeting of high-level Zionist figures in response to the Monday raid.

"Security institution prepares to cope with such a response and specifically a Zionist figure with a position parallel to (Hezbollah's military leader martyr) Imad Mughniyeh, which means that the protection of these figures will be the most urgent task in the near future ," Zionist daily Haaretz reported.

Enemy warplanes carried out two attacks in eastern Lebanon on border with Syria on Monday.

On Wednesday, Hezbollah confirmed that the Zionist military aircraft had attacked a site belonging to the group on the Lebanese-Syrian border and vowed an "appropriate response."

The attack, the first strike of its kind on Lebanese territory since the beginning of the Syria crisis in 2011, came after repeated warnings by Netanyahu that the self-proclaimed Jewish State would not allow the transfer of advanced weaponry into Lebanon by the Syrian regime, which Hezbollah supports.

In 2013, Zionist warplanes struck three different arms convoys en route to Lebanon from Syria.

Since July war 2006, the Zionist entity spared no effort to violate Lebanon's sovereignty and breaching the UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Resolution 1701 called for the immediate cessation of all Zionist military activity in Lebanon as part of a full cessation of hostilities between the entity and Hezbollah following a 33-day war.


Source: Israeli Media
27-02-2014 - 16:11 Last updated 27-02-2014  


ِAlquds in Danger, where is the millions?

$
0
0


السيد حسن نصرالله  - القدس عاصمة فلسطين




"O people and political forces, don’t be deluded by the American Administration as it is the one occupying your Palestine, violating your Al-Quds, threatening your Holy mosque, and it is the one responsible, even before the enemy, of holding thousands of Palestinians in prisons, and of displacing, torturing, and besieging them in Gaza and the West Bank.


-------

The Whore-hood's first Qibla, and second Haram is no more


Therefore, after Nato Mufti, Erdugan, the neo-saladin, intends to pray in  Amawides Mosque in Damuscus ‘soon’ 


Hamami from London to Mishaal, Leave Damascus now
“One of the most important direct results of Arab revolutions it dropped masks on many self-anointed culture and thought and even organizations and movements,(hinting to Hezbollah) which stood at the beginning with Egypt and Tunisia revolutions, then quickly changed the course when the train of change regulations reached the so-called revolutionary regimes) trading in everything, especially when the Syrian regime start shaking the verge of collapse to follow previous systems of oppression and domination.
Shocked, defeated psychologically and on the ground, they dislike what is happening, They find difficult to accept that the world has changed, that the slogans of the past century and its cries and silly media no longer have a place among the people revolted, with space media (Al-Jazeerah) conveying what’s happening moment by moment by the sound and image.

In a desperate attempt, perhaps in a miserable awakening before final doom, they are trying to grab the news here or there, even if the sites have not been heard of before, or from blogs or unknown sources, everything important to distort the image of the revolutions….”
Piling up higher, he imagined himself in Nasrallah's shoes he "Sincerely" Promised "
"We promised them with every revolution to rejoice their defeat and our next  gloat will be soon from free Damascus, (without losing a single nato life) God willing, that’s a promise! "





