الحدث | سامي كليب 5-4-2014
↧
Sami Klaib: On the coming elections in Lebanon and Syria and more - A must see
↧
The painful issue of today's Europe - what are Russia's options?
![Russia stands for freedom!]()
The Saker
I think that it is time for me to directly address the issue of today's Europe role in world affairs. In this blog I have often voiced very harsh criticisms of both "old Europe" and "new Europe" - to use Rumsfeld's classification - but I have never addressed this issue head-on, and this is what I propose to do now.
Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I was born in the heart of Western Europe from in a family of refugees. I spent most of my life in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone). So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European. Furthermore, and regular readers of this blog know that, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it. So while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian". In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer). I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin". And yet, here I am, in 2014, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Putin groupie". I can hardly convey how weird this still feels to me.
I wanted to begin by clarifying all this because what I will write next I do not write as "a Russian bashing Europe" but as a European disgusted with his own birthplace. So here we go:
First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though we have been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War. Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be. And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe. Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed). Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:
This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.
I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free.
This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA. So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bullseye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home. For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could built a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history. If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside. As for notion of another internal European war - my generation (I am 50 now) found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium? Or France invade Spain? As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.
Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU. As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again. I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:
How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West. Not once. Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack. The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again. This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War". Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism". Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe. Not saying it's right (it's not!). I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities. I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)? The Germans or French? Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)? This is beyond ridiculous...
And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another. Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass russophobia.
As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse of than it was before.
So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests. I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt. Especially that this was far from inevitable.
If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like de Gaulle or even Mitterrand, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire. One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".
Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible. Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag, as in Ekibastuz in 1952). I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders. So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.
But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"? Okay - fair enough. But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?! Nothing, of course.
I do see some signs of a growing revolt: George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself. In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential. The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!). What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" similar to what the French Communists almost became in the late years of Georges Marchais.
[Sidenote: The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology. They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community. Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Phariseic Judaic ideology on the other. It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]
When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because de Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power). Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.
But now, what do we see?
Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis. I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland. Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans. It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking. And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.
Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!
As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force. This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that. And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent. There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it.
[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]
Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).
Everybody in Europe knows and understand most of the above. Many, in fact, understand it all. And yet nobody does anything about it. Nothing. It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor. Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)! And did anybody in Europe protest against this?
How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!
Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe? How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around? Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!
And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did? Like Alain Soral does today?
To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity. They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes". Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans? Just one?
Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I was born in the heart of Western Europe from in a family of refugees. I spent most of my life in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone). So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European. Furthermore, and regular readers of this blog know that, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it. So while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian". In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer). I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin". And yet, here I am, in 2014, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Putin groupie". I can hardly convey how weird this still feels to me.
I wanted to begin by clarifying all this because what I will write next I do not write as "a Russian bashing Europe" but as a European disgusted with his own birthplace. So here we go:
First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though we have been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War. Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be. And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe. Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed). Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:
SORRY - I HAD TO REMOVE THESE LINKS AS I DID NOT WANT TROUBLE WITH BLOGGER. YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR THIS MOVIE BY YOURSELF
THE SAKER
This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.
I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free.
This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA. So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bullseye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home. For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could built a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history. If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside. As for notion of another internal European war - my generation (I am 50 now) found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium? Or France invade Spain? As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.
Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU. As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again. I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:
How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West. Not once. Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack. The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again. This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War". Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism". Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe. Not saying it's right (it's not!). I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities. I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)? The Germans or French? Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)? This is beyond ridiculous...
And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another. Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass russophobia.
As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse of than it was before.
So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests. I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt. Especially that this was far from inevitable.
If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like de Gaulle or even Mitterrand, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire. One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".
Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible. Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag, as in Ekibastuz in 1952). I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders. So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.
But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"? Okay - fair enough. But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?! Nothing, of course.
I do see some signs of a growing revolt: George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself. In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential. The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!). What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" similar to what the French Communists almost became in the late years of Georges Marchais.
[Sidenote: The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology. They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community. Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Phariseic Judaic ideology on the other. It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]
When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because de Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power). Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.
But now, what do we see?
Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis. I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland. Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans. It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking. And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.
Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!
As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force. This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that. And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent. There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it.
[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]
Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).
Everybody in Europe knows and understand most of the above. Many, in fact, understand it all. And yet nobody does anything about it. Nothing. It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor. Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)! And did anybody in Europe protest against this?
How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!
Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe? How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around? Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!
And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did? Like Alain Soral does today?
To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity. They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes". Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans? Just one?
Don't Europeans treat their AngloZionists masters *exactly* like the "house Negro" treated his masters?
So my question is this: where are the European "field Negroes"?
So yes, I am disgusted with Europe and its politicians. And I am disgusted with the deafening silence of the my fellow Europeans. I find no excuse for it. If African slaves could rise up against their masters, how is it that Europeans seem to have this special fondness for their current overlords?
There is one final question I need to address here: what about Russia? Is it part of Europe?
I did write about the history of Russia in past posts (see here, here and here) and I cannot repeat it all here. I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends. The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe". Little has changed since). But for the rest of Europe? Forget it.
Are there still "wannabe Europeans" in Russia? Sure! First, the group which I call "Atlantic Integrationists". Then the eternal bane of Russia: its liberals. Then most oligarchs (they love capitalism). Finally, the same kind of folks as we see in the Ukraine today: those who associate Europe with a high standard of living and halfway decent cops. Toss in a hodgepodge of homosexuals dreaming of living in Holland, potheads (also dreaming of Amsterdam), the many admirers of European architecture, entrepreneurs who are fed up with the dysfunctional and corrupt Russian legal system, members of West European branches of Christianity and a few others groups and you definitely get a pro-European constituency in Russia. But ask yourself - what do most of these groups and people have in common? What did reactionary aristocrats and liberal revolutionaries also have in common? The answer is simple: they simply don't like Russia. Oh sure, they will deny that, but if you dig just a tad deeper you will see that they like "a Russia" which never existed and which they aspire to bring about. But they never liked the real Russia, the only one which really exists. This simple truth - that these liberal "reformers" actually always hate the real Russia - is one truism with many Russian intellectuals and leaders have repeated many times, from Dostoevsky, to Solzhenitsyn to Putin today. And over and over again, people like Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Putin are the type of people which inspired the Russian masses to support them, because these masses always felt, almost instinctively, that pro-Western folks are always deeply alienated from them while leaders like Putin are true Russians who love Russia for what it is, not what it should be.
This being said, history and geography have linked Russia to Europe and in that sense, Russia will always be part of Europe. This is what Putin - and others - mean when they say that Russia will always be part of Europe: they mean that because Europe has had a huge, and sometimes even positive, impact on Russia and because it is simply impossible to build a real "Iron Curtain" which would exclude Russia from the future of Europe. There are many in central Europe - Poles in particular - who would deny their own eastern and Slavic roots and who would love to see a huge wall cutting Poland forever off its eastern neighbors. I suppose that if these folks had magical scissors they would simply cut out Poland and move it to, say, southern France (there is a myth that France and Poland are particularly close whereas in reality the only thing binding these two countries together are their Masonic loges). Ditto for the Balts who would gladly move to somewhere along the Norwegian border. So when Putin says that "Russia will always be a part of Europe" he is trying to remind these folks that magic scissors do not exist and that no matter what, Russia will have influence and say in the future of Europe. I am sure that Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would agree.
But it is one thing to be aware of history and geography and quite another to make fundamental civilizational and development decisions. The "Eurasian Sovereignists" are not dreaming of magic scissors to relocate Russia to the South Pacific or the Indian subcontinent, they simply believe that Russia has to invest its energy and efforts towards developing the immense human and natural resources of the Russian East and North and that for historical, cultural and religious reasons Russia can find much better friends and allies in Asia than in Europe. I have to say that I completely agree with this vision.
Europe has become a continent whose leaders can openly votes in support of a vicious and openly neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without any backlash at all. The EU will send the Banderists in Kiev money which it denies to the Greeks, and these same Greeks then vote in support of the Banderists. Judging by the amount of laws passed in EU countries to ban racism, revisionism, negationism and even Fascism or National-Socialism one could get the mistaken impression that racism is frowned upon in the EU. This is not so. That only applies to anti-Jewish racism. But anti-Russian racism is actually the official order of the day, and it enjoys a consensus support from the European elites.
So I sincerely ask you all, my friends and readers, what shall Russia do in response to that? Pretend like this is not happening? Try to shame Europeans into realizing what they have done (like Lavrov has been trying so many times)? Does it not make sense for Russia to follow a simple course: try to avoid as best can be any wars or confrontations with the West (and that will be decided by the USA anyway) and turn towards the South, East and North for its future?
Honestly, what is the very bust Russia can hope for on its western borders?
The Saker
↧
↧
Miscellaneous News: Burning Egypt - "Hizbollah fighters captured in Syria
Posted by: Hadi F.
My own Picture: While burning Egypt
One of the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood
One of the pages that support the FSA al Quada posts a picture saying they captured some Hizbollah forces when they didn’t notice that these members where captured by isreal and then freed and that the third person in the picture in the man who have been in the isrelian prison for 60 years and then freed By Hzbollah
Abducted Iranian Border Guards Freed in Pakistan
Egypt has barred entry to a Lebanese activist who wanted to deliver a petition against a court’s death sentences for 529 alleged rioters, an official with the activist’s group said Friday.
Wissam Tarif, a member of the US-based Avaaz human rights organization, was detained at Cairo airport for several hours and put on a flight back to Lebanon, said the group’s spokesman Sam Barratt
↧
Israeli forces have killed more than 1,500 Palestinian children and wounded thousands more since 2000
Press TV has interviewed Mark Glenn, author and journalist from Idaho, to discuss recent comments by the Palestinian Authority that Israeli forces have killed more than 1,500 Palestinian children and wounded thousands more since 2000.
What follows is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: First of all, why is there no report or condemnation by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)?
Glenn: Well, what can the United Nations do when after all it was the United Nations that effectively created Israel, and which has been basically used as a rubberstamp for all of Israel’s real activities for the last half-century, of course working in tandem and in collusion with the United States? That’s number one.
Number two, I think that it’s worth noting the amount of coverage that the children of Palestine have received by the Western media concerning their plight over not just the last 14 years as this report concludes but rather literally over the last half-century.
The people of Syria have gotten more coverage in the last three years that this war, if we want to call it that, this civil war instigated by the West, it’s gotten more coverage than the plight of the Palestinian people and especially the plight of the Palestinian children.
Thirdly, the thing that I would mention is that none of this should be a surprise to anyone. The Jewish state is founded upon certain religious ideas that are found within Jewish religious texts, one of them is the use of extreme violence in cleansing all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers of non-Jewish inhabitants.
One need look no further than some of the text that call upon these warriors to kill everything that breathes, to leave nothing alive, which unfortunately has to include children. I would recommend folks out there who are curious about what kinds of brutality that Palestinian children have been subjected to to read Chris Hedges Gaza Diary where he talks about Israeli soldiers would entice Palestinian children like mice into a trap and then murder them for sport.
Press TV: There are reports that more than 200 Palestinian children are currently in Israeli jails. Given their age, just how can Israel feel threatened by these children?
Glenn: Well, Israel is threatened by the fact that the Palestinians are a demographic threat. Israel of course - other than in its orthodox community, Israeli couples do not have large families, whereas the Palestinians despite the terrible pressures that they have been put under economically, culturally and politically, they still do have large families.
This has been a common theme in political discussions in Israel now for a long time. Golda Meir, Prime Minister, one put that she would lay awake at night, terrified at the number of Palestinian children that would be conceived that night.
So, this is where the threat lies, that they know that these Palestinian children are going to grow up and become adults, and then the Jewish state is going to find itself literally outnumbered by biology.
↧
NATO’s “Humanitarian" Crime" in Libya: Transforming a Country into a “Failed State”
Libya three years on: another example of a failed Western intervention
Global Research, April 05, 2014
In 2011, Western politicians such as US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and other members of the NATO alliance praised what they believed was a successful campaign to oust the murdered Muammar al-Gaddafi. Three years later, this Western intervention has created another failed state, yet Western leaders refuse to admit their mistake. Libya is now run by extremist militias, the same people that were supported and armed by the West to carry out the illegal regime change operation. Right now, Libya’s parliament agrees on little, its interim government has no army to enforce security let alone impose its will, and a new constitution meant to forge a sense of nation remains undrafted. For many Libyans, who were duped into trusting and supporting Western intervention, life has now become unbearable. Libya has descended into a scramble over the future shape of the nation, with ex-rebel commanders, former exiles, Islamists, tribal leaders, and federalists all jostling for position.
Libya is now a failed state
In Benghazi, in the country’s east, three key ports have been seized by a group of former oil security forces who defected with their leader Ibrahim Jathran, a former Gaddafi fighter, last summer. They want more autonomy for the region. The two most powerful groups in the country are the militias west of the capital, one in the mountain town of Zintan and the other in the port city of Misrata. Bristling with weaponry and a sense of entitlement, the rivals both claim the mantle of champions of the revolution. Each brigade is loosely allied to competing political factions, and neither shows any sign of disarming or falling in behind the government in Tripoli. Ultimately, Libya has no authoritative government or any legitimate institutions.
Violence is also rife in Libya. Car bomb attacks take place frequently. The Libyan future remains highly uncertain at present, with several scenarios plausible: partition based on fundamental ethnic and regional enmities, essentially creating two polities, one centred in Benghazi, the other in Tripoli; a perpetuation of tribal rivalries with governing authority appropriated by various militia, and likely producing a type of low-intensity warfare that creates chaos and precludes both meaningful democracy and successful programs of economic development; or a failed state that becomes a sanctuary for transnational extremist violence and then becomes a counter-terrorist battlefield in the manner of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Mali, the scene of deadly drone attacks and covert operations by special forces.
One fact is clear however – the West opened another can of worms when it intervened in Libya. Similarly to Iraq and Afghanistan, the false feeling of superiority has led the Western powers to create another state where people have no hope for a better future. If the West was truly serious about humanitarian assistance, it would have pro-actively helped Libya to re-build and get back on its feet. Instead, Libya has been left to wither away by itself, which begs the question – was the Libyan intervention really about protecting civilians, or was it just another geopolitical and imperialist campaign to remove a leader who opposed the Western economic system. Before his bloody assassination, Gaddafi had pledged to fund three ambitious African projects — the creation of an African investment bank, an African monetary fund and an African central bank. Africa felt that these institutions were necessary to end its dependence on the IMF and the World Bank.
