“The US Used Depleted Uranium In Iraq, Israel Used White Phosphorous In Gaza, And Nobody Said Anything About “Red Lines!'”
There’s a reason you’re only getting snippets about Assad’s supposed “chilling warning” of “repercussions” to the US if his country is invaded, it’s because he calmly and succinctly exposed Obama and the US government’s hypocrisy through and through.
Israel’s leaders will be back home, hiding behind what Israel calls its “ambiguity wall”, a metaphorical entity which hides at least 80 Israeli nuclear war heads, plus the material to build hundreds more.
by James M Wall
Natanz Nuclear Facility
This week’s Geneva nuclear table talks pit Iran against the Big Five Security Council members, plus Germany.
Iran sits alone at the table, seeking release from its “sanctions jail” incarceration from its jailers, the Big Five plus one nations.
Israel will not be in the room, even though the region’s self-proclaimed “only democracy”, is Iran’s chief accuser in these talks.
Israel’s leaders will be back home, hiding behind what Israel calls its “ambiguity wall”, a metaphorical entity which hides at least 80 Israeli nuclear war heads, plus the material to build hundreds more.
The ambiguity wall has protected Israel’s growing nuclear arsenal from the world’s eyes since the 1950s. In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician working in Dimona, breached the wall when he leaked the country’s nuclear secrets to a British newspaper.
Vanunu said Israel had at least 100 nuclear weapons. He was kidnapped by Israeli Mossad agents in Rome and quickly convicted of espionage and treason. He served a jail term of 18 years, 11 of which were in solitary confinement.
Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu. In the back, a satellite image of Israeli nuclear facility and reactors, Dimona.
After his release in 2004, Vanunu was forbidden to leave the state of Israel or speak with journalists. Born in Marrakech, Morocco, to a Sephardi rabbi, Vanunu learned the hard way that it is not nice to talk about what goes on behind Israel’s “ambiguity wall”.
The wall continues to be accepted as “ambiguious” by world media and governments, thanks to the powerful influence of the United States, Israel’s big brother protector and financial sugar daddy. Thanks to big brother, the talks in Geneva are proceeding as though Iran’s major accuser is not needed in the nuclear table talks.
Iran, sitting as the “accused” in Geneva, does not put its nuclear facilities behind an “ambiguity” wall. The BBC offers a close look at Iran’s various nuclear production sites. This report relies on Iran’s open stance regarding its program, in contrast to Israel’s lack of transparency.
Iran resumed uranium enrichment work at Natanz in July 2004, after a halt during negotiations with leading European powers over its program.
It announced in September 2007 that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that do the enrichment. In 2010, Iran told the IAEA Natanz would be the venue for new enrichment facilities – construction of which would start around March 2011.
This is the facility at the heart of Iran’s dispute with the United Nations Security Council.
The Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to a much higher level to produce a nuclear explosion.
Of course fuel produced for nuclear power can be used to produce a nuclear explosion. There is no secret about this reality. Iran wants what every developed nation wants, a developed nuclear power system, and the option to build stronger, more lethal, stuff.
Were it not for a desire to compete for military power among nations like the Big Five, plus Germany, all of whom are well armed with nuclear weapons, the world would have moved decades ago to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
They have not, so we are left with the larger powers working hard to limit nuclear arms to those who have already crossed into nuclear arms territory. Once into that territory, nations are asked to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, of course, has never signed the treaty, nor has it been pressured to do so.
Meanwhile, in Geneva, The Guardian reports the not-yet-public opening proposal from Iran to the peace talks:
The Iranian delegation to international talks in Geneva has presented proposals which it claims will end the longstanding deadlock over its nuclear programme.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (R) speaks with his Swiss counterpart Didier Burkhalter during a meeting on the sideline of nuclear talks on October 16, 2013 in Geneva (Pool/AFP, Martial Trezzini)
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, gave an hour-long PowerPoint presentation of the proposals, entitled “Closing an unnecessary crisis: Opening new horizons”, to senior diplomats from the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China at the Palace of Nations in Geneva on Tuesday.The presentation was not made public, but it is believed to lay out a timetable for a confidence-building deal that would place limits on Iran’s nuclear program in return for relief from sanctions and international recognition of the country’s right to enrich uranium.
A recent story in the Los Angeles Times, published September 15, 2013, demonstrated that Israel’s media protection had begun to slip.
Israel has 80 nuclear warheads and the potential to double that number, according to a new report by U.S. experts.
In the Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories, recently published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, proliferation experts Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris write that Israel stopped production of nuclear warheads in 2004.