---------





Ukrainian nationalism - its roots and nature

$
0
0

The saker

The European Saker - in his own words:First, a short introductory sitrep: The least one could say is that over the past 2 days the events in the Ukraine moved fast, very, very fast. While I had intended to take 2 days off, I still kept an eye on the most recent development and jotted them down on my computer's note pad. Here is what I wrote down (sorry for the shorthand):
  • Lukin did not sign
  • S&P downgrades Ukraine from CCC+ to CCC
  • Pogroms in Kiev
  • Attacks on Russian nationals
  • Burned buses (incl. Belarussian)
  • Yanuk did not attend Kharkov congress
  • Yanuk only cares about his security
  • Yanuk's mansion was looted
  • Kharkov congress 3000 delegates
  • Phone threats to all political opponents
  • Black Sea Fleet on high alert
  • In the East local authorities take full control
  • Two Yanuk minister arrested while trying to flee
  • NOBODY WANTS A SPLIT UKRAINE NOT EVEN RUSSIA
  • BUT ONLY YULIA CAN HOLD IT TOGETHER
  • RADA discusses limiting Russian TV channels
  • Region turncoats bought over and threatened
  • Not referendum but force of arms will decide
  • Hunger is a real risk
  • 7'000'000 Russians in the Ukraine officially
  • 50% of Ukrainians speak Russian
  • 15'000 volunteers mobilized in Crimea
  • Also on Sunday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice warned Russia it would be a "grave mistake" to intervene militarily
  • Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov 2005 - Head of Ukraine Security Service (SBU)
  • New regime says Ukraine needs 35 billion dollars
  • Hunger now a real risk
  • Russia recalls ambassador
  • Russian language basically banned
  • Appointed Mayor of Sevastopol replaced by Alexei Chalyi, a Russian citizen, directly elected by the local people.
  • EU policians claim they can offer 20 billion dollar to the Ukraine. How they will explain that to Greece is unclear.
Wow!  Clearly, things have gone far beyond the terms of the capitulation of Yanukovich to the insurgency so "brilliantly" mediated by the EU bureaucrats.  Truly, a qualitative change in the terms of the conflict has happened and the country is now in a de-facto situation of civil war.  But first, in order to make sense of what is taking place, we need to take a look far back into the distant past, as far back as the 13th century.
 -------
Ukrainian nationalism - its roots and nature
PART ONE: a preliminary excursion in ancient history
Innocent III
1204 - The Eastern Crusade of Pope Innocent III: Most people mistakenly believe that the Crusades only happened in the Middle-East and that they were only directed at Islam.  This is false.  In fact, while the official excuse for western imperialism at that time was to free the city of Jerusalem from the "Muslim infidels" the crusades also were aimed at either exterminating or converting the "Greek schismatics" i.e. the Orthodox Christians.  The most notorious episode of this anti-Orthodox crusade is the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, during the 4th Crusade, in which the city was subjected to three days of absolutely grotesque pillaging, looting and massacres by the western "Christians" who even looted and burned down Orthodox churches, monasteries and convents, raped nuns on church altars and even placed a prostitute on the Patriarchal throne.  This outpouring of genocidal hatred was hardly a fluke, but it was one of the earliest manifestation of something which would become a central feature of the mindset and ideology of the Latin Church.There is, however, another no less important episode in the history of the Latin hatred for the Orthodox Church which is far less known.
Gregory IX
1242 - The Northern Crusades of Pope Gregory IX: Unlike his predecessor who directed his soldiers towards the Holy Land, Pope Gregory IX had a very different idea: he wanted to convert the "pagans" of the North and East of Europe to the "true faith".  In his mind, Orthodox Russia was part of these "pagan lands" and Orthodox Christians were pagans too.  His order to the Teutonic Knights (the spiritual successors of the Franks who had pillaged and destroyed Rome) was to either convert or kill all the pagans they would meet (this genocidal order was very similar to the one given by Ante Pavelic to his own forces against the Serbs during WWII: convert, kill or expel).  In most history books Pope Gregory IX has earned himself a name by instituting the Papal Inquisition (which has never been abolished, by the way), so it is of no surprise that this gentleman was in no mood to show any mercy to the "Greek schismatics".  This time, however, the Pope's hordes were met by a formidable defender: Prince Alexander Nevsky.Saint Alexander Nevsky's "civilizational choice"
Saint Alexander Nevsky
Even before dealing with the Pope's Crusaders Alexander Nevsky had already had to repel an earlier invasion of Russia by the West - the attempt to invade norther Russia by the Swedish Kingdom - which he defeated 1240 at the famousbattle of the Neva.  No less important, however, is the fact that Alexander Nevsky was unable to defeat Mongol invasion from the East and so he was placed between what can only be called a civilizational choice: he understood that Russia could not fight the Papacy and the Mongols at the same time, so the choice was simple: to submit to one and to resist the other. But which one should he chose to submit Russia to?Prince Alexander (who would later be glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church) was truly a deeply pious man who had a deep understanding of the Holy Scripture and who remembered the words of Christ when asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Romans: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21) and "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28).  Alexander, who was very well informed of the policies of his enemies knew that the sole goal of the Mongols was to extract taxes from the Russians, but that they had no desire to convert anybody or to persecute the Church.  Quite to the contrary, the putatively "savage" Mongols respected the Church and its clergy and they never persecuted it.  In contrast, the Crusaders were given the specific order to convert or murder all the Orthodox Christians they would encounter as the Latins had done many times before, and as they would do many times later.  Thus Prince Alexander Nevsky chose to submit to the Mongol Khan and to fight the Crusaders whom he defeated at the famous Battle of the Ice in 1242.Western Russia occupied, fall of the 2nd Rome, rise of Moscow
Occupied Ukraine in the 14th c.
Having been defeated by Russia twice, western leaders temporarily renounced their invasion plans, but the Russian victory clearly did not endear the Russian people or culture to the western elites.  Predictably the next wave of invasions from the West began in the early 14th century and lasted until 1385 when the Union of Krewo sealed the union of Poland and Lithuania.  At that moment in time all of what would be called later "the Ukraine" was fully conquered by the Latins.In 1453, the Fall of Rome in the East, in Constantinople, marked the end of the "2nd Rome" and the end of the Roman civilization which had survived the Fall of Rome in by a full one thousand years (the western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD; the eastern Roman Empire fell in 1453).The Latins did attempt to submit the Orthodox world by a careful mix of threats and promises to assist Constantinople against the Ottomans at the so-called False Union of Florance, but they had failed, and Constantinople eventually fell to armies of Mehmet the Conqueror.  Thus, Moscow became the "Third Rome", the last free Orthodox Christian Kingdom, the civilizational heir to the Roman civilization.  Moscow would now become the focal point of the Papist hatred for Orthodox Christianity.  The next western strike would come in 1595 and it would be a truly devastating one.
Clement VIII