It is probable that Gaddafi’s plans to disassociate Libya from the IMF was the main reason for Western intervention. We must therefore remember one fact: the Libyan case has illustrated once again that Western interventions cannot be trusted and do not work, and in fact, cause more harm than good. For this reason it is imperative to continue to oppose NATO and any future imperialist campaigns.
Alexander Arfaoui is the founder of Global Political Insight, a political media and research organisation. He has a Master’s degree in International Relations. Alexander works as a political consultant and frequently contributes to think-tank and media outlets.
↧
↧
Reviewing James Petras’ The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East
Part I
by Stephen Lendman
It’s Petras at his best. It’s important reading. It covers vital topics. Petras tells readers what they need to know. His analysis is masterful. Below is an account of what he said.
Washington and Israel are longstanding imperial partners. Petras does some of the best analysis explaining it.
Overview: The State of the Empire
In the 1990s, imperial adventurism increased. Post-9/11, it accelerated. One war after another followed. They continue “unhampered by congressional or large-scale public opposition,” said Petras.
At least so far. Popular opinion against Obama’s Syria war postponed it. Resuming it could happen any time. Perhaps it’s one major false flag attack away.
Other wars may follow. Iran’s turn awaits. Ukraine’s full-blown crisis and regime change aftermath happened largely beyond the timeline of Petras’ book.
He’s a valued contributor to a forthcoming Clarity Press (CP) account of Ukraine’s crisis. It promises to be the definitive analysis of what happened, why it matters, and what may follow. Watch for CP’s announced publishing date.
Zionists and militarists define their current imperial objectives as follows, says Petras:
“(1) destroying regimes and states (as well as their military, police and civil governing bureaucracies) which had opposed Israel’s annexation of Palestine;
(2) deposing regimes which promoted independent nationalist policies, opposing or threatening the Gulf puppet monarchist regimes; and
(3) supporting anti-imperialist, secular or nationalist-Islamic movements around the world.”
Resistance was greater than they thought. Washington’s Afghan war is its longest in history. It shows no signs of ending.
Iraq and Libya remain cauldrons of violence. Obama’s war on Syria enters its fourth year.
Israel’s goal isn’t creating “political vacuum(s).” It’s devastating its enemies. What follows is someone else’s problem.
Tel Aviv loves getting Washington to wage its wars. The one Israel most wants most is destroying Iran. Whether America will oblige remains to be seen.
US economic conditions were different earlier than now. Overreach makes US leaders pause before undertaking what may cause more harm than good.
At the same time, public opinion is tired of wars. Enormous sums spent waging them harm their well-being.
A late 2013 Pew Research report confirms the gap between “elite and public opinion,” says Petras.
“By a vast margin (52% to 38%), the public agree that the US ‘should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,’ ” he explained.
In 2002, a scant 30% opposed foreign entanglements. Times changed dramatically.
Over 80% of Americans oppose Washington’s Afghan war. Heading toward 14 years is too much.
Large majorities want domestic issues addressed. They want current jobs protected. They want new ones created. They want better ones. They want living wages. They want government serving their interests equitably.
They despise Wall Street. They reject new imperial wars. Whether they’ll stop is another matter entirely.
America is addicted to war. It’s the national pastime. Policymakers believe war is peace. Out-of-control imperialism reflects it.
At the same time, public antipathy to Obama’s wars weakened his ability to wage new ones. Whether 9/11 2.0 can change things perhaps remains to be seen.
In 2001, public appetite for war was keener than now. “Intervention fatigue,” says Petras, makes most Americans crave peace.
They’re tired of endless imperial adventurism. They’re suffering under the weight of pursuing it. According to Petras, they began to:
“(1) prioritize their choice of places of engagement;
(2) diversify their diplomatic, political and economic instruments of coercion; and
(3) limit large-scale, long-term military intervention to regions where US strategic interests are involved.”
Washington isn't going soft by any means. A new page wasn't turned. Making the world safe for war profiteers is still policy.
Fear is stoked. It’s used to manufacture consent. It’s much tougher than before. It doesn't stop imperial rampagers from trying. Lots more effort is required.
Large-scale ground invasions are avoided. “Proliferation of special forces” substitutes. So do an array of destabilizing policies.
Ukraine is Exhibit A. Around $5 billion was spent replacing democratic governance with ultranationalist fascist extremists.
It’s pocket change compared to trillions spent on Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s changing Kiev on the cheap.
It doesn't always work. Wars remain a bottom line option. Libya is the optimal model. Shock and awe supplemented proxy ground forces.
Plans perhaps intend similar tactics against Syria. Objectives remain the same. Petras identified “at least eleven major or minor conflicts today engaging US empire builders to a greater or lesser extent.”
They include “Ukraine, Thailand, Honduras, China-Japan-South Korea, Iran-Gulf States/Israel, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine-Israel, Libya, Afghanistan and Egypt.”
Obama is more selective in choosing new targets. He’s only got so much money to spend.
Debt reduction curtails open checkbook war making. Special forces in over 120 countries do it on the cheap if needed. So do CIA elements operating virtually everywhere.
China and Russia comprise Washington’s bottom line targets. It’s hard imagining planned war on either of them.
Co-opting neighboring states substitutes. So does surrounding them with US military bases. Weakening and isolating them matters most.
Perhaps regime change by a thousand cuts is policy. Strategy is longterm. Overreach may defeat Washington’s agenda.
Perhaps China and Russia intend letting America overspend until bankruptcy. They've got their own problems to resolve at the same time.
Unity between them with likeminded allies is their best defense. America makes more enemies than friends. It’s influence is declining.
China’s star is rising. Russia hopes to ascend at the same time. How it weathers things over Ukraine remains to be seen. Whether America prevails is unclear.
The battle for Ukraine’s soul continues. It’s long term. Russia drew a red line. It’s defending its vital issues responsibly. Putin isn't rolling over for Washington. Nor should he.
Obama has a tiger by the tail. He’s in bed with fascist extremists. They've got a mind of their own. He may have bitten off more than he can chew.
Putin’s patience may best him. Public Ukrainian anger may defeat him. It’s unclear how things will go. Knowing either way won’t happen soon. Nor in other parts of the world.
Even superpowers can’t prevail everywhere, all the time. Eventually they learn. Some do the hard way.
Obama’s wars made America weaker. New ones may be counterproductive. Nothing will be resolved any time soon. Major struggles are longterm.
Modern day Spartas may succumb like earlier ones. Living by the sword usually means perishing the same way. America may spend itself to death. Hegemons risk overreaching and failing.
Obama “relied on a wider variety of interventions than (his) predecessor,” said Petras. He subcontracted more to European allies.
France took the lead in Africa. Washington wants Japan and South Korea bearing a greater Asian burden.
It’s “part of the long-term US strategy to encircle and limit China’s economic expansion,” said Petras.
Middle East control and “undermining Iran” is prioritized. “The principal strategic weakness in US empire building policy lies in the absence of domestic support.”
Zionist power remains the wild card. It’s deeply embedded in Washington. Media support is overwhelming. So are powerful monied interests.
War is their national pastime. Aroused public opinion is the best defense against it. Revving it up now is needed more than ever.
The Obama Regime’s Military Metaphysics Rejects Diplomatic Opportunities
Obama prioritizes belligerence over diplomacy. He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to pursue peace.
Replacing independent governments with subservient pro-Western ones is prioritized. Adversaries are ravaged and destroyed. Hegemons operate this way.
Opportunities for peace are spurned. Bullying takes precedence. Obama sacrificed a “Grand Bargain” with Iran to serve Israel.
Israeli “land-grabbing” overrode Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Destabilizing Venezuela is prioritized. Regime change matters more than normalized relations.
“Obama’s Snowden caper revive(d) the Cold War,” said Petras.
Obama’s war on Syria rages. He’s allied with perhaps uncontrollable death squad extremists.
Afghanistan is a bottomless pit of war. It could continue for another decade or two. Taliban fighters show no battle fatigue.
Containing China may end up a losing proposition. Lost US opportunities overall may not resurface. At least not in the short run.
“The world view of the Obama regime is one of mirror looking in an echo chamber,” said Petras. “(I)t cannot visualize and accommodate the interests of rivals, competitors or adversaries, no matter how absolutely central they are to any meaningful compromise.”
“The give and take of real world politics is totally foreign to the world’s Chosen People.” They only know how to ” ‘seize power’ and create military facts, even as they then spend a dozen years and billions of dollars and millions of lives in endless wars, bemoaning lost markets amidst serial diplomatic failures.”
“The epitaph for the Obama regime will read:
They fought the Wars.
They lost.
They turned friends
into enemies.
Who became
Friends of our enemies.
They stood alone, in splendid isolation,
And said it was their only choice.”
The Decline of the US (and everyone else…)
Post-9/11, America “suffered a series of military defeats, experienced economic decline, and now faces severe competition and the prospect of further military losses,” said Petras.
Some analysts believe US decline began decades earlier. The greater it overreaches, the faster its political and economic advantage wane.
America makes more enemies than friends. It aims to isolate Russia, China and other independent states. It may end up shooting itself in the foot trying.
Latin American countries reject US aggressiveness. They overwhelmingly oppose efforts to oust Venezuela’s government.
In late March, Organization of American States (OAS) members refused to hear fascist legislator Maria Corina Machado discuss ongoing Washington manipulated violence.
She opposes democratic governance. She backed the aborted April 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez.
She’s involved in instigating ongoing violence. Venezuelan National Assembly members want her investigated.
They want her charged with treason and incitement to crime. She’s provoking civil war, they said. She’s a Washington favorite.
Washington lost Asian influence to China. At the same time, it forged closer military ties with Japan, the Philippines and Australia.
The same holds in other areas. Empires don’t fade easily. At the same time, they don’t last forever.
In the end, they all die. America won’t be an exception. None existed earlier.
Washington stands “totally alone” against Cuba, says Petras. OAS nations are “no longer a US haven.”
At the same time, reports of US imperial decline are “overstated…(T)here is no alternative imperial or modern anti-imperial tendency on the immediate horizon,” Petras explains.
Longer-term tells a different story. The 21st century began as America’s. It may end as China’s.
Cyber-Imperialism: The Logic Behind Mass Spying: Empire and Cyber Imperialism
Edward Snowden revelations about NSA spying connected important dots for millions. He’s a gift that keeps on giving.
He explained what everyone needs to know. Doing so “provoked widespread protests and indignation and threatened ties between erstwhile imperial allies,” said Petras.
Obama presides over a homeland police state apparatus. “One of (its) essential components (is) an all-pervasive spy apparatus operating independently of any legal or constitutional constraints,” he explained.
Big Brother watches everyone. Claims otherwise don’t wash. Electronic and telecommunications surveillance is sweeping.
It’s pervasive. It targets everyone of potential interest. It operates globally. It’s a power unto itself. It’s unaccountable.
As technology advances, it promises worse ahead. No one can escape its spying eye. It monitors world leaders. It cracks encryption protections.
It listens to phone calls. It monitors emails and text messages. It accesses financial and medical records.
It conducts espionage to get a leg up on foreign competitors. It does so with electronic ease.
Huge stakes are involved. Empires need to do more to hold on to what they have. They want their power enhanced.
They want total unchallenged control. They want what’s not easy to get.
The ” ‘Global War on Terror” (GWOT), became an open-ended formula for the civilian warlords, militarists and Zionists to expand the scope and duration of overt and covert warfare and espionage,” said Petras.
It “provided the ideological framework for a police state based on the totalitarian conception that ‘everybody and everything is connected to each other’ in a ‘global system’ threatening the state.”
“This ‘totalistic view’ informs the logic of the expanded NSA, linking enemies, adversaries, competitors and allies.”
A Big Brother world is no fit one to live in. It exists. It seeks omnipotence. It wants total control. Civil liberties and human rights are discarded in the process. They’re disappearing in plain sight.
Police State: The Domestic Foundation of Empire – Fabricating Terror Conspiracies
America’s only enemies are ones it creates. Its war on terror is fake. It’s waged to stoke fear.
Supportive propaganda rages. Media scoundrels march in lockstep. They hype what demands denunciation.
They do it without supportive evidence. None exists. They regurgitate official lies. They repeat them ad nauseam.
Alleged global and domestic threats are fraudulent on their face. Warnings repeat anyway. Lies substitute for truth. They wore thin long ago.
Most people are fooled anyway. Many pay no attention either way.
“By evoking a phony ‘terrorist threat’ abroad and its detection by the NSA, Obama hopes to re-legitimize his discredited police state apparatus,” says Petras.
At the same time, he “seeks to cover-up (his) most disreputable policies, despicable ‘show trials’ and harsh imprisonment of government whistle blowers and political, diplomatic and military defeats and failures which have befallen the empire in the present period.”
Petras calls Obama “the Master of Deceit.” He’s polar opposite what supporters want. He wages multiple imperial direct and proxy wars. He plans new ones.
He wrecked the economy. He looted the nation’s wealth. He consigned millions to unemployment or underemployment.
Poverty, homelessness and hunger increased on his watch. He heads America toward full-blown tyranny.
Monied interests own him. He supports wealth, power and privilege. He let popular needs go begging.
He destroyed hard-won labor rights. He wants education commodified. He wants it made another business profit center.
He wages war on whistleblowers, dissenters, Muslims, Latino immigrants, and environmental and animal rights activists called terrorists.
He’s a con man. Petras nailed him before taking office. He called him “the perfect incarnation of Melville’s Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket. He gives thanks as he packs you off to war.”
He spurns human need. He ignores rule of law principles. He deplores democratic values. He tolerates none at home or abroad. He wages war on freedom.
The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition
Recent US history witnessed “the virtually unchallenged rise of the police state,” said Petras. Diktat power rules. No mass pro-democracy movement confronts it. It rages out-of-control.
Bipartisan complicity supports it. So do media scoundrels. It reflects McCarthyism writ large. Anyone can be targeted for any reason or none at all.
Constitutional rights don’t matter. Arbitrary rule replaced them. Police state powers reflect it.
It’s “the dominant reality in US political life today,” says Petras. It’s largely unchallenged. Dismissiveness substitutes for mass outrage.
Obama gets away with murder and much more. Media scoundrels hype state-sponsored fear-mongering. Fake threats persist. Dissent is increasingly criminalized. Wars substitute for peace.Part II
Presidential Rule by Deception: Obama, the Master Con-Man
Petras pulled no punches saying “(i)n an electoral system, run by and for a corporate oligarchy, deception and demagoguery are essential elements – entertaining the people while working for the wealthy.”