But the country has enough fissile material for an additional 115 to 190 warheads, according to the report, meaning it could as much as double its arsenal.
Previous estimates have been higher but the new figures agree with the 2013 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute yearbook on armament and international security. The yearbook estimated 50 of Israel’s nuclear warheads were for medium-range ballistic missiles and 30 were for for bombs carried by aircraft, according to a report in the Guardian.
The Times story included the usual boiler plate caveat required in covering Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Although widely assumed a nuclear power, Israel has never acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons or capabilities and continues to maintain its decades-old “strategic ambiguity” policy on the matter, neither confirming nor denying foreign reports on the issue.
Foreign Policy carried a report September 9, that on the chemical weapons front, Israel does not have clean hands.
Syria’s reported use of chemical weapons is threatening to turn the civil war there into a wider conflict. But the Bashar al-Assad government may not be the only one in the region with a nerve gas stockpile. A newly discovered CIA document indicates that Israel likely built up a chemical arsenal of its own.
It is almost universally believed in intelligence circles here in Washington, that Israel possesses a stockpile of several hundred fission nuclear weapons, and perhaps even some high-yield thermonuclear weapons. Analysts believe the Israeli government built the nuclear stockpile in the 1960s and 1970s as a hedge against the remote possibility that the armies of its Arab neighbors could someday overwhelm the Israeli military. But nuclear weapons are not the only weapon of mass destruction that Israel has constructed.
Reports have circulated in arms control circles for almost 20 years that Israel secretly manufactured a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons to complement its nuclear arsenal. Much of the attention has been focused on the research and development work being conducted at the Israeli government’s secretive Israel Institute for Biological Research at Ness Ziona, located 20 kilometers south of Tel Aviv.
But little, if any, hard evidence has ever been published to indicate that Israel possesses a stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. This secret 1983 CIA intelligence estimate may be the strongest indication yet.
According to the document, American spy satellites uncovered in 1982 “a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility… at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry.”
Meanwhile, as the Geneva talks proceed, President Obama appears to be ready for the U.S. and Iran to work toward more cordial relations. That telephone call the President shared with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has begun to pay dividends.
This has not been well received in Saudi Arabia, one of the few remaining Middle Eastern countries still friendly with Israel. Iran’s Fars News Agency reported the Saudis response to the improved Washington-Teheran relationship:
Saudi officials have reportedly become deeply upset and anxious over the Iranians’ success during President Hassan Rouhani’s recent visit to New York and the possible start of rapprochement between Tehran and Washington, and are seeking a way to sabotage the trend, a source said.
“The Saudi officials are highly distressed over this rapprochement and have held a meeting on September 24 in the presence of President of the Royal Court Khalid al-Tuwaijri, Commander of the National Guard Mutaib bin Abdullah, Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and National Security Council Secretary and Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar Bin Sultan,” an informed source close to the Saudi Royal family told FNA on Sunday.
“At the meeting the relations between Iran and the US and the settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue with the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) came under study and Iran’s growing chances of success on this path were assessed to be much dangerous to Saudi Arabia’s national security,” the source added.
The source said that the Saudi officials have decided to use all their diplomatic and intelligence capabilities and possibilities as well as their lobbies in the US to blockade a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington and Bandar bin Sultan was assigned to study possible ways of stirring tension between Iran and the US.
“The meeting also decided that any plan developed in this regard should be coordinated with the Israeli lobbies, which are also angry at the positive atmosphere created between Iran and the US,” the source concluded.
The times they really “are a-changin’” when Israel’s U.S. lobby forces are forced to make common cause with those of Saudi Arabia.
Who killed these innocent children and scores of others with a deadly nerve gas in Syria? Was it Bassar al-Assad, as the West claims? Or is Assad being framed for an attack that was actually carried out by his Western accusers? Click to enlarge
Britain allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
(AFP) – 1 day ago
LONDON — British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Sunday that any evidence of a chemical attack by the Syrian regime may have already been destroyed.
“The fact is that much of the evidence could have been destroyed by that artillery bombardment,” he said, referring to reported continued attacks on the area east of Damascus where the chemical attack is believed to have taken place.
“Other evidence could have degraded over the last few days, and other evidence could have been tampered with,” he added at a press conference held shortly after Damascus gave its green light to a mission by UN inspectors.
The experts are Monday to start investigating the site of the alleged attack as a sceptical Washington said Syria’s acceptance had come too late.
Hague expressed concern that too much time had elapsed for the UN inspectors to gather enough concrete evidence.
“We have to be realistic now about what the UN team can achieve,” he said.