1595 - Pope Clement VIII conceives the UkraineBy the end of the 16th century, most of western Russia had been occupied by the Latins for two hundred years (14th-16th), as long as the Mongol Yoke on eastern Russia (13th-15th century).  Predictably the situation of the Orthodox Christian peasants under the Latin occupation was nothing short of terrible.  For all practical purposes, it was enslaved, as Israel Shahak explains in his seminal book Jewish History, Jewish Religion:Due to many causes, medieval Poland lagged in its development behind countries like England and France; a strong feudal-type monarchy - yet without any parliamentary institutions - was formed there only in the 14th century, especially under Casimir the Great (1333-70). Immediately after his death, changes of dynasty and other factors led to a very rapid development of the power of the noble magnates, then also of the petty nobility, so that by 1572 the process of reduction of the king to a figure head and exclusion of all other non-noble estates from political power was virtually complete. (...) This process was accompanied by a debasement in the position of the Polish peasants (who had been free in the early Middle Ages) to the point of utter serfdom, hardly distinguishable from outright slavery and certainly the worst in Europe. The desire of noblemen in neighboring countries to enjoy the power of the Polish pan over his peasants (including the power of life and death without any right of appeal) was instrumental in the territorial expansion of Poland. The situation in the 'eastern' lands of Poland (Byelorussia and the Ukraine) - colonized and settled by newly enserfed peasants - was worst of all.Indeed, the local elites had been more then happy to apostatize and sell out to the Polish occupier to enjoy the privileges of slave-owning (before that Russia had never known serfdom!) while the enslaved peasants stubbornly held on to their faith (interestingly, this is also the period of history when Ukrainian Judeophobia was born - read Shahak for details).  Something needed to be done to find a "solution" to this "problem" and, sure enough, a Pope (Clement VIII) found it: the forcible conversion of the local Orthodox Christians to the Latin church: the so-called Union of Brest.  Thus began a long period of vicious persecution of the Orthodox peasantry by the combined efforts of the Polish nobility, their Jewish overseers and, especially, the Jesuits who justified any atrocity under the slogan "ad majorem Dei gloriam" (to the greater Glory of God).  One man, in particular, excelled in the persecution of Orthodox Christians: Josphat Kuntsevich (whose biography you can read about in this text: The Vatican and Russia).  Kuntsevich - who was eventually lynched by a mob of peasants - was buried in the Saint Peter basilica in Rome near, I kid you not, the relics of Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint John Chrysostom (!).  The Latins still refer to this mass murderer as "martyr for Christ" (see here for a typical Papist hagiography of Kuntsevich) and he is still greatly respected and admired amongst modern Ukrainian nationalists.  And I can see why - it is during these years of occupation and persecution that modern "Ukraine" was created, maybe not yet as a territory, but definitely as a cultural entity.The ethnogenesis of the "Ukrainian nation"Nations, like individuals, are born, live and die.  In fact, as Shlomo Sands so brilliantly demonstrated in his bookThe Invention of the Jewish People, nations are really invented, created.  In fact, the 20th century has shown us many nations invented ex-nihilo, out of nothing (in order to avoid offending somebody or getting sidetracked, I shall not give examples, but God knows there are many).  A "nation" does not need to have deep historical and cultural roots, it does not need to have a legitimate historiography, in fact, all it takes to "create a nation" is a certain amount of people identifying themselves as a community - all the rest can be created/invented later.  Thus the argument of some Russians that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation is fundamentally mistaken: if there are enough people identifying themselves as "Ukrainian" then a distinct "Ukrainian nation" exists.  It does not matter at all that there is no trace of that nation in history or that its founding myths are ridiculous as long as a distinct common is shared by its members.  And from that point of view, the existence of a Ukrainian nation fundamentally different from the Russian one is an undeniable reality.  And that is the immense achievement of the Latin Church - it undeniably succeeded in its desire to cut-off the western Russians from their historical roots and to create a new nation: the Ukrainians.As an aside, but an important one I think, I would note that the Mongols played a similarly crucial role in the creation of the modern Russian nation.  After all, what are the "founding blocks" of the Russian culture.  The culture of the Slavs before the Christianization of Russia in the 10th century?  Yes, but minimally.  The continuation of the Roman civilization after the Fall of the 2nd Rome?  Yes, to some degree, but not crucially.  The adoption of the Christian faith after the 10 century? Yes, definitely.  But the Russian *state* which grew out of the rather small Grand Duchy of Moscow was definitely shaped by the Mongol culture and statecraft, not Byzantium or ancient Rus.  It would not be incorrect to say that ancient Kievan Rus eventually gave birth to two distinct nations: a Ukrainian one fathered by the Papist occupation and a Russian one, fathered by the Mongol occupation. In that sense the russophobic statement of the Marquis de Custine "Grattez le Russe, et vous verrez un Tartare" (scratch the Russian and you will find a Mongol beneath) is correct.  Equally, however, I would argue that one could say that "scratch the Ukrainian, and you will find the Papist beneath".At this point I do not want to continue outlining the history of the Ukraine because I think I have made my point clear: the Ukrainian nation is the product of the thousand year old hatred of Orthodox Christianity by the Papacy.  Just as modern rabbinical Judaism is really nothing more than an anti-Christianity, the modern Ukrainian national identity is basically centered on a rabid, absolutely irrational and paranoid hated and fear of Russia.  That is not to say that all the people which live in the Ukraine partake in that hysterical russophobia, not at all, but the nationalist hard-core definitely does.  And this point is so crucial that I felt that I had to make this long digression into ancient history to explain it.I have to add one more thing: the Latin Church has undergone tremendous changes in the 20th century and even its Jesuits have long departed from the traditions and ideas of their predecessors of the Counter-Reformation.  Though hatred of the Orthodox Christians and Russian still exists in some Latin circles, it has mostly been replaced by a desire to "incorporate" or swallow the Orthodox Church into the Papacy by means of the so-called "Ecumenical dialog".  As for the rank and file Roman Catholic faithful - they simply have no idea at all about this history which, of course, is never taught to themThe Papacy's goal end is still the same - submission to the Pope.  But the methods and emotions have changed: it used to be hatred and terror, now its a "dialog of love".  Amongst the Ukrainian nationalists and Uniats, however, the mindset practically has not changed.  From the likes of Stepan Bandera to his modern successor, Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector, the Ukrainian nationalists have kept the murderous hatred of Josphat Kuntsevich, hence some of the crazy statements these folks have made.We now need to make a 3 centuries long jump in time and look at the roots of Fascism and National-Socialism in the early 20th century.  We have to do this jump not because these centuries were not important for the Ukraine - they very much were - but for the sake of space and time.  The key feature of the time period we will skip is basically the rise on power of Russia, which became an Empire under Peter I and the corresponding weakening of the Polish and Lithuanian states which ended up completely occupied by Russia on several occasion.PART TWO: Fascism, National Socialism and their different rootsWe are typically taught that WWII war saw the victory of the "Allied Powers" against the "Axis powers".   While not incorrect, these categories are often confusing.  For example, according to Wikipedia, France and Yugoslavia were part of the Allied Powers.  That, of course, depends on which regime one considers as legitimate, the one of Petain or de Gaulle or the one of Pavelic, Tito or Mikhailovich?  Also - does it really make sense to lump the Soviet Union with the British Empire and the USA?  What about Petain, Hitler and Hirohito?  Well, they were allies, no doubt here, but they were very different entities and their alliance was mostly one against common enemies rather than the result of real kinship.  This is particularly true of Hitler's allies in Europe: Mussolini, of course, but also Franco, Petain or Pavlic.  Indeed, while both Hitler and Mussolini were atheist (and even rabid anti-clericalist), Franco, Petain and Pavelic were all devout Roman-Catholics.  