Every US president does it. All congressional leaders. It’s “de rigueur” to pretend to be “every man.” It persists while committing “war crimes worthy of prosecution.”
It’s play-acting. It’s duplicity. Obama is the “master of deceit.” He lacks an honest bone in his body.
He condemns torture while practicing it. He denounces Wall Street excess while supporting it. He wages one war after another while promising peace.
He backs Palestinian rights while trashing them. He supports the worst of Zionist militancy. He ignores institutionalized Israeli racism.His word isn't his bond. He broke every major promise made. He’s “hands down” the “greatest con-man president in American history,” Petras explains.
His predecessors pale by comparison. “(T)he enormous gap between style and substance, promise and performance, peace and war, capital and labor, has never been greater,” he added.
He continually promises one thing and does another. He’s a scoundrel in the worst sense of the term.
He betrayed loyal constituents who supported him. He did so without a second thought. He’s more racist than most white Americans.
He reflects the worst of demagogic duplicity. He defends the indefensible. He’s a weapon of mass destruction. It bears repeating. He made America unfit to live in.
The Two Faces of a Police State: Sheltering Tax Evaders, Financial Swindlers and Money Launderers While Policing the Citizens
Petras cuts to the chase saying “(n)ever in the history of the United States have we witnessed crimes committed on the scale and scope of the present day by both private and state elites.”
Never has so much harm been done to so many to benefit an elite few.
Never was extreme wealth been accumulated more easily at the expense of countless millions harmed.
Never have so-called civilized societies so egregiously trashed longstanding cherished values.
Never was grand theft more institutionalized. Never were amounts involved as great as now.
Never did pillage more greatly become the national pastime. Never did so-called democratic governance more swindle its own people.
Never before did so many mega-crooks go unpunished. Never was high-crime more common practice.
Never was government in bed with business for stakes this great. Never were more people harmed in the process.
Guiding US doctrine endorses “too rich for jail, too big to fail,” said Petras. Ordinary people alone suffer.
Steal a billion, two or three and stay free. Steal a loaf of bread for hungry children and face prison time. Doing it three times perhaps means for life.
Law and order don’t exist. Judicial unfairness is official policy. Ordinary people haven’t a chance. Monied interests control things.
The Power of Israel in the United States
Israel Buys the US Congress: Sabotaging the US-Iran Peace Negotiations.War or peace hangs in the balance. Thirty-five years of anti-Iranian hostility persists. Zionist power wants the Islamic Republic destroyed.
It wants all Israeli regional powers removed. It wants unchallenged military dominance.
It wants Israel given the right to steal Palestinian land freely. It wants it permitted to wage aggressive wars with impunity.
Attacking Iran risks regional or global war. Since WW II, “Israel has bombed, invaded and occupied more countries in the Middle East and Africa than any previous colonial power, except the US,” says Petras.
Its victims include “Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Sudan and Yemen.” Its terror attacks and targeted assassinations include numerous other countries.
Israel operates lawlessly with impunity. America partners in its crimes. It provides billion of dollars in annual support.
Red lines, timelines, deadlines, sanctions, sabotage, subversion, cyber attacks, assassinations, saber rattling, warmongering, spurious accusations, manipulated to fail P5+1 talks, and inflammatory headlines up the stakes for war.Pretexts are easy to invent. False flags precipitate them. Zionist power in America buys political support. It owns Congress. It gets most everything it wants.
Media scoundrels march in lockstep. Truth is systematically buried. Unflinching Israeli backing substitutes. Fifty-two major US Zionist organizations exert enormous influence. Political Washington bows to their will.
Obama with Israel Against the World
America is a dictatorship, says Petras. Constitutional law is null and void. It’s “presidential toilet paper!”
“Legal hacks and whores scratch their backsides and regurgitate the previous illegal executive orders in order to ‘legitimize’ new arbitrary powers to declare war” and destroy fundamental freedoms.
Abuse of power demands impeachment. It’s a national imperative. America’s Declaration of Independence states:
“(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, (it’s the right of the people, it’s) their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Straightaway as president, Obama violated his sacred trust. He betrayed his constituents. He trashed rule of law principles.
He’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. He spurns fundamental civil and human rights. He mocks democratic values.
He threatens humanity. He’s heading America for WW III. Removing him is top priority. The alternative is potentially grim.
Fifteen Minutes An American President
Obama’s 2009 inaugural address promised “a new approach with a new emphasis on respect and a new willingness to talk.”
Ravaging one country after another followed. So did overthrowing democratically elected leaders. Numerous other high crimes define his tenure.
He’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Neocons infest his administration. Peace is a four-letter word. Rule of law principles don’t matter.
Diktat power runs things. Humanity is more than ever threatened. It may not survive on his watch. America is the real evil empire. No nation ever matched its ruthlessness. Perhaps none ever will.
Israel’s Willing Executioners: AIPAC Invades Washington
“When a country, like the United States, is in decline, it is not because of external competition: declining competitiveness is only a symptom,” says Petras.
“It is because of internal rot. Decline results when a nation is betrayed by craven leaders, who crawl and humiliate themselves before a minority of thuggish mediocrities pledged to a foreign state without scruples or moral integrity.”
AIPAC is the most prominent face of US Zionist power. It fronts for Israel. It’s an unregistered foreign agent. It calls itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.”
Virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so is a career-ender.
It has virtual veto power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms sales, enormous handouts to Israel, and all Middle East policies affecting the Jewish state under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.
It’s a weapon of mass destruction. It supports Israel’s worst crimes. Its annual meetings are “the most outrageous public display of Zionist-Jewish power as it shapes US foreign policy,” says Petras.
“The sole purpose of AIPAC is to ensure Israel’s unchallenged military and political power over a huge region from North Africa to the Persian Gulf.”
Presidents, top administration officials, and congressional leaders pay homage to its power.
They march to the same drummer. They collaborate in high crimes. They support what demands condemnation.
They disgrace themselves in the process. They betray their constituents at the same time.
Fifty-two Major American Zionist Organizations control them. They serve a foreign government.
They do so against the interests of ordinary Americans. They do it “without scruples or moral integrity,” says Petras.
The Great Transformation of Jewish American Charities
Charity no longer defines them. Over time, they shifted disgracefully. They did so, Petras said, from:
- “social aid for working Jews, poor immigrants and elderly Holocaust victims to political influence peddling at the service of the highly militarized state of Israel;
- from engaging in social welfare for American Jews to political lobbying for military transfers to Israel;
- from grassroots leaders sharing life styles and struggles with their rank and file donors to millionaire CEOs entertaining Zionist billionaires and banging tables for Israel at the White House while paying off the Congressional influential; and
- from reaching out and aligning with Americans working for peace with justice in the Middle East to embracing every tin horn monarch and dictator who signs off on Israeli annexation of Palestinian land.”
In the process, they lost their popular mass base. Members resigned in protest. Others were forced out.
They’re no longer Jewish community representatives. They front for lawless Israeli power. They do so without ethics or integrity.
Imperial and Zionist Wars and Terror in the Middle East: Palestine, Iran, Syria and Yemen
Israeli Terror: The “Final Solution” to the Palestine Question (page 130/31)
Longstanding ethnic cleansing reflects official Israeli policy. Palestinians are systematically dispossessed.
For decades, Israel “confiscat(ed) their lands, destroy(ed) (their) homes, bulldoz(ed) (their) orchards and (established) ‘Jews-only’ colonial settlements serviced by highways, electrical systems and water works for the exclusive use of the settlers and occupying soldiers,” said Petras.
Israel is the only nation without declared borders. Its Greater Israel objective explains why. It wants them expanded.
In 1982, Oded Yinon prepared “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.” The Association of Arab-American University Graduates called it “the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East.”
“Its importance…lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it represents.”
It states for Israel to survive, it must dominate the region. It must become a world power.
Doing so requires balkanizing Arab nations along ethnic and sectarian lines. It involves making them Israeli satellites.
Israel wants all historical Palestinian land, said Petras. It wants non-Jews “expel(led).” It wants Jews alone granted rights. It denies Palestinians entirely.
It commits high crimes too grave to ignore. It does so daily. It literally gets away with murder with impunity. So-called peace talks mock legitimate ones.
Palestinians are largely on their own to survive. Besieged Gazans suffer most of all. Israel keeps them isolated illegally.
Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is a longtime Israeli collaborator. So are other PA officials. They’re Israeli enforcers.
They betray their own people for generous benefits derived. They’re complicit in causing enormous human suffering.
Obama at the General Assembly: Sacrificing Palestine for Zionist Campaign Funds
Petras discussed his September 21, 2011 address. He “overt(ly) pander(ed) to Israel,” he said. He’s done it at AIPAC conferences.
He supports lawless Israeli policy. He spurns fundamental Palestinian rights. He’s indifferent to their vital needs.
“From the angle of satisfying the US Zionist power configuration (ZPC) and securing a massive flow of re-election financing, Obama’s (2011) UN speech was a smashing success,” Petras explained.
He grovels before Zionist interests. He supports hugely destructive ones. He turns a blind eye to Israel’s settlement project.
He finances its wars of aggression. He vetoes all justifiable anti-Israeli Security Council resolutions
He supports wrong over right. He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He disgraces the office he holds.
Israeli Bombers: Al Qaeda’s Air Force
![]()
Israeli history reflects multiple crimes of war, against humanity and slow-motion genocide.
Generations of leaders deplored peace. They thrive on war. “Its foreign policy depends on perpetual regional wars and political instability,” said Petras.
Fifty-two Major American Zionist Organizations endorse its lawlessness. Israel is partnered with Obama’s war on Syria.
It wants another regional rival removed. Iran’s turn awaits. In 2014, Israel budgeted nearly $3 billion dollars for war on the Islamic Republic.
Waging it would be madness. It remains to be seen what follows. It doesn’t matter what Israel does most often.
“The entire Zionist power configuration in Washington has lined up to support the Jewish state,” said Petras.
“When Israel commits an act of war against its neighbor, no matter how unjust and brutal the act, Zionists from the most religious to the most secular, the ‘peacenik’ and neo-cons, all form a united chorus in praise of the righteous and moral ‘Jewish Bombs’ even as they fall on the besieged people of Syria today and Iran tomorrow.”
Peace remains elusive. It’s nowhere in sight so far nor benefits accrued if it arrives.
The Bloody Road to Damascus: The Triple Alliance’s War on a Sovereign State
Syria is Obama’s war. Proxy death squad invaders are used. So far they lack an air force. Obama likely plans Libya 2.0.Plans to initiate it last summer were postponed. They weren’t cancelled. Full-scale war on Assad may be one major false flag incident away.
It remains to be seen what Obama plans. He wants another imperial trophy. Plans to oust Assad are firm.
The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. It’s “paved with lies,” Petras explains. It bears repeating. Iran’s turn awaits. Perhaps regional war will follow.
Saudi Arabia: A Retrograde Rentier Dictatorship and Global Terrorism
Saudi Arabian governance mocks legitimacy. It “has all the vices and none of the virtues of an oil rich state like Venezuela,” said Petras.It’s “governed by a family dictatorship which tolerates no opposition and severely punishes human rights advocates and political dissidents.”
It “finances the most fanatical, retrograde, misogynist version of Islam, the ‘Wahhabi’ sect of Sunni Islam.”
It’s a valued US ally. America supports some of the world’s most ruthless despots. It targets independent governments for regime change.
It want subservient pro-Western puppet leadership replacing them. It spurns democracy at home and abroad.
It’s waging terror wars on humanity. It’s spending trillions of dollars doing so. It lets vital homeland needs go begging. It wants unchallenged global dominance.
Iran-US Interim Agreement: Historic Breakthrough of Historic Sellout?
American agreements aren't worth the paper they’re written on. US history reflects it. Native Americans suffered through centuries of heroic lost struggles. From 1492 to today, they experienced promises made and broken.
Winning the West involved betraying them. One US treaty after another was violated. Imperialism works this way. Things haven’t changed. Today they’re worse than ever.
Earlier US policy makers sought sea to shinning sea dominance. Today they want it globally. They want it unchallenged. They’ll stop at nothing to get it.
Obama is America’s latest rogue leader. He’s a moral coward. He’s a serial liar. His word isn't his bond. Petras asked if the so-called “historic (Geneva) breakthrough” was real or a mirage.
Does it end 34 years of Iran bashing? Or is it the latest US betrayal dressed up in diplomatic mumbo jumbo?
The Big Lie about an Iranian nuclear threat persists. It’s fake. It’s a red herring. US intelligence reports say so.
It’s common knowledge in Washington. It doesn't matter. Congressional Iran bashing continues. So do punitive administration actions.
Petras said Geneva ostensibly “is directed toward undermining Iran’s potential ‘capacity’ to have a nuclear program: there are no weapons to destroy, no weapons plans exist, no war plans exist and there are no strategic offensive military operations on the Iranian ‘drawing board.’ ”
“We know this because repeated US intelligence reports” say so.
“So the entire current negotiations are over weakening Iran’s ongoing peaceful, legal nuclear program…”
They aim to “undermin(e) any future advance in nuclear technology that might protect Iran from an Israeli or US attack…”
Longstanding US/Israeli policy prioritizes destroying Iranian independence. It’s replacing it with pro-Western puppet governance.
It’s advancing US/Israeli imperialism. It’s eliminating all rival states. It’s establishing unchallenged control. It’s going all out by whatever means necessary.
Iran sought normalized relations with Washington and other Western countries for decades. It offered major concessions.
Its sincere efforts were spurned. Is this time different? Has Washington turned a page? Obama has all the proving to do. If past is prologue, don’t expect it.
The Assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki by Fiat
Obama ordered death by drone missile. He murdered a US citizen abroad. He did so without justification.
He committed cold-blooded murder. For sure not for the first time. Or the last. He governs by diktat authority. He ignores fundamental rule of law principles.
Bill of Rights protections are gone. International law doesn’t matter. Washington rules alone apply. Hegemons operate that way.
So do rogue leaders like Obama. It bears repeating. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors.
Oligarchs, Demagogues and Mass Revolts…Against Democracy
US democracy exists in name only. Most other European ones operate the same way. Monied interests alone matter. Ordinary people have no say.
So-called “color-coded ‘mass revolts’ in Eastern Europe (including former Soviet republics) featured (duplicitous) popular leaders who exhorted the masses in the name of ‘independence and democracy…,” said Petras.