And if the Papacy never felt comfortable with the secularist, nationalist and socialist ideas of Hitler or Mussolini, it gave its full support to Franco, Pavelic and Petain.  Hitler and Mussolini were primarily the expression of the views and interests of the petit bourgeois and worker classes, while Franco, Pavelic and Petain were very much an expression of the interests of the financial elites and noblity.  In France, in particular, the Petainist movement always had a very strong anti-1789 almost monarchist ethos.  Deeply, of course, there was not much love lost between the atheist-populist and Papist-monarchist groups.  But what did united is a common hatred for Jews, Bolsheviks, Russians and Orthodox Christians in general combined with a profoundly reactionary ideology.The two different Drang nach OstenBoth the atheist-populist and the Papist-monarchists factions had in common a very strong "Drang nach Osten" and both saw themselves as Kulturträger, literally "carriers of civilization" to the savage barbarians of the East.  Hitler's beef with the Soviet Union was, of course, the very high numbers of Jews in the Bolshevik Party (hence his talk of Judeo-Bolshevism) while the Papacy hated Jews, atheists and Orthodox Christians pretty much equally (Franco liked to speak of the "conspiración judeo masonica pagada con el oro de Moscú" or "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy paid for by Moscow's gold").  And while Hitler looked towards the East to provide land and slaves for his Master Race, the Papacy saw a fantastic opportunity to finally submit the "Photian schismatics" to Rome: already on the eve of WWI, Pope Pius X (who was canonized in 1954) pronounced "Russia is the greatest enemy Of the [Roman] Church" and "If Russia is victorious, then the schism is victorious" (and keep in mind that according to Latin doctrine - these folks are infallible when speaking ex-cathedra, in the name of the Church and on issues of faith).  Thus these two originally very different movement joined forces and united against the arch-enemy: Russia (whether atheist, Jewish and Bolshevik or Russian and Orthodox - it did not matter to them).  Needless to say, this toxic brew of hatred found an absolutely perfect Petri dish for its views amongst the Ukrainian nationalists, especially, in the Western Ukraine.Again, for a lack of time and space I will no go into a history of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,Stepan Bandera or the "Ukrainian" SS Division Galizien, you can read about on the Internet.  I will just say that these forces were amongst the most cruel and murderous of any in WWII.  In fact, the most rabid atrocities of WWII were not committed by Hitler's forces, not even the SS, but by the forces fully inspired and supported by the Vatican: the Croatian Ustashe of Ante Pavelic and the Ukrainian nationalists.  Eventually, the Ustashe and the Banderovsty were defeated, but a lot of its members not only survived the war, but prospered in exile, mostly in the USA and Canada, were the Angloshpere kept them away from actual politics, but active enough to be "defrosted" should the need arise.  And, sure enough, following the end of the Cold War, the AngloZionist Empire saw an opportunity to subvert and weaken its enemies: the descendants of the Ustashe were tasked with breaking up Yugoslavia while the descendants of Bandera were tasked with breaking the Ukraine as far away form Russia as possible.  In the same time, both in Yugoslavia and Russia, the AngloZionists directed another of its terrorist franchises - the Wahabi international aka "al-Qaeda" to join the Neo-Nazis and Papists in a common struggle against the Orthodox/Socialist Yugoslavia and Russia.  We all know what happened to Yugoslavia after that.PART THREE - the Ukraine - back to the future2014 -  The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprangAt this point in time I want to say a few things about the (now ex-) Ukrainian "opposition".  During the past months, we were mostly told that it was represented by three men: Vitalii Klichko and his UDAR movement,Arsenii Iatseniuyk and his Batkivshchyna Party, and Oleh Tiagnibok, notorious leader of the Freedom Party.  Of course, the real leader of the Batkivshchyna Party always was Yulia Tymoshenko, but since she had been jailed by Yanukovich, she could not directly participate in the most recent events.  Most western observers have neglected to ask the question whether any of these political figures really could control the demonstrators on the Maidan square.  Furthermore, they also neglected to look into how a crowed armed mostly with stones, baseball bats, iron bars and Molotov cocktails had "suddenly" been replaced by a well-organized and well-armed force of what can only be called insurgents.  The force which really packed the most strength and firepower, was not composed of members of the UDAR, Batkivshchyna or even Freedom Party - the real owner of the Maidan and now of the rest of Kiev is the so-called Right Sector, a terrorist organization headed by Dmytro Yarosh:  
Dmytro Yarosh and his troops
If the photo above looks like it might have been taken in Chechnia during the war, that is because it could have been: many Ukrainian nationalists fought on the side of the Wahabis in Chechnia, often under the banner of theUNA-UNSO terrorist organization.  They also fought in Georgia against Russia, hence the visit Saakashvili made twice to the Maidan Square.It would be logical to ask what percentage of the people of the Ukraine support Mr Yarosh and his Right Sector.  It is hard to tell, but probably a seizable but small minority.  By most estimates, the most popular leaders of the new regime are Tymoshenko and Klichko, followed by Tiagnibok - at least that was true before the revolution of last Sunday.  But that is hardly relevant: most Chechens were not Wahabis, most Croats were not Ustashe and most Kosovo Albanians were not KLA - that did not prevent these small but well armed groups from having a decisive control over the events.This places the new regime in a very difficult situation: either it complies with the agenda of the likes of Yarosh and his Right Sector, or it risks to be swiped away by an armed insurrection.  Keep in mind that the Ukrainian military basically exists only on paper and that the police forces are in no condition to impose their authority on the extremists.
What is worse, the Presidency of Yushchenko has shown that the so-called "moderate" nationalists constantly kowtow to the extremists.  Thus Yushchenko even made Bandera "hero of Ukraine" (the decision was later rescinded) and printed nice little stamps with his face.  The problem with that is kind of seemingly innocuous action is in reality a rehabilitation of genocidal ideology and that it sends a truly terrifying and revolting message to the East Ukrainians and Russians in the Ukraine: we are back and we mean business.It has mostly been overlooked, but a similar situation took place in Croatia at the moment of the breakup of Yugoslavia: the Croats, even the so-called "moderates" found nothing more intelligent to do than to immediately reintroduce the checkered flag of the Ustashe of Pavelic as a "Croatian national symbol".  To what degree this encouraged the Serbs in the Krajinas to take up arms is open to debate, but it certainly did not help.The same thing is now also taking place in the Ukraine.  Besides the yellow and blue flags of the western Ukraine, one can also see lots of black and red flags, the flag of the Banderovsty, along with all sorts of neo-Nazi symbols.  And, again, it does not really matter how many Ukrainians are suffering from genocidal tendencies, what matters is how these flags are seen in the eastern Ukraine or by the 7 million Russians who live in the Ukraine.The reaction to the coup in Kiev was immediate.  Check out this screenshot of a video showing a mass rally in the city of Sevastopol:
Mass rally in Sevastopol
Notice the flags?  Before the coup, the rallies in the east featured almost exclusively Ukrainian yellow and blue flags, now the flags are mostly Russian with a few interspersed Russian Navy flags: the people are either angry or frightened.  Probably both.  And the potential for violence therefore rapidly escalates.Check out this video of an attempt by pro-regime activist to hold a demonstration in the city of Kerch and see for yourself how rapidly the situation gets of out control.  The angry crowd begins with screams of "go away!" and "Fascists!" but soon the cops lose control of the situation and a mob begins to assault the nationalist activists.  See for yourself: 

Just as in Croatia and Bosnia, EU and US politicians have ignored (whether by stupidity or deliberately) that fear begets violence which, in turn, begets more fear, in an endless positive feedback loop which is almost impossible to stop. So where do we go from here? Frankly, I had some hopes that Yulia Tumoshenko might still save the Ukraine.   No, not because I like her, but because I recognize the strength of her personality, especially when compared to the either terminally stupid (Tiagnibok, Klichko) or spineless (Iatseniuk, Yanukovich) men in Ukrainian politics.  As one Russian journalist put it yesterday: its good to finally see a "real man" entering the Ukrainian political scene.  And indeed, for all her other faults, Yulia has three things going for her: she is very intelligent, she is strong willed and she is very popular.  Or, at least, that was what she had going for her before Yanukovich threw her in jail.  When I saw the footage of her appearance on the Maidan, on a wheel-chair, her face puffed up, sounding hysterical and completely unaware of the fact that she was surrounded by neo-Nazis I began having my doubts.  Clearly, she had a very bad time in Yanukovich's dungeon.  And to those who will say that she has every bit as corrupt as all the other oligarchs I would say this: while all the other oligarchs see power as a way to make money, Tymoshenko sees money as a way to seize power.  There is a huge difference here. Then, unlike Tiagnibok or Yarosh, Tymoshenko does not look genocidal, not has she ever tried to play the role of a "modern Bandera".  Then, unlike the typical Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Yulia is nominally Orthodox, not "Greek Catholic" (i.e. Latin).  Not that I believe that any of them are particularly religions, no, but at least Tymoshenko was not raised with the kind of maniacal hatred for everything Russian in which "Greek Catholic" kids are typically raised. Finally, Tymoshenko is definitely smart enough to understand that there is no way to keep the Ukraine as a unitary state if the neo-Nazis are de-facto in power, whether directly of through a number of "moderate" puppets. So maybe I was naive, but I had some hope that Yulia could keep the Ukraine together.  No, not because I am such a true supporter of the "Independent Ukraine", but because I would find any solution preferable to a partition of the Ukraine which would inevitably become violent. Why is violence inevitable? Paradoxically,  the main cause here are not the followers of Bandera.  Some of them have, in fact, spoken in favor of a separation of the western Ukraine from the rest of the country.  As far as I know, they are in the minority, but it is still interesting that at least some of then are aware that the notion of turning all of the Ukraine into Galicia is simply ludicrous.  Most nationalists are, however, dead set against any partition for two reasons.  Prestige: they know that "their" Ukraine is, in reality, much smaller than the Ukraine inherited form the Soviet era.  Money: they know that all the real wealth of the Ukraine is in the East.  Last, but not least, the real puppet-masters of the Ukrainian nationalists (the US) want to deprive Russia of the wealth of the eastern Ukraine and of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast.  So anybody expecting the nationalists to gracefully agree to a civil divorce between West and Southeast is day dreaming: it ain't happening, at least not by referendum or any other form of consultations. History also teaches us that it is impossible to force two groups to coexist when the hate and fear each other, at least not without *a lot* of violence. The situation in the East is as simple as it is stark: Yanukovich is politically dead.  The party of regions has basically exploded and new politicians are pupping up in Kharkov, in Sevastopol and in other cities.  Large self-defense forces are being organized locally and the population is basically ready to fight.  Considering the circumstances, these are all positive developments.  On the negative side there is the fact that the eastern oligarchs are still here, still ready to betray their own people for profit (just as the Ukrainian elites did during the Union of Brest) and that the local political forces are, by most accounts, being rather amateurishly organized.  Finally, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what Russia really wants. What about Russia in all this? I think that Russia truly does want to avoid a civil war in the Ukraine and that it prefers a separate Ukraine to a partition.  Why?  Think of it: For Russia a separate and independent Ukraine is first and foremost a way of avoiding being drawn into a civil war. If, say, Tymoshenko managed to supress the neo-Nazis and negotiate some kind of modus vivendibetween, on one hand, the western Ukraine and Kiev and, on the other, the eastern and southern Ukraine there is little doubt that she and Putin could find some peaceful and pragmatic way to coexist.  Oh, I am not speaking about a love-fest, that is simply not going to happen, but at least some mutually beneficial, civil and pragmatic relations are imaginable.  That would most definitely be the Kremlin's preferred option (which just goes to show how stupid and paranoid the Ukie nationalist - and Susan Rice - are when they hallucinate about a Russian invasion of the Ukraine). The other option is to have the nationalists take full-control over all of the Ukraine.  That seems extremely unlikely to me, but who knows?  I have been disappointed with Ukie politicians enough to put the worst possible outcome past them.  That would mean that the Russian-Ukrainian border would turn into something between the Wall which separated the two parts of Germany during the Cold War or the DMZ between the two part of Korea.  From a military point of view, not a problem at all.  As I wrote in the past, even if NATO deploys troops in the Ukraine, which they would, that close to the Russian territory military assets basically turn into lucrative targets: Russia would deploy enough Iskanders to cover its target list and that's all.  As for the Black Sea Fleet, it could either simply refuse to leave and see if NATO has the stomach to try for force it, or engage in the costly but possible fallback option of relocating to Novorossiysk (admittedly, not a good option, but better than nothing).  But, again, this is an exceedingly unlikely scenario. Which leaves option three: the nationalist attempt to subdue the south and east and fail. The violence escalates and eventually Russia is drawn in.  