They were “pro-NATO, pro(Western) (imperial stooges) liked to neoliberal elites.”
Modern-day “oligarchs privatized and sold off the most lucrative sectors of the economy, throwing millions out of work.”
“They dismantled the welfare state and handed over their military bases to NATO for the stationing of foreign troops and the placement of missiles aimed at Russia.”
They betrayed their own people in the process. Things are worse now than ever.
Washington’s history reflects backing governments spurning the needs of their own people. Western monied interests alone matter.
Hard times inflict enormous punishment. Wars compound the worst of conditions. Things continue going from bad to worse. A race to the bottom harms countless millions.
Petras concludes saying “understanding imperial politics requires:
- analyzing its changing structure and operational code;
- identifying its ideology and technological innovations;
- analyzing the domestic foundations of empire and the interplay between overseas expansion and internal decay; and
- locating idiosyncratic domestic political configurations which influence and direct the particular policies and strategies of empire builders.”
About the Author: Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He writes for MoneyNewsNow.comHe is also author of the celebrated books “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity” and “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War“.
Lendman also hosts his own blog at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
He is host of a progressive radio show with cutting-edge discussions and 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. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
↧
“Israel’s” Scheme of ‘Normalization’ with Arabs
Local Editor
In a new attempt to seek ‘normalization' with the Arab populations in the region, a number of "Israeli" organizations are actively working to "deliver funds and distribute aid" to Syrian refugees in al-Zaatari Camp in Jordan (with over 100,000 refugees) through the "IsraAid" campaign.
![normalization]( "normalization")
According to the Times of "Israel" newspaper, there has been an "'Israeli'-Jordanian partnership" as a result of this initiative, whereby the Jordanian NGO director of the "IsraAid," who preferred to stay anonymous, says that the refugees "will likely never return to Syria."
Through its attempt to provide a positive image of itself by showing that its aim is to solely provide "humanitarian aid" to Syrian refugees, the "IsraAid" campaign has sought the process of ‘normalization' under the cover of "aid."
The "IsraAid" group has begun its ‘normalization' process by sending "humanitarian aid" to the Syrian refugees living in al-Zaatari camp, which comes in the form of bags with dry goods, hygiene products, and baby supplies.
Additionally, the group has begun a "trauma-treatment program" that takes place every two weeks in order to help in trauma counseling. The program is said to soon include the creation of an emergency hotline for the refugees to call at when "it gets too much to bear," as the newspaper wrote.
Moreover, the group is also seeking to target children in their hopes to build a playground for the Syrian children, and employment programs for women as well.
Furthermore, members of the group hand out readings, worksheets, as well as cards written in both the Arabic and Hebrew languages to the refugees, in an attempt to arouse the feelings of empathy and close connection between them.
The "Israeli" newspaper refers to the friendly relationship that has been established between the "IsraAid" group and the Jordanian NGO director in terms of greeting the "Israelis" with "a hug and a tray of steaming coffees." The NGO director further refers to them as his "family," and says that he soon wants to visit them in Tel Aviv. The "Isreali" group also stays overnight during long visits as "guests" in his home, the newspaper adds.
As for Shachar Zahavi, the founding director of "IsraAid," he says that unlike the Jordanians who hide their identity while working with the organization, he does not want to hide because there is an "international aid system" in place:
"I don't want to hide. What's the point of hiding? No other ‘Israeli' organization actually says they're working in Jordan to help Syrians. There's a security issue and that's the main stress of it all, for sure. But I think it's important that we're part of the international aid system."
Hence, the "IsraAid" campaign is currently working under the title of "aid" as part of a bigger scheme to seek ‘normalization' with Arabs on the longer term, in order to influence their judgments, views, and principles regarding the issue with the occupying "Israeli" entity in the Middle East. Through its efforts and campaigns, it largely aims to influence public opinion and present "Israel" as a "humanely" and "legitimate" entity to the rest of the world.
Source: "Israeli" Websites, edited by website team
In a new attempt to seek ‘normalization' with the Arab populations in the region, a number of "Israeli" organizations are actively working to "deliver funds and distribute aid" to Syrian refugees in al-Zaatari Camp in Jordan (with over 100,000 refugees) through the "IsraAid" campaign.
According to the Times of "Israel" newspaper, there has been an "'Israeli'-Jordanian partnership" as a result of this initiative, whereby the Jordanian NGO director of the "IsraAid," who preferred to stay anonymous, says that the refugees "will likely never return to Syria."
Through its attempt to provide a positive image of itself by showing that its aim is to solely provide "humanitarian aid" to Syrian refugees, the "IsraAid" campaign has sought the process of ‘normalization' under the cover of "aid."
The "IsraAid" group has begun its ‘normalization' process by sending "humanitarian aid" to the Syrian refugees living in al-Zaatari camp, which comes in the form of bags with dry goods, hygiene products, and baby supplies.
Additionally, the group has begun a "trauma-treatment program" that takes place every two weeks in order to help in trauma counseling. The program is said to soon include the creation of an emergency hotline for the refugees to call at when "it gets too much to bear," as the newspaper wrote.
Moreover, the group is also seeking to target children in their hopes to build a playground for the Syrian children, and employment programs for women as well.
Furthermore, members of the group hand out readings, worksheets, as well as cards written in both the Arabic and Hebrew languages to the refugees, in an attempt to arouse the feelings of empathy and close connection between them.
The "Israeli" newspaper refers to the friendly relationship that has been established between the "IsraAid" group and the Jordanian NGO director in terms of greeting the "Israelis" with "a hug and a tray of steaming coffees." The NGO director further refers to them as his "family," and says that he soon wants to visit them in Tel Aviv. The "Isreali" group also stays overnight during long visits as "guests" in his home, the newspaper adds.
As for Shachar Zahavi, the founding director of "IsraAid," he says that unlike the Jordanians who hide their identity while working with the organization, he does not want to hide because there is an "international aid system" in place:
"I don't want to hide. What's the point of hiding? No other ‘Israeli' organization actually says they're working in Jordan to help Syrians. There's a security issue and that's the main stress of it all, for sure. But I think it's important that we're part of the international aid system."
Hence, the "IsraAid" campaign is currently working under the title of "aid" as part of a bigger scheme to seek ‘normalization' with Arabs on the longer term, in order to influence their judgments, views, and principles regarding the issue with the occupying "Israeli" entity in the Middle East. Through its efforts and campaigns, it largely aims to influence public opinion and present "Israel" as a "humanely" and "legitimate" entity to the rest of the world.
Source: "Israeli" Websites, edited by website team
↧
Salem Zahran: On Presidential elections in Lebanon and Edogan's War on Islam and Syrian Minories
سالم زهران / حوار الاخبارية 05 04 2014
كريم بقرادوني _ مع الحدث / المنار 05 04 2014
غالب قنديل _ يحدث اليوم L تلاقي 06 04 2014
- One Syrian Refugee Killed in Clashes with Jordanian Security
- New American Plan to Train Militant Groups in Syria
- Syrian Army Crushes Insurgent Intruders in Aleppo, Latakia
- An Airbridge for “Mujahedin” from Jordan to Turkey: Report
- ’Jihadist’ Infighting in Syria is ’Sedition’: Zawahiri
- Behind the Scenes: Syrian Army to Start Large Offensive in Kasab
- Syrian Army Continues Campaign, Kills Scores of Militants across Country
- Mortar Attacks Kill 2 Citizens, Injure 8 Others in Damascus
- Terrorist Mortar Attacks in Syria Leave 6 Children Killed
- Syrian Army Chases Down Terrorists As They Flee ’Site 45’ in Latakia
- FSA Military Council Chief Killed in Qalamoun: Observatory
- Syrian Army Discovered Second Bombing Industry in Ras al-Ein
- Syrian Army Discovers Main Industry of Car Bombings to Be Sent to Lebanon
- Nineteen Syrian Opposition Groups Unite under ’Al-Sham Legion’
- حركة شام الاسلام" .. من هو هذا التنظيم.. ما قصة قياداته التي بدأت تتهاوى في اللاذقية ؟
- أوباما وعبقرية الحروب البديلة الشريرة
- المسلحون يستغيثون عبر مواقع التواصل الإجتماعي: المعركة ليست سهلة
- الجيش السوري يقتل قائد المجلس العسكري بحمص عبد القادر جمعة و 50 مسلحاً معه
- بالصورة والاسماء الموثقة: 70 قتيلاً للميليشيات المسلحة في المليحة
- الجيش السوري يقطع طرق إمداد المسلحين من مدينة الباب بريف حلب
↧
RANKOOS LIBERATION ONLY HOURS AWAY
الجيش السوري يسيطر على خط الدفاع الأول للمسلحين في رنكوس.. و يتقدم
DAMASCUS:
Rankoos: Confirmed and inevitable. The SAA is now inside Al-Sarkha, the 67th Artillery Brigade having pounded its measly defenses into dust. From this town, the SAA was able to advance into Rankoos by destroying the “ringed defense” Jabhat Al-Nusra and Jabhat Al-Islam defenders installed on the periphery. There is no periphery any more. The SAA is inside Rankoos where remnant vermin from Yabrood, Al-Sahl, Faleeta, inter alia, had escaped. All sources confirm that the town will be in the hands of the SAA within hours. Monzer writes that as of 3:00 p.m. Damascus time, over 100 rats have been killed with 19 surrendering to MI and security.
Al-Sarkha: The pack of rats defending this now-fallen town called itself the “Brigades of the Guiding Light”(Kataa`eb Al-Hudaa, yawn)
- Maaher Al-Muslimaani
- Mustafaa Al-’Abed
- ‘Abdul-Qaader Shaqfa
- Nabeeh Sultaaniyya
- Taaher Mawsalalli
- Zaaher ‘Ubayd
- ‘Abdul-Kareem Al-Hussni
There were 28 others who were not named. 55 have surrendered. Many IEDs dismantled by sappers.
Jawbar: A mortar was destroyed. 26 rats killed at the Grand Mosque.
- Marwaan Hallaaq
- Nassr Al-Baabaa
- Ibraaheem Mufarrij
- Muhssen Al-Hakeem
- Mu`ayyad Badreddeen
Another 21 were not named. Many of these were Jordanians.
Khaan Al-Shaykh: Fighting with no details.
Waadi ‘Ayn Turma: Reports are that the rodents here are negotiating their surrender.
Al-Maleeha: Just completely liberated. Clean-up resulted in killing these 8 jackals with 19 taken prisoner:
- Ameen Ghazzi
- Talaal ‘Abdul-’Azheem
- Muhammad Al-Qaassimi
- Ishaaq Hadeed
- Bahaa` Raslaan
- Mustafaa Sha’baan
- Rafeeq Al-Tabbaa`
- Rushdi Al-Abrash
Marj Al-Sultaan: In the East Ghoutaa. SAA killed these dingos:
- Haytham Al-Diqqi
- Zaki Al-Kurd
- Faayez Muhammad
Binyameen Shawka (Interesting first name for a Sunni Muslim. He might be a Christian forced to fight with these rats or a kidnap victim who was in the line of fire. He might also be a Sunni who was namedBinyameen for “nidr”, i.e. in order to get a son after a series of girls.)
Harastaa: The SAA destroyed a mortar east of the Police Dept. Infirmary and killed 2 rats. No names.
‘Aaliya Farms to Al-Majd: A 200 meter tunnel in which the SAA found a factory for IEDs. 38 remote controlled IEDs were also dismantled by sappers along a rural road inside this area.
Al-Qadam at Port Sa’eed Quarter: Reports are of 4 rats killed and over 20 surrendering.
LATAKIA:
ERDOGHAN TURK AIR FORCE ADMITS BEING CHASED AWAY BY SYRIAN AIR DEFENSES. The Turkish High Command has announced that a wing of F-16s which were flying perilously close to the border with Latakia were frightened away as Syrian radar locked on to the offending jets. Fadi sent a report which confirms what I wrote yesterday about Armenians arriving in Syria by the thousands. Fadi’s article, which I could not download, provided that the “Deer Hunter Brigade” is heading for the Kasab Front. I can tell you from my experience that these Armenians will give no quarter to any forces coming from genocidal Erdoghan. We have also received unconfirmed reports that the Armenian government has sought assistance from Russia to fly more fighters to defend Armenian lands in Syria.
ALEPPO:
Hanaanu: At the Youth Residencies, the SAA vaporized a warehouse filled with light weapons from the U.S. and 2 vans loaded with ammunition intended for rats trying to defend against the massive SAA push on the periphery of the Central Prison.
Central Prison to the north at Al-Jubayla: SAA has conducted a successful operation to establish a strong point here. Rats will die soon in the hundreds.
Handaraat, ‘Anjaara, Maari’, Al-Mansoora, Kafr Naahaa, Hameema, Dayr Haafer, Al-Shaykh Sa’eed, Ba’eedeen Roundabout, Shaba’, Rasm Al-’Abbood, Baabees, Daarat ‘Izza, Al-Saakhoor all are seeing continuous fighting.
Al-Raashideen Quarter: On the verge of becoming rat free.
Al-Shaykh Khudhr Park: An attempted infiltration into Sulaymaan Al-Halabi Quarter was disastrous. 14 dead rats with 3 taken prisoner.
Khaan Al-’Asal: A pickup with a 23mm cannon was damaged and the weapon given to the NDF for killing all Saudi monkeys.
DAYR EL-ZOR:
City: North of Al-Ba’aajeen School, a tunnel 30 meters long was uncovered and all weapons inside seized for killing Wahhabists. Al-Jubayla: 2 nests of rats destroyed. No details until tomorrow.
Al-Muree’iyya: 4 rodents sent to Hell:
- Turki Qaassem Al-Hussayn
- Jaaber ‘Ali Sa’adallah
- “Abu Al-Jazzaar” (id pending. IRAQI WORM SLIME)
- Shakeeb Hassan ‘Abdul-Baaqi
DER’AH:
Al-Mutilla: A pickup with a 23mm destroyed. No details. SANA.
Massaab: Ditto. SANA. Al-Mayaadeen reported a large group of hyenas arriving Der’ah City yesterday. We will check on this.
NEWS ND REPORTS:
The West is trying to cover up the Turk genocide and subsequent ethnic cleansing of the Kasab area. But, they can’t cover up the entire truth:
WILE E. COYOTE MOMENT: (Thanks, Anon)
↧
↧
S.Nasrallah: Terrorist Bombings’ Threat Dropped,So Did the Threat of Regime Fall
السيد حسن نصرالله: خطر سقوط نظام السوري انتهى
Local EditorHezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stressed that the risk of terrorist bombings in Lebanon has dropped considerably, praising the security measures from both the Syrian and the Lebanese sides.