Now in purely military terms, Russia could very easily defeat any Ukie army which would attempt to fight it.  As for NATO and the US - they don't have the means to deploy some "combined joint task force" to repel the Russian military in the Ukraine.  So short of starting a mutually destructive nuclear war, they would have to accept the facts on the ground.  But just imagine the nightmare resulting from a Russian military operation in eastern Ukraine!  It would be back to a new Cold War, but this time on steroids: western politicians would scramble over each other to denounce, declare, threaten, condemn, proclaim, sanction, and pledge God knows what kind of nonsense.  Hysterical russophobia will become the order of the day and the AngloZionist Empire would finally find the kind of eternal enemy it has desperately been seeking for since the end of the First Cold War.  If they got really ugly, and they probably would, China would most likely get involved too and we would have exactly the kind of planet the 1% plutocracy has been dreaming about for so many years: Oceania locked into a total war against Eurasia and Eastasia, just like Orwell had predicted it:
This is most definitely not what Russia - or China - need.  And yet, this is a real risk if a civil war breaks out in the Ukraine.  One "least bad" option to avoid such a scenario would be to make sure that the east and southern Ukrainians are strong enough to repel a nationalist invasion by themselves so that the Russian military can stay out of the conflict. So there is the difficult judgment call the Kremlin needs to make: the Kremlin has to decide whether: a) the eastern and southern Ukrainian people are disorganized, demoralized, made passive by the rule of corrupt oligarchs and basically unable to defend themselves. or b) the eastern and southern Ukrainian people are united, organized and determined enough to really make a stand and fight the neo-Nazis down to the last bullet. In the first case, the Kremlin would have to basically protect the Russian borders and prepare to manage the large numbers of refugees which will inevitably cross the border. In the second case, the Kremlin would have a strong incentive to assist the eastern and southern Ukrainians by all possible means short of an over and direct military intervention. Both of these options are dangerous and none of them is preferable to a united Ukraine lead by a more or less rational leader.  This is why, at least at the initial stage, I expect Russia to *really* support any halfway sane regime in Kiev in the hope to avoid a breakup of the Ukraine. What about the US and the EU in all this? Well, as I recently wrote, the US and the EU have very different objective in the Ukraine: the EU wants a market for its goods and services, the US want to hurt Russia as much as possible.  We have all seen the total lack of effectiveness of the EU bureaucrats and their naive attempts at finding a negotiated solution.  The US foreign policy goal has the advantage of being simple yet clear: fuck Russia and fuck the EU!  From the US point of view, the worse the situation becomes, the better it is for Uncle Sam.  At the very least, this hurts Russia, at the very best, it gives the US a wonderful pretext to "protect" Europe from the "resurgent Russian bear" while standing up for civilization, democracy and progress.  A Neocons wet dream... And then, there is the "S factor": stupidity, plain and simple.  What often seems to be the result of some machiavellian plan cooked up in a deep basement of the White House, the CIA or the Pentagon is often a mind-blowing example of the truly phenomenal stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of our leaders.  They believe themselves to be so powerful as to be free from the need to understand a culture, a history or even a single foreign language.  After all, if a US policy was to failed somewhere, the response could always be the same: fuck them!  Fuck the Yugoslavs! Fuck the Serbs!  Fuck the Iraqis!  Fuck the Afghans!  Fuck the Pakistanis!  Fuck the Libyans, and the Egyptians, and the Palestinians, and fuck the Somalis, the Koreans, the Colombians and the Venezuelans and, of course, fuck the Canadians, the Mexicans, and the Africans, and, of course, fuck the Russians, fuck the Chinese, and fuck everybody else with it!   No matter how stupid or how destructive a US policy towards another party it - it either works, or fuck them!  Ms Nuland's words could really become the State Departments or the CIA's official motto. My conclusion?  Pessimistic, of course :-) Those reading my blog for a while already will not be surprised to see that, yet again, I have reached a very pessimistic conclusion: the future of the Ukraine looks absolutely terrible: the country is ruined, it has no economy, it is socially, culturally and politically nonviable, it will most likely be lead either by imbeciles or by racist manics and the biggest power on the planet will spare no efforts to add more fuel on the fire.  Keep in mind that no a single Ukrainian politician has anything even remotely resembling a plan to resurrect the currently dead Ukrainian economy.  The only and last chance for the Ukraine was to survive on the "Russian financial respirator" - but that has now been turned off, at least for the foreseeable future: the Ukies can have their Banderovite Revolution, but the Russians don't have to pay for it. Last November I wrote a piece entitled The gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine in which I pretty much predicted what has happened since.  I wrote:
I am assuming that the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will eventually prevail, and that Yanukovich will either fully complete his apparent "zag" and reverse his decision, or lose power. One way or another the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will, I think, prevail. There will be more joyful demonstrations, fireworks and celebrations in Kiev, along with lots of self-righteous back-slapping and high-fiving in Brussels, and then the gates of Hell will truly open for the Ukraine.
We are now at this point: the Ukraine has now crossed the gates of Hell and has fully entered in a long cycle of tragedy and violence.  This is truly immensely sad.  And the blame for what will happen next lies first and foremost with those forces who recklessly opened the Pandora's box of medieval and 20th century hatreds and who encouraged the nationalist demon to strike yet again and with those who stood by and did nothing: the US and EU politicians amongst whom not one single one could be found to speak the truth.  May they all rot in hell for what they have done! The Saker 

The Kremlin's response to the events in the Ukraine gradually becomes more apparent

$
0
0

The Saker

The European Saker - in his own words:
Русские долго запрягают, но быстро едут
("Russians take a lot of time to saddle up, but then they ride fast")
 Russian adage


Over the past few days the events in the Ukraine have seen a fantastic acceleration and many important events have simultaneously taken place.  I will try to look at them one by one.
  • In Kiev, the leaders of the insurgency have taken full control of the Parliament and immediately passed laws revoking the official status of the Russian language.
  • The political leaders of the insurgency have gone to the Maidan to obtain the approval of the proposed members of the new government.
  • Just as Ms Nuland had ordered, Iatseniuk has taken the post of Prime Minister
  • On the Maidan itself, deep differences are now opposing different parts of the crowd.
  • The neo-Nazi leader of the "Maidan security forces" and one of the founders of the Freedom Party, Andrei Parubii, becomes chief of the Security Council.
  • The leader of the neo-Nazi Right Sector. Dmitri Iarosh, has become Deputy chief of the Security Council.
  • The rest of the new government are mostly supporters of ex-President Yushchenko in other words: loyal US agents.
  • The new regime has disbanded the riot police thereby liquidating the last force capable of maintaining law and order in the regions controlled by the insurgents.  Now is mob rule, pure and simple.
  • The local currency is in free fall, Iatseniuk claims that $35'000'000'000 are immediately needed to avoid a default.  The full debt is $170'000'000'000.
  • In the regime controlled areas, "expropriations" (assault & robbery) are taking place everywhere and criminals rule the street.
  • Yanukovich has been exfiltrated from the Ukraine by Russian security forces (more about that later)
  • The Parliament of Tatarstan and the World Congress of Tatars has appealed to the Crimea Tatars to basically stop the crap (it was said in more police terms).  Kudos for the wisdom of these two organizations!
  • Unidentified armed men have taken over the building of the Crimean Parliament at 4AM only to make sure that this time the elected members of this parliament could enter the building and convene a meeting.  A Russian flag was raised over the Parliament building
  • Kharkov governor Mikhail Dobkin has resigned his post to run for President of the Ukraine on May 25th.
  • The Crimean Parliament has taken over all the functions of the central government and has announced a referendum on the future of Crimean to be held on May 25th.
  • The newly elected mayor of Sevastopol has met with the Commander in Chief of the Black Sea Fleet.  Both men has declared that no violence of any kind will be tolerated.
  • New popular defense militias have been formed in Crimea and their numbers are estimated at somewhere between 5'000-15'000 men organized in platoons.  They have taken control of all the key roads and are now filtering traffic for any "visitors" from the insurgency-controlled areas.
  • Senior members of the Russian Parliament have visited the Crimea to express their support for the local people and hold consultations with their Crimean colleagues.
  • In Russia the opinions are split as to what to do:  Vladimir Zhirinovksy and his LDPR Party say that Russia should stay out of it but not pay a single Ruble to the Ukrainians.  The Communists want Russia to bring the issue to the UNSC.  The "Just Russia" Party (most "moderate") are expressing full support for the people of the Crimea and say that Russia has to intervene and assist them. All-in-all, the takeover by over neo-Nazis in Kiev seems to be triggering a mix of disgust and rage which will put a lot of pressure on the Kremlin to do something.
So what about the Kremlin?   Actually, I think that I am beginning to discern what I believe is a multi-tiered response strategy which the Kremlin will conduct simultaneously:

1) Legal level:

By getting out Yaunk and allowing to seek refuge in Russia the Kremlin has made sure that the last legitimately elected President of the Ukraine would be physically available to challenge any and all decisions of the new regime, the insurgent-controlled Parliament and the nationalist government.  Yanuk is clearly politically dead, but in legal terms he actually is an extremely powerful and important actor which should be kept alive.

2) Ukrainian level:

The (now ex-) governor of Kharkov, Mikhail Dobkin, took a "discrete" trip to Russia and came back with the decision to resign as governor and to run for President.  First, the idea to run in an election controlled by the insurgents might appear stupid, but think again.  First, in the totally unlikely event of a halfway decent election he would most likely get elected (most Ukrainians do not support the insurgents).  Second, is the election is carefully "managed" Dobkin will be able to challenge it.  Third, by the simple fact of running he can force the insurgent-controlled media (especially the TV) to give him air time to debunk the nationalist propaganda.  So all in all, this is a very slick move.

3) In Crimea - political level:

For the Crimea I would say that it is a done deal: it will become an independent state in May.  That state will then have options open to itself.  If, by some totally unexpected and basically impossible miracle, Dobkin becomes elected, the Crimea can agree to a status quo ante but with the clear understanding that this will be a federative arrangement the Crimea can leave at any time.  If some crazy nationalist is "elected" then the Crimea will break all ties with the Ukraine and join the Economic Union with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia as an independent state.

4) In Crimea - security level:

Russia will use force to defend the Crimea if needed.  The preferred solution is to assist the local authorities to defend themselves by providing funds, 
weapons (if needed), expertise (if needed), intelligence (if needed), etc.  But in most cases, that will not be needed simply because the locally based Black Sea Fleet can provide it all.  At most, the Ukies can send the kind of mobs they used in Kiev.  In contrast, the Black Sea Fleet can engage the 810th Independent Naval Infantry Brigade the 382nd Independent Naval Infantry Battalion and even the 102nd Independent Detachment of Navy Spetsnaz (see their emblem on picture), that is something like 1300-1400 elite soldiers all commanded by battle-hardened and experienced officers, backed by artillery, airpower, armor, etc.  In fact, I expect that local authorities, police forces (including the local Berkut and the popular self-defense militias will be able to handle any "visitors" from the insurgency by themselves, without any help from the Black Sea Fleet.  Bottom line: the insurgents will never control Crimea.

5) Eastern Ukraine:

That's were things become far more murky.  My sense is that the Kremlin is adopting a"wait and see"attitude towards the eastern Ukraine waiting to see what happens on a local level.  The core principle behind the Kremlin's policy is "we only help those who help themselves and deserve our help".  Crimea is a perfect example of this approach.  The fact is that the nationalists do have a strong presence in Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk or Poltava so the outcome there is far more delicate to predict.

6) Rest of the Ukraine:

Here I think that the correct policy is self-evident: first, let the crazies fight each other to their heart's content. Let them run the already ruined economy into the ground, let them see how long their can survive by singing the national anthem an screaming "Бий жидів та москалів - Україна для українців" (beat the Jews and the Russians - the Ukraine for the Ukrainians).  Let the EU and the US come up with $35'000'000'000 to pay for this color-coded revolution and avoid a default, and then let them manage this new "popular and pro-western" regime.  And once they all run out of money, wait for them to call the Kremlin and ask for help.  And then, basically buy them off, one by one, factory by factory, politician by politician, oligarch by oligarch, region by region.  Russia owes these Russia-hating Nazis *nothing* and it will give them nothing for free.  The Ukies will try to retaliate by messing around with the Russian pipelines going through the Ukraine, but that is not a viable strategy: it hurts Europe first and foremost, and Russia has built two pipelines bypassing the Ukraine anyway.  Eventually, the Ukraine will break up with the west going to the EU and NATO and the Crimea to Russia.

As for China, it is already suing the new regime for breach of commercial contracts (I think, just heard/saw that somewhere on the news).  China will follow the Russian lead on this one.

7) The upcoming violence in the eastern Ukraine:

Barring a miracle, there will be a lot of violence in the eastern provinces of the Ukraine.  At this point in time I do not see a Russian military intervention to protect the Russian-speaking population which will have to defend itself.  Russia will provide a) political support b) financial support and, possibly, a limited amount of c) covert support.

That's about it, at least for the time being.  I might have to correct/refine this analysis.

As for the US/NATO, I don't believe that they will intervene militarily.  There will be A LOT of Russia-bashing, a lot of pro-Ukie propaganda, millions of US dollars will continue to flow into the pockets of the insurgency leaders, but eventually the US and its EU puppets will have to come to term with the fact that they failed to boot out the Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea and that the Crimea is going to Russia instead as a direct blowback to the color revolution the US and EU unleashed in Kiev.