In excerpts released from an interview where the first part would be published by As-Safir newspaper Monday morning, Sayyed Nasrallah said that “the danger of Syrian regime fall has ended, as we passed the danger of partitioning.” He noted also that “the military option has failed,” adding that “the Syrian battle’s aim is not making democracy or justice or fighting corruption, but changing the position of Syria and the offers President Bashar al-Assad received more than once prove this.”
Sayyed Nasrallah said that majority of states today are speaking of a political solution. He predicted that the Russian position will get tougher in the next stage.
The S.G. expressed confidence in the course of events in the south of Syria and on its northern border. “The developments in Syria came to achieve the most important Israeli choices after July 2006 defeat, but the field developments made them more worrisome and their eyes turned on the Galilee, that is not to mention the Israeli concern of Iran which is increasing day after day.”
Sayyed Nasrallah stated his comprehensive view on the so-called “Arab Spring”, and said that he had heard years before the developments on the Arab arena debate about the division of a number of Arab countries.
Source: Al-Manar Website | 06-04-2014 - 23:20 Last updated 06-04-2014 |
Related Articles
- التطورات الميدانية في القنيطرة وجبل الشيخ والجولان
- هذا ما جرى في جورة الشياح بحمص القديمة.. خرق استخباراتي كبير للجيش السوري
- الصمود السوري وارتداداته: ماذا بعد إخفاق أوباما ؟
- تنظيم "الإخوان"يتفق مع الصهيونية في تنفيذ مخطط الشرق الأوسط الجديد
- قطر تستقبل محرّري أعزاز: رسالة جديدة إلى حزب الله
- Hezbollah ’Settled Account’ with Israel
- Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Stronger, Gold will Always Remain Gold
- Hezbollah Denounces Terrorist Crimes against Holy Sites in Syria
- How Hezbollah Responded to Israeli Attacks?
↧
Interesting poll on US public opinion towards the Ukrain
Via The Saker
Reason.com reports:
Poll: 58 Percent of Americans Want the US to Stay Out of Ukraine
Emily Ekins|April 4, 2014 6:56 pm
![]()
As tensions rise between Ukraine and Russia, America’s foreign policy hawks argue the US needs to do more. However, Reason-Rupe finds war-weary Americans are reluctant to get involved in yet another conflict abroad. My college Zenon Evans writes more about this here.
Conservative hawks like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and US Sen. John McCain say we need to do more. Kristol argued that the US is partly responsible for what’s happening today because we didn’t get involved after the Orange Revolution in 2004, and therefore “we now need to help them.” John McCainwants the US to push for moving Ukraine into NATO, which would obligate the US to intervene in conflicts like these.
President Obama has urged caution saying that Ukraine is not “some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia.” Sen. Rand Paul happened to agree contending"some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that is a good idea."
Americans tend to agree the US should not get involved. In fact, when asked what they’d like to do regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 58 percent would prefer the US stay out of it completely. Thirty-one percent would prefer the US continue imposing economic sanctions and only 8 percent want the US to send troops.
![]()
If Russia attempts to invade additional parts of Ukraine, Americans continue to overwhelmingly oppose the US sending troops, with 76 percent opposed and 20 percent in favor, and even oppose sending military aid and weapons to Ukraine, with 62 percent opposed and 33 percent in favor. However, only 32 percent would oppose imposing stricter economic sanctions on Russia, while 61 percent favor that approach. This is not because Americans necessarily believe sanctions will solve the problem, but rather they view it as a symbolic gesture to communicate to Russia that they don't condone its actions.
Opposition to military intervention or interference in Ukraine extends beyond partisanship, although Republicans are more likely to support involvement than Democrats. For instance, while a majority (53 percent) of Republicans oppose sending military aid, this number jumps to 68 percent among Democrats. When it comes to imposing stricter economic sanctions if Russia sends in more troops, Democrats and Republicans are equally in favor with roughly 6 in 10 in support. However, political independents are the most skeptical of further involvement only 41 percent favor and 48 percent opposed.
![]()
Millennials, many of whom came of political age during the Bush administration and two unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the most opposed to US involvement in Ukraine. Young people’s skepticism is not reserved for military intervention; they are the most likely group to oppose imposing further economic sanctions on Russia as well.
While many Americans lost confidence in President Bush’s foreign policy approach, only a third think President Obama’s is any better, and a third think it’s worse. Regarding Ukraine specifically, nearly a quarter of Americans don’t now enough about the situation to evaluate Obama’s performance, while 37 approve and 40 disapprove.
Opposition to US intervention in Ukraine plays a more important role than partisanship in explaining Americans’ evaluation of President Obama’s handling of the situation. Among those who disapprove of Obama’s handling of Ukraine, only 26 percent want the US to continue imposing economic sanctions and 61 percent want the US to stay out of it. However, among those who approve, roughly half support the administration’s policy while the other half want to stay out of it. Nevertheless, partisans are equally likely to support sanctions (31%) or staying out of it (58%). Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 26-30 2014 interviewed 1003 adults on both mobile (503) and landline (500) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.6%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.
Poll: 58 Percent of Americans Want the US to Stay Out of Ukraine
Emily Ekins|April 4, 2014 6:56 pm
As tensions rise between Ukraine and Russia, America’s foreign policy hawks argue the US needs to do more. However, Reason-Rupe finds war-weary Americans are reluctant to get involved in yet another conflict abroad. My college Zenon Evans writes more about this here.
Conservative hawks like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and US Sen. John McCain say we need to do more. Kristol argued that the US is partly responsible for what’s happening today because we didn’t get involved after the Orange Revolution in 2004, and therefore “we now need to help them.” John McCainwants the US to push for moving Ukraine into NATO, which would obligate the US to intervene in conflicts like these.
President Obama has urged caution saying that Ukraine is not “some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia.” Sen. Rand Paul happened to agree contending"some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that is a good idea."
Americans tend to agree the US should not get involved. In fact, when asked what they’d like to do regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 58 percent would prefer the US stay out of it completely. Thirty-one percent would prefer the US continue imposing economic sanctions and only 8 percent want the US to send troops.
If Russia attempts to invade additional parts of Ukraine, Americans continue to overwhelmingly oppose the US sending troops, with 76 percent opposed and 20 percent in favor, and even oppose sending military aid and weapons to Ukraine, with 62 percent opposed and 33 percent in favor. However, only 32 percent would oppose imposing stricter economic sanctions on Russia, while 61 percent favor that approach. This is not because Americans necessarily believe sanctions will solve the problem, but rather they view it as a symbolic gesture to communicate to Russia that they don't condone its actions.
Opposition to military intervention or interference in Ukraine extends beyond partisanship, although Republicans are more likely to support involvement than Democrats. For instance, while a majority (53 percent) of Republicans oppose sending military aid, this number jumps to 68 percent among Democrats. When it comes to imposing stricter economic sanctions if Russia sends in more troops, Democrats and Republicans are equally in favor with roughly 6 in 10 in support. However, political independents are the most skeptical of further involvement only 41 percent favor and 48 percent opposed.
Millennials, many of whom came of political age during the Bush administration and two unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the most opposed to US involvement in Ukraine. Young people’s skepticism is not reserved for military intervention; they are the most likely group to oppose imposing further economic sanctions on Russia as well.
While many Americans lost confidence in President Bush’s foreign policy approach, only a third think President Obama’s is any better, and a third think it’s worse. Regarding Ukraine specifically, nearly a quarter of Americans don’t now enough about the situation to evaluate Obama’s performance, while 37 approve and 40 disapprove.
Opposition to US intervention in Ukraine plays a more important role than partisanship in explaining Americans’ evaluation of President Obama’s handling of the situation. Among those who disapprove of Obama’s handling of Ukraine, only 26 percent want the US to continue imposing economic sanctions and 61 percent want the US to stay out of it. However, among those who approve, roughly half support the administration’s policy while the other half want to stay out of it. Nevertheless, partisans are equally likely to support sanctions (31%) or staying out of it (58%). Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 26-30 2014 interviewed 1003 adults on both mobile (503) and landline (500) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.6%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.
↧
Peace Pilgrimage to Syria
admin
Press release: 5 April, 2014
![NewLOGO]()
Peace Pilgrimage to Syria, is a civil movement of peace activists for providing humanitarian aid to Syria and strive to bring peace in the country as soon as possible. This movement has eminent personalities and peace activists from all over the world. This caravan after its presence in Iran will move towards Damascus on 9th April, with humanitarian aid which mainly consists of medical and pharmaceutical aids, to help and meet different groups of people and distribute the relief to the war stricken people of Syria. This convoy includes activists from countries such as Britain, Canada, Germany, Lebanon, Australia, Pakistan, India and Iran and they declare that:
· This convoy is not affiliated with any of the parties involved in the Syrian conflict and it emphasizes on supporting peace and opposes violence in Syria and explicitly expresses that peace can be only achieved in Syria by dialogue and negotiations.
· Any foreign intervention in Syria is condemned and only the Syrian people without any pressure from outside decide their own future.
· Crimes committed in the name of religion by Takfiri extremist in Syria on religious minorities is condemned and we consider it necessary for governments of the region to stop sending arms and financial aids to parties and group involved in the violence.
In the end the members of this convoy invite other governments and people movements from various countries try to do their best so that relief reaches the war stricken people of Syria in every possible manner and in the shortest time frame.
↧
Syria peace convoy to start journey from Tehran [VIDEO]
admin
Apr 5, 2014, Press TV
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO
The “Pilgrims of Peace” international initiative for Syria is being supported by various human rights and anti-war organizations. The convoy includes activists from countries such as Britain, Canada, Germany, Lebanon, Australia, Pakistan, India and Iran. Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their certain regional allies are supporting the militants operating inside Syria. The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the unrest in 2011. More than 2.2 million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries while an estimated 4.25 million have been displaced internally. The UN-brokered peace talks between Syria’s government and the Western-backed opposition ended last month in Geneva, Switzerland, without any breakthrough. The international convoy plans to dispatch medical and pharmaceutical supplies to Syria, meet different groups of people and distribute international assistance among the crisis-stricken people of Syria.
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO
A group of prominent international figures has arrived in Tehran to start a movement for peace in Syria titled “Pilgrims of Peace”.
↧
↧
Qatar sends a new positive message to Hezbollah
Doha: Qatari Prince Tamim Hamad al-Thani received the 11 freed detainees of Aazaz at the Emiri Diwan on Sunday morning, accompanied by Hajja Hayat Awali and the International Human Rights Commission's ambassador to Lebanon and the Middle East, Ali Aqil Khalil.
The visit, which came at the invitation of the Emiri Diwan, aimed to thank the emir of Qatar for his country's efforts in freeing them. This came after the Turkish ambassador to Lebanon, Inan Ozyildiz, extended several invitations to Hajji Hayat and the detainees to hold a "reconciliation meeting" at his embassy in Beirut, following accusation that Turkey was involved in the kidnapping and was protecting the kidnappers. However, the invitation was repeatedly rejected. So why was the Qatari invitation accepted seven months after the hostages were released?
On April 5, the Aazaz delegation met at Beirut airport to fly to Doha. Ali Abbas, one of the freed detainees, could not join them since the General Security Office had just issued him his passport. When the Emiri Diwan found out that the delegation would be missing one person, calls were made for him to be allowed to fly with his companions. This attention was preceded and followed by exemplary care, which is only paralleled by Qatar's new role.
Speaking to Al-Akhbar, Khalil indicated that he had proposed the "Thank you Qatar" visit to the Qatari embassy in Beirut the moment the detainees returned to their country. One week later, and in coordination with the detainees and Hajja Hayat, he sent a request to the embassy proposing a visit to Doha.
Months passed without receiving an answer. However, around one month ago, Khalil sent the request to the Emiri Diwan directly, in coordination with the Syrian activist and peace ambassador, Rihab Bitar, who also attended the meeting. They received a positive reply and were informed of a meeting date one week ago. On April 5, cars courtesy of the Qatari government met them at the Doha airport at the steps of the airplane.
The Qatari emir met with the freed detainees for 30 minutes, surpassing the allotted time and protocol, and cementing Qatar’s return to the axis of resistance.
According to Awali, the emir warmly welcomed them and made sure to take pictures with all of them and requested that their stay be extended to three days in accordance with Arab hospitality. He explained that in humanitarian situations his country rises above political differences, like it did in their case.
"We saw the humanitarian issue as a priority since the first day you were kidnapped," the emir said. "We worked hard so you would not be harmed and returned safely to your families." He indicated that he had studied in Beirut and loves the Lebanese and the Shia community, to whom his guests belong. The emir maintains that he does not differentiate between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and loves the Levant as a model for coexistence.
Speaking to them as if they were high ranking officials, he elaborated on the Qatari approach to the Syrian crisis. He said that, at first, his country supported the rights of the Syrian people. However, the situation has changed and turned to killing and bloodshed, which should be stopped. He stressed that the only a political solution can solve what is happening in Syria.
Former Qatari ambassador in Beirut, Saad bin Ali al-Mohannadi, also attended the meeting. It was during his term that the kidnapping occurred, and the families' protests were held in front of his embassy. He reminded the emir that Awali was leading the protests against Qatar, so she reminded the emir also that the ambassador had refused to meet with the families. The emir interrupted, saying that "the embassy's key is yours and you can enter whenever you want."
At the end of the meeting, the delegation presented the emir with a gift, consisting of a copy of the Koran and a poem in his hommage read by freed mayor Ali Zoughaib.
Both sides are certain that the "dialogue of friendship and affection," and the hospitality witnessed by the freed detainees at the Emiri Diwan will be reaching Dahiyeh. Doha's message comes less than a month after a Qatari envoy had visited Tehran and five months following the visit by the current Qatari ambassador to Beirut to Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem in Haret Hreik.
This was from Qatar's side, but what about Hezbollah? Positive signals by the party are no less significant than those from the Qataris. The emir knows very well who his guests are, confessionally, politically, and regionally. He knows that some would not have accepted the invitation without permission from Hezbollah.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
↧
Obama, the Sauds, and Bottomless Hypocrisy
Apr 4, 2014, New Eastern Outlook
US President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia confirms what many even causal political observers have begun to suspect regarding recent US political history, that Washington’s values aren’t just nonpartisan, driven entirely by special interests permeating both sides of the political aisle, but are altogether non-existent. To understand why requires an understanding of both US-Saudi relations, not just during the Obama administration, but over the past several decades, as well as a basic understanding of Saudi Arabia itself.