What the US/EU will not do is to recognize any type of pro-Russian authority anywhere in the Ukraine.  So the country might be split like Georgia or the two Koreas are today.  That's ok, Russia and Crimea couldn't care less - let them have their own version of Kosovo for a change :-)

What do you think?  Does the above make sense?

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

UKRAINE OR SYRIA ? Putin and the dream of Mr. Mazbout

$
0
0

الأسد وبوتين وأوباما



Saddam Hussein's destiny or that of Kaddhafi awaits Putin', Thus dreamed "Mr. Bernard-Henri" Mazbout.

His enemy, now, is Putin, and Syria should rethink its affiliation to the Russian side and engagement in a war against terrorism- that has no beginning and no end – and from which Israel -whose safety has been guaranteed by Russia – is excluded .

Now Listen to the real Bernard-Henri Lévy addressing the Nazis in Kiev



In case you missed it: 

On July 4, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy.



Moulhem Droubi
Rep. of Zion Brotherhood 

On 
Do the Muslim Brothers constitute the major threat? And is Erdogan a Muslim Brother before being a NATO stooge ? And are the Muslim Brothers the most prominent danger threatening the area . What about Israel ?”  
Three months later , he criticized Syria for  attending Geneva 2  and sitting with Nato terrorists. He denied that Geneva 2 was nothing but a battle field to expose the SNC controlled by International Zionist Brotherhood . 
"The attendance of Geneva 2 on behalf of Syria cannot be interpreted except that it has been designed by US and Russia to lead nowhere . Maybe the goal is to consecrate "Geneva one as a reference and to embarrass thus the Syrian leadership or it is in order to turn the thugs of the NATO from terrorists into a decent accepted opposition and part of the Syrian condition ." Mazbout  claimed .
"In order to continue to rule , Assad who agreed to shift the battle – according to Russia’s instructions– would have to present concessions not only to US but to Russia as well and this has already started in approving of the Egyptian military coup in Egypt and in turning the war against NATO and Israel into a war against Terrorism.”  - 
Read the stupid admitting that America failed to get in Geneva 2 what she failed to achieve during the global war on Syria, still insisting that Syria would give in to the opposition in order to ease the pressure on Russia. 

"Did the failure in reaching a satisfactory compromise in Geneva 2 – that will please US by giving concessions to the opposition – behind the stirring up of the Ukrainian protests ?" the stupid asked, " Will Syria be pressured along this line by Russia to give in to the opposition in order to ease the pressure on Russia?"he discharged, ignoring the Israeli role in Ukraine events and previously in Georgia, which shall trigger more Russian support for the Axis of resistance.

Blinded by Zio-brotherhood's shit, or as instructed by his Zionist master, he ignored that Ukraine protests (Orange Revolutions) started in 2004, after 2003 Georgia's Rose revolution.    
Color Revolutions Map.pngGod knows what is in store for Putin and what destiny awaits him . Is it that of Saddam Hussein or that of Kaddhafi with whom Putin shares so much especially in the way he relates to western powers and identifies with these powers ?  
As a result Syria became alienated from its own cause and from its own self and separated from the Palestinian cause for which it had initially fought this battle. ... If you speak to some pro Assad Syrians, you will be amazed . Some pro Assad supporters want to go with Russia all the way....  
If this means something, it means that the World Order has succeeded in removing Syria from its natural bosom to replace it by mother Russia. The implications of this shift are drastic -no doubt – and the Syrians will awaken one day to this bitter reality that they have not chosen the best of bosoms ....  
Syria should reconsider this affiliation to the Russian side which is causing the situation to escalate whereby Syria is now engaged in a war against terrorism- that has no beginning and no end – and from which Israel -whose safety has been guaranteed by Russia – is excluded . 

Now, see the below video posted by the Hebrew speaking Palestian, Gilad Atzmon

ISRAELI EX-OFFICER LEADS UKRAINE "PEACEFULL PROTESTERS" 





And see real experts talking on the ongoing game of nations 

And finally two bombshells about the so-called shifting the struggle from fighting the Zionist enemy. After the stooge failed the Enemy warplanes carried out two attacks in eastern Lebanon on border with Syria. 

On Wednesday, Hezbollah confirmed that the Zionist military aircraft had attacked a site belonging to the group on the Lebanese-Syrian border and vowed an "appropriate response."

’Israel’ Opens Sirens As Hezbollah Vows Retaliation

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen Benny Gantz (with binoculars) and other military officers overlook parts of Syria from the occupied Golan Heights.Press TV
Published Monday, February 24, 2014
The Israeli military deployed a new division to the border with Syria in a move described as "a significant boost to border security and stability," the Jerusalem Post reported on Sunday.
The 210th Regional Bashan Division replaced the 36th Armor Division and the Har Dov sector, which have been stationed on the occupied Golan Heights for 40 years.
The 36th Armor Division will become "an all-purpose wartime division, designed to be sent to any combat arena, such as Lebanon or Gaza, to support other divisions," while the 210th Regional Bashan Division, with it's "enhanced capabilities" backed by air defense systems and intelligence operations, will also have the ability "to carry out a ground maneuver in enemy territory."
The deployment, dubbed "historic" has been planned months in advanced, spurred by the volatile events across the border in Syria particularly in terms of fears that "there is no Syrian state sovereignty in areas bordering the southern Golan Heights, and global jihadi forces are expected to get stronger in such areas," the Jerusalem Post said, citing Israeli intelligence assessments.
"The military sources said they do not expect Syria to recover from the civil war and go back to being a sovereign state in the foreseeable future, and they described the conflict as a strategic change that will be studied in future textbooks on Middle East history. It is impossible to know how Syria will turn out," the report said.
"The IDF’s map of territory controlled by the Assad regime and the rebels is changing continuously," it added.
Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post report noted that the 210th Division will be assisted by "a recently created Combat Intelligence Collection battalion, active along the Syrian border, and by a new security fence complete with electro-optical surveillance means and radars."
The 210th Division will also have the ability to conduct military operations without seeking higher approval.
(Al-Akhbar)
Viewing all 27504 articles
Browse latest View live