Despite the integral role Saudi Arabia plays in US foreign policy, particularly but not limited to the Middle East, many know very little regarding this nation. American, British, and European media intentionally serve up disjointed reports regarding the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Should ever a complete picture be given to global audiences and the same amount of attention given to the shortcomings of Saudi Arabia as is given toward the perceived enemies of the Western world, clear limitations would be demanded by the public in regards to their respective governments’ relationship with the Saudis until badly needed reform was undertaken.
Saudi Arabia: By Western Standards, a Nation In Need of Reform
Even the name of Saudi Arabia itself is problematic. It is literally named after the family that has ruled it, uncontested, for decades, the House of Saud. Thus, Saudi Arabia means, “Arabia of the Sauds.” The House of Saud rules the majority of the Arabian Peninsula under one of the last remaining absolute monarchs on Earth. Elections are held, but only for local administrative posts, and even then, half of the population is disenfranchised, as women are entirely barred from voting. In addition to this, women are subjected to a ban on driving and other restrictions based solely on their sex.
Women are not the only victims of the House of Saud’s brand of governance. Those accused of apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery, homosexuality, and of course the House of Saud’s political opponents (charged for treason, sedition, or terrorism) face public execution by sword in a place known as “chop-chop square.” Short of execution, prisoners may also be flogged for their alleged misdeeds.
The overall perspective of Saudi Arabia, as seen through the lens of the West’s impressive number of prominent human rights organizations is abysmal. The World Economic Forum’s 2013 Global Gender Gap Report (PDF) ranks Saudi Arabia as 127 out of 136 nations in terms of gender parity. Freedom House’s 2014 “Freedom in the World” report (PDF) lists Saudi Arabia as “not free,” while Human Rights Watch’s 2013 World Report (PDF) alleges that Saudi Arabia has suppressed or failed to protect the rights of 9 million Saudi women and girls and 9 million foreign workers. The report also cites thousands of unfair trials and arbitrary detentions.
Based on the given pretexts the Western World has used to justify a belligerent foreign policy toward other nations, it would appear that Saudi Arabia is a suitable candidate to likewise be subjected to sanctions, internal political meddling, and open calls for regime change. Yet for some reason, it most certainly is not. Instead, it is clearly protected by media self-censorship and diplomatic double standards across the West.
While the US recently closed Syria’s embassy in Washington and ordered Syrian diplomats out of the country claiming, “it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States,” the US gladly continues its close relationship with Saudi Arabia. This is even after revelations have come to light that the Saudis have been funding and arming terrorists listed as such by the very US State Department that shuttered the Syrian embassy in D.C.
Reuters had reported the creation of the Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam) in its article, Insight: Saudi Arabia boosts Salafist rivals to al Qaeda in Syria, however, while it mentions Liwa al-Islam as one of the founding members of the new front funded and armed by Saudi Arabia, it fails to mention that Liwa al-Islam has been documented to regularly coordinate with Jabhat al-Nusra, an internationally designated terrorist organization with direct ties to al-Qaeda.
Confirming this is the US “Institute for the Study of War” headed by many of America’s foreign policy architects and backed by the West’s most prominent arms dealers, in its 2013 “Middle East Security Report 9: The Free Syrian Army” (PDF) stated specifically that, “Liwa al-Islam is known to cooperate with Jabhat Nusra and conduct joint operations,” and that “Jabhat Nusra is the most prominent Salafi-jihadist organization in Syria and is associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Due to the overlap in leadership structures between AQI and Jabhat Nusra, the organization was designated a foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States on December 10, 2012 as an alias for AQI.”
Surely then it should be unacceptable for individuals appointed by a government funding global terrorism to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States. But for Saudi Arabia, apparently an exception to the rules has been made and it is an exception that has transcended multiple US Presidential administrations from George Bush Sr. all the way to the current US President, Barack H. Obama.
Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander
In defense of criticism of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, the Saudi Deputy Premier, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, told the U.N. Third Millennium summit in New York that ”it is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its beliefs or principles. He continued by warning of, “the ramifications of unbridled globalization and its use as an umbrella to violate the sovereignty of states and interfere with their internal affairs under a variety of pretexts, especially from the angle of human rights.”
While Saudi’s Crown Prince may have a valid argument to make, his own nation’s foreign policy is evidently equally “absurd.” The very justification used by the Saudis to interfere in Syria by funding and arming fighters in a bid to overthrow the current Syrian government has been its own desire to impose upon the Syrian people an opposition it finds favorable to its foreign policy and regional ambitions. It is clear that for Saudi Arabia, it is not principles that drives its policy, but rather its policy that selectively uses “principles” as convenient veils to hide behind.
America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is no different. The principles America promotes are but a façade that are selectively applied only when convenient, and abandoned altogether when they serve as an obstruction.
Mr. President Goes to Riyadh
The London Guardian in its article, “Obama lands in Saudi Arabia to help soothe relations with key ally,” portrays US-Saudi relations as tense after growing concern in Riyadh over the US’ alleged attempts at rapprochement with Iran regarding its nuclear program and Saudi disappointment over what the Guardian claims was “Obama’s decision to hold back from using military force against Syria” regarding “its use of chemical weapons.”
Perhaps the Guardian believes readers have forgotten the attempted rush to war by the United States in the immediate aftermath of the chemical attacks in August of 2013 before any evidence was presented to the public. The only obstruction to US military intervention in Syria was not in the White House, but from a war-weary distrustful American public with doubts still lingering over them after similar claims were made before the invasion of Iraq. Both the Guardian’s narrative and the statements made by both the United States and Saudi Arabia appear solely for public consumption with the only exception being that the trip served as a reiteration of “the significance Washington placed on its “strong” ties with the world’s largest oil exporter.”
Obama’s trip, and the theater that accompanied it, was more a dressing for the joint failure of US-Saudi foreign policy in regards to both Syria and Iran. It was an attempt to reset the public narrative while doubling down on covert support for fighters in Syria and attempts to encircle and undermine Iran further. While assurances of America’s commitment to resolving the Syrian conflict are build on a foundation of alleged “human rights” concerns, the “promotion of democracy” and “freedom,” their strongest and most willing regional partner, Saudi Arabia is a land itself devoid of such concerns.
It is clear that principles drive neither America’s nor Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Syria, but rather self-serving geopolitical interests centered on both power and wealth.
Saudi Arabia Must Choose Between Reform & Rapprochement or Eventual Betrayal & Destruction
Saudi Arabia’s role as the “world’s largest oil exporter” is only one contributing factor to America’s bottomless hypocrisy regarding its relations with the Saudi Kingdom. While some would see US policy dictated by Saudi wealth, it is the regime’s precarious political existence both domestically and internationally, a key feature desired by hegemons when searching for vassal states, that primarily dictates US-Saudi relations. Saudi Arabia’s very existence depends on America’s continued support in terms of economics, defense, and even how the nation is perceived globally. While the West currently shelters Saudi Arabia from the international scrutiny it deserves, this can be changed at any time.
For the Saudis, to continue along this path is dangerous indeed, particularly as their American guarantor’s global influence begins to visibly wane. While it is easy for the current enemies of Saudi Arabia to undermine its stability by exposing the seemingly medieval society it presides over, (the potential exposure of it used by the West as perpetual blackmail) offering the autocratic regime a path toward reform and rapprochement might be more strategically sound. Likewise, Saudi Arabia’s acceptance of that path would appear to be of particularly sounder long-term planning.
Just as was the case with many of America’s other “allies” in the past, Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship awaiting its eventual dagger in the back. It must begin making preparations both for finding new allies, and for the eventual plunge of that dagger, a plunge continued obedience and collusion will only postpone at best.
↧
Nasrallah confirms Hezbollah strike on Israeli forces in Shebaa
Updated 11:24 am: Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah confirmed in an interview published Monday that the group was behind a blast that targeted Israeli occupation forces on Lebanon's southeastern border last month.
"Yes, the explosion in the Shebaa Farms that Hezbollah has not claimed until now was the work of the Resistance, which means the work of Hezbollah," Nasrallah told the As-Safir daily.
The March 14 explosion came after Israeli warplanes bombed a Hezbollah position inside Lebanon on February 24 near the border with Syria.
"This was not the reply, but this was part of the reply," Nasrallah told the paper.
The message to Israel, he said, was "you hit a military target and the resistance responded by hitting a military target."
The blast hit an Israeli patrol inside Lebanon's occupied Shebaa Farms area. The Israeli military said none of its troops was wounded in the blast.
On February 24, Israeli warplanes bombed a Hezbollah position on the Lebanese-Syrian border, though Israel refused to officially confirm or deny the attack.
Hezbollah acknowledged the Israeli strikes and pledged they would not "stand without a response," adding that the group would "choose the appropriate time, place and means."
Israel launched a brutal assault on Lebanon in 2006 vowing to eradicate Hezbollah, killing more than 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians.
But Nasrallah said he was confident Israel would not wage a new war against the group.
"Based on military data and information on the ground on the one hand, and the political situation on the other, Israel will not go ahead with a war on Lebanon," he said.
Nasrallah said Hezbollah was now in a stronger position than during the 2006 conflict.
"The resistance in Lebanon, at the regional and international level, is in a better situation compared to the eve of the 2006 war," he said.
"It is not easy for Israel to decide on a war in the region because of the possibilities and the nature of the battle that would result and what Israel could achieve and what losses it would suffer," Nasrallah added.
Syrian government no longer in danger
In the same interview, Nasrallah also said that Syria's government is no longer in danger of being toppled and the risk of the country being divided has passed.
The comments came as the powerful movement continues to fight alongside Syria's army against rebel forces across the neighboring war-torn country.
Nasrallah denied Hezbollah's role in Syria was unpopular in Lebanon, and said the group's recent battle in Syria's Qalamoun had lessened the risks of bomb blasts back home.
"In my opinion, the phase of bringing down the regime or bringing down the state is over," he told the newspaper in an interview.
"I think we have passed the danger of division" of the country, he added.
"They cannot overthrow the regime, but they can wage a war of attrition," the Hezbollah chief said.
Nasrallah also said he believed supporters of the uprising were tempering their expectations for an opposition defeat of the government.
"The regional and international situation has changed," he said.
"In my view, the pressure on the regime in the coming phase will be less than in the past three years, in terms of political pressure, media pressure and pressure on the ground."
He dismissed recent rebel operations in Latakia province, where the opposition has gained ground, and said talk of a major offensive by rebels was simply "exaggeration."
The Latakia front "is a limited operation... but it created a big fuss in the media," Nasrallah said.
"For all the talk about the big battle to come, we've seen nothing of it so far," he added.
Hezbollah's involvement in Syria's conflict has raised tension in Lebanon, where many supporters of the uprising and others including opponents from the March 14 movement blame the group for endangering Lebanon.
But Nasrallah denied that public sentiment was opposed to the group fighting in Syria.
"There is a large public feeling that supports the step of Hezbollah's intervention in Syria," he said.
"Many Lebanese, even inside March 14, believe and accept that the intervention in Syria protects Lebanon from the terrorist groups whose behavior and actions we see on a daily basis."
"So we do not feel alienated," he said, adding that many political and religious forces in the country had expressed their support "behind closed doors, which increases our confidence in this position."
Hezbollah and its supporters have paid a heavy price for their involvement, with jihadist groups targeting parts of Lebanon where the movement holds sway with multiple deadly bombings.
But Nasrallah said a recent victory by the Syrian regime in the Qalamoun region adjacent to Lebanon, in which Hezbollah played a key role, had helped decrease the threat of such attacks.
"We can say that the risk of explosions has dropped significantly because of the developments in Qalamoun, which led to the closure of car bomb factories and centers," he said.
Nasrallah said Lebanese security forces had also stepped up their efforts to arrest militants behind the attacks.
"In general we can talk about a significant decline in this risk, but we can't say it has been completely eliminated."
(AFP, Al-Akhbar)
↧
Armenians Wake Up to the Truth: Turkey and NATO Behind Ethnic Cleansing in Lattakia and Kessab
Mar 31, 2014, NSNBC
The Syrian government stressed that Turkey has regularly facilitated the entry of armed terrorist groups into the Kessab area in Syria’s Lattakia province. An Armenian M.P. who visited Syria is calling on the world to wake up to the fact that thousands of extremists have crossed the Turkish- Syrian border and that missiles were fired from the Turkish side of the border. Armenians, who have long been looking at NATO as an ally and partner realize that the war on Syria, including the renewed ethnic cleansing of Armenian Christians in Syria is part of a long-term NATO strategy.
Syria’s Minister of Information, Omran al-Zoubi, has denounced the Turkish government of P.M. Recep Tayyip Erdogan for regularly having facilitated the entry of armed terrorist groups into the Kessab area in the Lattakia province of Syria.Omran al-Zoubi stressed that the fighters which are crossing the border are not Syrians, but groups of foreign fighters, armed and trained by by Turkey, Gulf-Arab, and core NATO member states.
The Turkish MP, Mehmed Ali Ediboglu, visited the border crossing at Yayladagi after heavy clashes erupted in the region on March 21. Ediboglu stated that the Turkish military allows and controls insurgents moves while they are crossing the border to and from Syria. After Turkish F-16s shot down a Syrian fighter jet over Kassab last weekend, nsnbc spoke with eyewitnesses in Kassab, who reported about the presence of Turkish special forces operation on Syrian territory in cooperation with the Turkish backed terrorist brigades.
Armenians, who have long looked at NATO as an ally and partner, are waking up to the stark reality that core NATO member states, including Turkey, USA, UK and France, hold responsibility for the engineering of the war on Syria, which was planned long before the first protests erupted in 2011.
Statements like that of the former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, who said on nation-wide TV, that top-British officials contacted him more than two years before the first protests to ask whether he would like to participate in ousting the Syrian government with the help of “rebels” had not previously made their way into the Armenian media.
The former French Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared in a TV interview with the French TV Channel LPC, saying:
I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me, that they were preparing something in Syria.
Dumas continued, indicating that the subversion and invasion of the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of “rebels” was primarily a British plan, while he carefully avoided implicating himself and France, saying:
This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me“This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.Consequently, everything that moves in the region…- and I have this from a former Israeli Prime Minister who told me ´we will try to get on with our neighbors but those who don´t agree with us will be destroyed. It is a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it”.
Armenian M.P. Calls on World to Wake UP. Arman Sahakyan, an Armenian M.P. who was among a group of Armenian delegates who visited Damascus last week to study the problems of Armenians in Kessab and the Lattakia province issued an appeal written by ethnic Armenians in Kessab. The appeal calls on Armenians and people across the world to wake up to the reality of the situation, saying:
“On Mother’s Day, March 21-2014, our beautiful town (Kessab) was brutally attacked by Al-Qaeda extremists And Al Nusra front that is linked to Al Qaeda. with the blessings and full military and logistical support of the Turkish government.
The appeal stressed that thousands of extremists crossed the Turkish – Syrian border towards Kessab, adding that missiles were fired from Turkey and that residents attempted to defend the town which now is in the hands of the foreign fighters.
The residents of Kessab call on all Armenians and and all of humanity to realize that the Erdogan government stands behind the military campaign, the ethnic cleansing, and the massacres. The Armenian P.M. Arman Sahakyan, and Kessab residents call on the UN and governments of other countries to take action to protect the people in Lattakia province before it is too late.
In an emotional appeal, conveyed by the Armenian M.P., the Kessab residents stressed:
All we want to do, is live. If you ignore this, we all will die a horrible death at the hands of these terrorists, by being butchered in cold blood like many other Armenians in Aleppo, Yacoubiyeh, Ghenemiyeh, and around Syria.
Foreign Fighters, not Syrians: The appeal confirmed and substantiated previous reports about foreign fighters and mercenaries, paid by Turkey, GCC, and core NATO member states, as being the main force behind the war on Syria. The appeal stressed:
Those who you call rebels are extremists who came to Syria for jihad with many nationalities in it like Afghans, Chechen, Saudis etc. Kessabtsis and all of Syria, saw them and were attacked and killed by them. The media can`t hide the truth forever. You can’t manipulate the lives of people forever. Those who you call rebels, were targeting and attacking civilians. Wake up, please.
The town of Kessab is currently in the hands of the foreign fighters. The Syrian Arab Army has launched a military campaign to dislodge the mercenaries, which is being complicated by the presence of Turkish F-16 fighter jets over the area and Turkish special forces which are fighting alongside the foreign fighters and direct artillery, missile and tank fire against Syrian Army positions.
The US State Department stated that it was concerned about the people in Kessab, Lattakia and everywhere in Syria where people are suffering from violence. Meanwhile, the USA provides advanced surface to air and anti tank missiles to the insurgents and maintains a joint intelligence and command structure with the mercenary brigades.
↧
↧
Sayyed Nasrallah: Resistance behind Labbouneh Bomb, Israeli Eye on Galilee
Local Editor
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah disclosed that the resistance was behind the bomb which targeted an Israeli patrol in Shebaa Farms in mid March, noting that it was part of response for the Israeli raid on a resistance garrison in Janta.
![Sayyed Nasrallah during an interview with as-Safir Lebanese daily]()
In an inclusive dialogue with Lebanese daily, As-Safir, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Israeli enemy got the message well, noting that “the issue here is not about rules of engagement (with the Zionist entity), but about deterrence.”
Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the Zionist entity through its raid on Janta was testing the ability of resistance to benefit from the current situation, especially Hezbollah’s involvement in the battle in Syria, in a bid to change the rules of engagement.
“When we had planted the bomb in Labbouneh we wanted to deliver a message for the enemy: We don’t permit to change the rules of the engagement. Wherever you enter, and we know, we will confront you.”
Sayyed Nasrallah said that if the resistance held its tongue following the raid, “the enemy may have striken any truck, house or any other target in any place (in the future) under the pretext that Israel is committed to strike qualitative weapons.”
Hezbollah S.G. ruled out a new Israeli war on Lebanon, stressing that the course of events in Syria raise the concerns of the Israelis.
![]()
Following these developments, the Israelis are raising questions about whether this experience will enable Hezbollah, if a new war takes place (with Israel), to adopt new courses in the battalion. In this context Israel’s eye is on Galilee, resistance leader added.
Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the risk of terrorist bombings in Lebanon has dropped considerably, noting that the resistance is not facing a problem with its mass over the involvement in the Syrian war.
“On the contrary, some of those who were hesitant have now made their choice to support us,” Sayyed Nasrallah told as-Safir, adding: “some of March 14 public support our intervention in Syria in order to protect Lebanon from Takfiri terrorist groups.”
His eminence pointed out that the danger of Syrian regime fall has ended.
“They can launch an exhaustive war as long as some states still funding, arming and inciting.”
He said nothing indicates that the opposition in Syria can launch massive war, noting that what is coming on in Lattakia and Kassab can’t be called a massive war.
The great battle which they have talked about starting from Syria’s south is an exaggeration, Sayyed Nasrallah said, noting that the experience in the last three years has proven that the regime is not weak and that it also enjoys popular incubation.
He stressed that one of Hezbollah’s priorities is to end the Syrian war, pointing out that “we have passed the danger of partition.”
![]()
The resistance leader revealed that serious offers were presented to (Syrian) President (Bashar) al-Assad to cut ties with Iran and resistance movements, and to go seriously on a settlement with Israel. However, President Assad refused and “this stance should be recognized.”
Sayyed Nasrallah noted that many Arab states are “in contact with the Syrian regime under the table and tell President Assad: We are with you, hang in there.”
“I even know that some Arab states support the opposition ostensibly. However under the table, they ask the regime to resolve the battle.”
![]()
According to the Russian position, Sayyed Nasrallah said he believes that Moscow’s stance following Crimea's crisis will be firmer, adding that support to Syria will be greater.
Concerning his eminence’s approach to the “Arab Spring”, Sayyed Nasrallah said that protests in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt started by people and youths, noting that these protests surprised the Arab regime as well as US, France, the West, the international community and the regional countries.
“The problem of leadership and planning within these popular movements paved the way for another parties and sides to interfere and exploit the events.”
“Prior to the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ there was a serious discussion, precisely by the Americans, over the necessity to divide Saudi Arabia,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
His eminence added that France and Britain were involved in this discussion (to divide KSA), noting that some Gulf States reported this event.
Resistance in Better Condition
Sayyed Nasrallah said analysis suggest that the Israeli raid on Janta had no serious target, noting it was aimed at testing the capabilities of the resistance, and changing the rules of engagement.
In this context, Hezbollah S.G. said that the location of the raid chosen by the enemy was fully considered. “The enemy had chosen a military target in a hill which was unfrequented by civilians. The territory is ambiguous: is it Lebanese or Syrian? In that area there are Lebanese lands possessed by Syrians and also there are Syrian lands possessed by Lebanese.”
![]()
“Yes the bomb in Shebaa Farms, which was not claimed by Hezbollah so far, was the work of resistance… And this is not the response. It is a part of the response on the Israeli raid.”
Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah has decided not to abide by the media policy concerning the claim of responsibility of the resistance operations… and “this is a new policy.”
His eminence said that the Israeli enemy got the message of Labbouneh bomb, which says that
“there is no change in the rules of engagement, and that the resistance has the decision, will, determination, seriousness and courage.”
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the resistance is now more powerful than it was in the year of 2006, warning that “despite the engagement in the Syrian war, the resistance will fight better than its fight in 2006. This (issue) is completely assured”.
Asked about the possibility for launching an Israeli war against the resistance, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Zionist entity doesn’t engage in a war if it is not decisive, swift and lead to distinct victory.
His eminence wondered if the enemy can guarantee the victory in the next war, stressing that “so far no one in Israel can do so”.
He said that the regional condition of the resistance in Lebanon now is better than its condition on the eve of July war in 2006, noting that the internal conflicts of the Arab countries serve the interests of the Zionist entity.
Threat of Terrorist Bombings Dropped
![]()
Hezbollah S.G. stressed that the risk of terrorist bombings in Lebanon has dropped considerably, as he praised the security measures from both the Syrian and the Lebanese sides.
“We can say that the threat of explosions has dropped considerably” because of the field developments in Qalamoun area especially in Yabroud, where the booby-trapped cars had been equipped by terrorists with explosive materials before the town’s liberation by the Syrian army.
In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah praised the efforts exerted by the Lebanese and Syrian security apparatus to discover and dismantle the explosive-rigged cars.
“In general we can say that threat has dropped, but we can’t say that this threat is over. This issue needs more efforts whether on the Syrian border or inside Lebanon,” his eminence told the Lebanese daily.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed the importance of the cohesion among the resistance mass and community, saying: we do not face a problem with our mass about our involvement in Syria, on the contrary, some of those who were hesitant have now made their choice to support us, especially after the terrorist bombings which targeted Dahiyeh and Hermel.
“I can say that some of March 14 public support our intervention in Syria to protect Lebanon from Takfiri terrorist groups,” he said.
Danger of Syrian Regime Fall Ended
![]()
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed meanwhile that the danger of the Syrian regime fall has ended, noting that the Syrian government can hold out against the foreign-backed opposition.
“In my estimation the stage of toppling the regime (in Syria) has ended,” his eminence said, noting that regional and international developments indicate that this stage is over.
“They can’t overthrow the regime. They can launch an exhaustive war. What is going on in Latakia and Kassab we can’t call it a massive war, it is limited operation, Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing out that the massive war which they have been talking about in Syria’s south is an exaggeration.
Meanwhile he stressed that the war in Syria must stop, adding that the Syrian parties must sit to dialogue. He noted that one of the most dangers Syria has face is partition.
In this context Sayyed Nasrallah said he believes that this danger has been passed.
The Other Front Fragmented
Also talking about the Syrian war, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the military option against Damascus has failed, noting that the majority of states are talking now about a political settlement for the Syrian crisis.
The resistance leader noted that the aim of the Syrian battle was not making democracy or justice or fighting corruption, but changing the position of Syria.
“The offers President Bashar al-Assad received more than once prove this.”
His eminence revealed that serious offers were presented to President Assad to cut ties with Iran and resistance movements, and to go seriously on a settlement with Israel. However, President Assad refused and “this stance should be recognized.”
On the other hand, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the front which is against Syria is fragmented in light of the latest developments rocking the region, especially the current crisis in Egypt following the ouster of president Mohammad Mursi.
Disputes grew with this front, which compromises Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Egypt, his eminence said.
Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah expected that the Russian stance will be firmer in favor of Damascus following Crimea’s crisisو because Moscow wants to stick by its strength factors.
Related Articles
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah disclosed that the resistance was behind the bomb which targeted an Israeli patrol in Shebaa Farms in mid March, noting that it was part of response for the Israeli raid on a resistance garrison in Janta.
In an inclusive dialogue with Lebanese daily, As-Safir, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Israeli enemy got the message well, noting that “the issue here is not about rules of engagement (with the Zionist entity), but about deterrence.”
Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the Zionist entity through its raid on Janta was testing the ability of resistance to benefit from the current situation, especially Hezbollah’s involvement in the battle in Syria, in a bid to change the rules of engagement.
“When we had planted the bomb in Labbouneh we wanted to deliver a message for the enemy: We don’t permit to change the rules of the engagement. Wherever you enter, and we know, we will confront you.”
Sayyed Nasrallah said that if the resistance held its tongue following the raid, “the enemy may have striken any truck, house or any other target in any place (in the future) under the pretext that Israel is committed to strike qualitative weapons.”
Hezbollah S.G. ruled out a new Israeli war on Lebanon, stressing that the course of events in Syria raise the concerns of the Israelis.
Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah considered that the risk of terrorist bombings in Lebanon has dropped considerably, noting that the resistance is not facing a problem with its mass over the involvement in the Syrian war.
“On the contrary, some of those who were hesitant have now made their choice to support us,” Sayyed Nasrallah told as-Safir, adding: “some of March 14 public support our intervention in Syria in order to protect Lebanon from Takfiri terrorist groups.”
His eminence pointed out that the danger of Syrian regime fall has ended.
“They can launch an exhaustive war as long as some states still funding, arming and inciting.”
He said nothing indicates that the opposition in Syria can launch massive war, noting that what is coming on in Lattakia and Kassab can’t be called a massive war.
The great battle which they have talked about starting from Syria’s south is an exaggeration, Sayyed Nasrallah said, noting that the experience in the last three years has proven that the regime is not weak and that it also enjoys popular incubation.
He stressed that one of Hezbollah’s priorities is to end the Syrian war, pointing out that “we have passed the danger of partition.”
,+Syria%27s+President+Bashar+al-Assad+(C)+and+Iran%27s+President+Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad+(L)+attend+official+dinner+Damascus+February+25,+2010..jpg)
Sayyed Nasrallah noted that many Arab states are “in contact with the Syrian regime under the table and tell President Assad: We are with you, hang in there.”
“I even know that some Arab states support the opposition ostensibly. However under the table, they ask the regime to resolve the battle.”
According to the Russian position, Sayyed Nasrallah said he believes that Moscow’s stance following Crimea's crisis will be firmer, adding that support to Syria will be greater.Concerning his eminence’s approach to the “Arab Spring”, Sayyed Nasrallah said that protests in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt started by people and youths, noting that these protests surprised the Arab regime as well as US, France, the West, the international community and the regional countries.
“The problem of leadership and planning within these popular movements paved the way for another parties and sides to interfere and exploit the events.”
“Prior to the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ there was a serious discussion, precisely by the Americans, over the necessity to divide Saudi Arabia,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
His eminence added that France and Britain were involved in this discussion (to divide KSA), noting that some Gulf States reported this event.
Resistance in Better Condition
Sayyed Nasrallah said analysis suggest that the Israeli raid on Janta had no serious target, noting it was aimed at testing the capabilities of the resistance, and changing the rules of engagement.
In this context, Hezbollah S.G. said that the location of the raid chosen by the enemy was fully considered. “The enemy had chosen a military target in a hill which was unfrequented by civilians. The territory is ambiguous: is it Lebanese or Syrian? In that area there are Lebanese lands possessed by Syrians and also there are Syrian lands possessed by Lebanese.”
“Yes the bomb in Shebaa Farms, which was not claimed by Hezbollah so far, was the work of resistance… And this is not the response. It is a part of the response on the Israeli raid.”Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah has decided not to abide by the media policy concerning the claim of responsibility of the resistance operations… and “this is a new policy.”
His eminence said that the Israeli enemy got the message of Labbouneh bomb, which says that
“there is no change in the rules of engagement, and that the resistance has the decision, will, determination, seriousness and courage.”
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the resistance is now more powerful than it was in the year of 2006, warning that “despite the engagement in the Syrian war, the resistance will fight better than its fight in 2006. This (issue) is completely assured”.
Asked about the possibility for launching an Israeli war against the resistance, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Zionist entity doesn’t engage in a war if it is not decisive, swift and lead to distinct victory.
His eminence wondered if the enemy can guarantee the victory in the next war, stressing that “so far no one in Israel can do so”.
He said that the regional condition of the resistance in Lebanon now is better than its condition on the eve of July war in 2006, noting that the internal conflicts of the Arab countries serve the interests of the Zionist entity.
Threat of Terrorist Bombings Dropped
Hezbollah S.G. stressed that the risk of terrorist bombings in Lebanon has dropped considerably, as he praised the security measures from both the Syrian and the Lebanese sides.“We can say that the threat of explosions has dropped considerably” because of the field developments in Qalamoun area especially in Yabroud, where the booby-trapped cars had been equipped by terrorists with explosive materials before the town’s liberation by the Syrian army.
In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah praised the efforts exerted by the Lebanese and Syrian security apparatus to discover and dismantle the explosive-rigged cars.
“In general we can say that threat has dropped, but we can’t say that this threat is over. This issue needs more efforts whether on the Syrian border or inside Lebanon,” his eminence told the Lebanese daily.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed the importance of the cohesion among the resistance mass and community, saying: we do not face a problem with our mass about our involvement in Syria, on the contrary, some of those who were hesitant have now made their choice to support us, especially after the terrorist bombings which targeted Dahiyeh and Hermel.
“I can say that some of March 14 public support our intervention in Syria to protect Lebanon from Takfiri terrorist groups,” he said.
Danger of Syrian Regime Fall Ended
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed meanwhile that the danger of the Syrian regime fall has ended, noting that the Syrian government can hold out against the foreign-backed opposition.“In my estimation the stage of toppling the regime (in Syria) has ended,” his eminence said, noting that regional and international developments indicate that this stage is over.
“They can’t overthrow the regime. They can launch an exhaustive war. What is going on in Latakia and Kassab we can’t call it a massive war, it is limited operation, Sayyed Nasrallah said, pointing out that the massive war which they have been talking about in Syria’s south is an exaggeration.
Meanwhile he stressed that the war in Syria must stop, adding that the Syrian parties must sit to dialogue. He noted that one of the most dangers Syria has face is partition.
In this context Sayyed Nasrallah said he believes that this danger has been passed.
The Other Front Fragmented
Also talking about the Syrian war, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the military option against Damascus has failed, noting that the majority of states are talking now about a political settlement for the Syrian crisis.
The resistance leader noted that the aim of the Syrian battle was not making democracy or justice or fighting corruption, but changing the position of Syria.
“The offers President Bashar al-Assad received more than once prove this.”
His eminence revealed that serious offers were presented to President Assad to cut ties with Iran and resistance movements, and to go seriously on a settlement with Israel. However, President Assad refused and “this stance should be recognized.”
On the other hand, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the front which is against Syria is fragmented in light of the latest developments rocking the region, especially the current crisis in Egypt following the ouster of president Mohammad Mursi.
Disputes grew with this front, which compromises Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Egypt, his eminence said.
Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah expected that the Russian stance will be firmer in favor of Damascus following Crimea’s crisisو because Moscow wants to stick by its strength factors.
Source: Assafir Newspaper | 07-04-2014 - 08:49 Last updated 07-04-201 |
- السيد حسن نصرالله في حوار شامل مع "السفير"
- تحرك إيراني وروسي لتلقين أردوغان "درسا"بسبب التصعيد التركي في كسب
- الرئيس الأسد: الحرب ستنتهي هذا العام
- لافروف لـ الجربا: الأسد في قصر الشعب إذا استعطت أخرجه
- S.Nasrallah: Terrorist Bombings’ Threat Dropped,So Did the Threat of Regime Fall
- Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Stronger, Gold will Always Remain Gold
- Sayyed Nasrallah: We will Triumph in Our Battle against Takfiris
- Sayyed Nasrallah Speaks on Martyr Leaders’ Anniversary
- “Sayyed Nasrallah.. Go Ahead, The Entire Nation with You”
- S. Nasrallah: We Will Punish Murderers of Martyr Lakkis
- Sayyed Nasrallah Speaks in Martyr Lakkis Memorial
↧
Saudi regime goes berserk over reform calls
Calling for reforms is “terrorism,” withdrawing your allegiance to the monarchy is “treason” and contacting international news organizations about human rights violations in the kingdom will land you in prison. Welcome to the Saudi kingdom!
Has the Saudi regime shot itself in the foot over its terror decree? Many observers inside and outside the kingdom think so. The Saudi royal decree (No. 44) issued by the aging and one-foot-in-the-grave King Abdullah targets two sets of people. One can be considered to be those that are militant and pose a direct physical challenge to the regime. This includes al-Qaeda (the mother organization led by the late Osama bin Laden that spawned other outfits), al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Jabhat al-Nusra, Hizbullah in the Hijaz (not to be confused with the Lebanese resistance group Hizbullah) and the Houthis of Yemen.
The second group comprises those calling for reforms or some basic rights, like representation and consultation in the affairs of the kingdom or respect for human rights, as well as women’s groups calling for the right to drive. Yes, in the desert kingdom, women cannot drive because it is alleged they might entice men to acts of immorality! Those inside and outside the kingdom that have some sympathy for al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Egypt, branded by the Saudi regime as a terrorist organization, will also be branded as terrorists and punished.
The list is not only long but also vague. Almost anyone that the regime does not like can be branded a terrorist. After all, what criterion is being used to judge people: how can calls for reform be declared a terrorist act? If this is the criterion, then King Abdullah himself must be denounced as a terrorist and punished. After all, in September 2011, he declared a series of “reforms” in which he announced that women would be given the right to vote in future municipal elections (in 2015) and also have the right to be appointed to the Shura Council (emphasis added).
This announcement was enough to send the BBC into a frenzy of excitement about the “reformist” king. Emily Buchanan, BBC correspondent for world affairs, called it an “extraordinary development.” The BBC website went on to pontificate, “Saudi Arabia is a conservative society which has been inching towards reform under the leadership of King Abdullah, himself a reformist. About 10 years ago the king said women should be central to the Saudi economy. Since then, change has been gradual for fear of a religious backlash.”
One wonders how much bakhsheesh the Saudi embassy in London gave to the BBC to write such drivel. Further, what are Ms Buchanan’s thoughts about the “reformist” king now that he has branded calls for “reform” an act of terrorism?
What the king giveth, he taketh away! But the aging Saudi monarch had not given anything; he had merely promised to allow some space for reforms. He has rescinded even that promise now.
In a press release on March 20, the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a scathing report about the Saudis’ new terrorism regulations. Titled, “Saudi Arabia: New Terrorism Regulations Assault Rights,” the report decries the new draconian restrictions that “threaten to close down altogether Saudi Arabia’s already extremely restricted space for free expression.” It quotes Joe Stork, HRW deputy director for Middle East and North Africa as saying, “Saudi authorities have never tolerated criticism of their policies, but these recent laws and regulations turn almost any critical expression or independent association into crimes of terrorism. These regulations dash any hope that King Abdullah intends to open a space for peaceful dissent or independent groups.”
Some of the provisions in the new terrorism law are so outlandish that they would make even the most tyrannical regimes blush with embarrassment, much less one claiming to be governed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Article 2 of the new regulations, for instance, makes it a criminal offence to withdraw one’s loyalty to the country’s rulers. It says, “Anyone who throws away their loyalty to the country’s rulers, or who swears allegiance to any party, organization, current [of thought], group, or individual inside or outside [the kingdom],” would be considered a “terrorist” and prosecuted accordingly.
Under Islamic law, allegiance cannot be coerced. Consent must be given voluntarily. Despite claiming to be ruled by the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (pbuh) Sunnah, it is bedouin tradition that is being imposed on the people. It is the same bedouin mentality that is at work in the prosecution and imprisonment of such well known human rights activists as Abdullah al-Hamid and Mohammed al-Qahtani. Last month (March 9), they completed their first year in prison, serving 11 and 10-year sentences respectively, for criticizing the government’s human rights abuses and for membership in an “unlicensed” political and civil rights organization. The problem is, there are no licensed human or political rights organizations in the kingdom. None is allowed.
In March 2009, when a group of lawyers, academics and activists approached then Interior Minister Nayef bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz for a meeting after their application to register a human rights organization was rejected by the Interior Ministry, the prince gave them a hearing. After they had finished their polite presentation, Nayef told them bluntly, “We took this kingdom by the sword and we will keep it by the sword.” He then had all the academics promptly arrested and thrown in jail.
Al-Hamid and al-Qahtani were convicted for “breaking allegiance with the king,” “slandering the religiosity and integrity of the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars,” “sowing discord,” and “attempting to shake the internal security of the country by calling for demonstrations.” Under the new regulations, several of these charges have now been classified as acts of terrorism.
The regulations have assumed farcical proportions. For instance, several religious “scholars” in Saudi Arabia believe that the earth is flat. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Baz, the late former chief priest of the kingdom, was one of them. Blind from childhood, he insisted the earth was flat because “when I walk on it, I do not find it round!” he would insist. If anyone were to say that the earth is round, he would be declared a terrorist and charged under the new regulations for slandering the “religiosity and integrity of the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars.”
Al-Hamid and al-Qahtani belong to the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), an organization that the interior ministry refused to grant license to and is therefore declared “illegal.” Other members of the organization that are serving sentences for convictions on similar charges, include Mohammed al-Bajadi, Omar al-Saeed, and ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khodr. A jailed member, Fowzan al-Harbi, is on trial before the Riyadh Criminal Court on charges that include “participating in calling for and inciting breaking allegiance with the ruler,” “explicit libel of the integrity and religiosity of the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars,” “participating in setting up an unlicensed organization” — namely, ACPRA — “publishing details of his investigation,” and “describing the ruling Saudi regime — unjustly — as a police state.”
The regime’s campaign of terror was not launched after promulgation of the new regulations. There has been an on-going campaign to silence independent activists and peaceful dissidents through intimidation, investigations, arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonment. This intensified in the wake of the Islamic Awakening that swept the region in January 2011 and drove two long-entrenched dictators from power in quick order. The Saudis’ panic reaction was evident in the dispatch of troops to Bahrain to shore up the minority dictatorial Khalifa regime as well as massive crackdown on the Shi‘i population in the eastern province.
At the same time, the Saudis joined the criminal conspiracy against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s regime in Libya as well as against President Bashar al-Asad in Syria. In Libya, the Western-Arabian alliance was successful and Qaddafi was lynched by a mob in public. Syria has proved a tougher nut to crack. In fact, the Saudis have started to realize that like Osama’s al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorist outfits it is supporting in Syria can return to haunt them, hence the new regulations.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the Saudi regime has cast its net wide and clamped down on all manner of dissent, however, innocuous. The promulgation of the “Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing” is the blunt instrument the Saudis are using to criminalize peaceful dissent and calls for reform. The Saudi judiciary is notorious for handing down harsh sentences against those the regime does not like and giving a free pass to its supporters.
To get a sense of the oppressive nature of the new law, it would be worthwhile to consider some of its provisions that criminalize various acts.
• Article 1: Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based.
• Article 4: Anyone who aids [“terrorist”] organizations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom; this includes participation in audio, written, or visual media; social media in its audio, written, or visual forms; internet websites; or circulating their contents in any form, or using slogans of these groups and currents [of thought], or any symbols which point to support or sympathy with them.
• Article 6: Contact or correspondence with any groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the kingdom.
• Article 8: Seeking to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group statements in any form, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means.
• Article 9: Attending conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society.
• Article 11: Inciting or making countries, committees, or international organizations antagonistic to the kingdom.
Under these provisions, if a Saudi citizen were to use the internet or access a website that has material considered hostile by the regime, he would be considered a “terrorist.” Similarly, attending a conference at which the regime’s atrocious human rights record is discussed would make them liable to prosecution.
The regime itself organizes conferences at which speakers are only allowed to praise its great efforts for the “advancement” of Islam (of its narrow version), “improving” the lives of Saudi citizens and the benevolent nature of the ruling family. When a regime resorts to such tactics to try and burnish its jaded image, it is a sure sign that it is nearing its end.
↧
Assad says "active phase" of Syrian war will end this year: Russian state news
Updated 3:30 pm: A former senior Russian official who recently met Bashar al-Assad said the Syrian president told him the "active phase" of the war in Syria will be over this year but that the government would continue to fight "terrorists," state-run Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported on Monday.
Sergei Stepashin, who served as prime minister in 1999 under then-President Boris Yeltsin and now heads a charitable organization, met Assad in Damascus last week during a visit to the Middle East, according to Russian news reports.
"To my question about how military issues were going, this is what Assad said: 'This year the active phase of military action in Syria will be ended. After that we will have to shift to what we have been doing all the time – fighting terrorists'," Itar-Tass quoted Sergei Stepashin as saying.
Stepashin said they had also discussed economic cooperation between Syria and Russia, Itar-Tass reported.
Russia joined the United States in organizing peace talks that began in January in Geneva between Assad's government and its foes. But no agreement was reached and it appears unlikely a new round will start anytime soon, in part because of high tension between Russia and the West over Ukraine.
Assad has lost control of large swathes of northern and eastern Syria to Islamist rebels and foreign jihadis. But the army, backed by forces from Lebanon's Hezbollah and other allies, have driven rebels back from around Damascus and secured most of central Syria.
The head of Hezbollah said in an interview published on Monday that Assad would stand for re-election this year and that he no longer faced a threat of being overthrown.
(Reuters)
Related- الجزء الثاني من حوار السيد حسن نصرلله مع جريدة السفير
- Nasrallah confirms Hezbollah strike on Israeli forces in Shebaa
- Exclusive: Some 80 militants killed near Syrian capital
- 13 Terrorists Killed in Homs by Their Own Car Bomb
- ‘Al-Nusra’s mysterious leader trapped by Syrian army’
- SAA Launches Wide Military Operations against Terrorists in Homs, Deir Ezzor
- ستيباشين نقلا عن الأسد: أنا لست يانوكوفيتش
- «رنكوس» ترفع الـراية البيضاء وتستعـد للاستسلام عبر «تسوية»
- انجاز استخباراتي سوري: مسلحون يساهمون بإنجازات الجيش السوري
- بداية مفاجآت «حرب القلمون الأخيرة»
- تحرك إيراني وروسي لتلقين أردوغان "درسا"بسبب التصعيد التركي في كسب
↧