However, he repeated his belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for the alleged attack, claiming “there is a lot of evidence already and it all points in one direction.”
“We are clear in the British government that it was the Assad regime that carried out this large-scale chemical attack,” he said, citing “the eyewitness accounts (and) the fact this area was under bombardment by the regime forces at the time that the chemical attack took place.”
The minister argued: “If the regime believed somebody else had carried out this attack then they would have given access to the UN inspectors several days ago.”
He said Britain was working with the international community to formulate a response, with Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama talking by telephone on Saturday.
“They are agreed there must be a serious response by the international community,” he said.
“We cannot, in the 21st century, allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way and that there are no consequences for it.”
Hague would not outline possible responses “for obvious reasons”, but stressed it was “very important to act in accordance with international law and… to have widespread international support”.
Cameron’s office later revealed that the prime minister had on Sunday spoken to German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the crisis.
“The prime minister called Chancellor Merkel to discuss how the international community should respond to the chemical weapons attack in Syria last week,” a Downing Street statement said.
“They agreed that this was a very grave incident and that there was little doubt that it had been carried out by the regime, particularly given their refusal to grant the UN access to the site immediately after the attack.”
The pair also agreed that such an attack “demanded a firm response from the international community.”
More than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria since an uprising against Assad’s rule flared in March 2011, according to the United Nations.
By wmw_admin on August 31, 2013
Vladimir Putin has rejected US intelligence claims that Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons in Syria, saying it would be “utter nonsense” for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning.
“That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,” Putin told journalists in Vladivostok.
The Russian president also challenged the US to present its case for military intervention to the UN security council, after suggesting that if Barack Obama was worthy of his Nobel peace prize, he should think about the possible victims of any intervention by foreign forces.
UN experts left Syria on Saturday after investigating the gas attack, which killed hundreds of civilians, while the US said it was planning a limited response to punish Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad for the “brutal and flagrant” assault.
Barack Obama said the US, which has destroyers equipped with cruise missiles in the region, was planning a “limited, narrow” response that would not involve boots on the ground or be open-ended.
Russia responded by saying US threats to use military force against Syria were unacceptable and that Washington would be violating international law if it acted without the approval of the UN security council.
Putin said world powers should discuss the Syrian crisis at a meeting of the leaders of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations in St Petersburg next week. “This (G20 summit) is a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not use it?”
A poll in France revealed that most French people do not want their country to take part in military action on Syria, and most do not trust the president, François Hollande to do so.
The poll was published by Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui en France on Saturday, showed 64% of respondents opposed military action, 58% did not trust Hollande to conduct it and 35% feared it could “set the entire region ablaze”.
Russia opposes any military intervention in Syria, warning an attack would increase tensions and undermine the chances of ending the civil war. “Washington statements with threats to use force against Syria are unacceptable,” the Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement late in Friday.
“Any unilateral use of force without the authorisation of the UN security council, no matter how ‘limited’ it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties.”
Lukashevich also said that Washington’s threats were made “in the absence of any proof” of the Syrian government having used chemical weapons.
In a sign the US may be preparing to act, the secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke on Friday to the foreign ministers of key European and Gulf allies, as well as the head of the Arab League, a senior state department official said.
The team of UN weapons inspectors arrived at Beirut international airport on Saturday, after crossing the land border from Syria into Lebanon by foot earlier in the day.
The 20-member team, including experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, have been into the rebel-held areas in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus three times, taking blood and tissue samples from victims. They also took samples of soil, clothing and rocket fragments. They will be sent to laboratories in Europe, most likely Sweden or Finland, for analysis. The experts have already been testing for sarin, mustard gas and other toxic agents.
The analysis should establish if chemical weapons were used, but not who was responsible for the 21 August attack. Final results might not be ready for two weeks, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, told security council members, according to diplomats.
In France, Hollande said Britain’s parliamentary vote against military strikes would not affect France’s own actions.
Two other opinion polls published this week, and carried out after the Ghouta attack, indicated lukewarm support among French voters for military intervention in Syria.
Hollande, whose popularity has been hurt by economic gloom, showed unexpected military mettle when he dispatched troops to help Mali’s government fend off Islamist rebels earlier this year, an intervention backed by two-thirds of the public.
- US concludes that Assad used chemical weapons
- Syria allows UN to inspect site of chemical weapons attack
- Obama calls apparent gas attack ‘of grave concern’
SYRIAN President Bashar al-Assad has said Western claims that his regime used chemical weapons are an “insult to common sense” and warned the US it faced failure if it attacked his country, in an interview with a Russian newspaper published on Monday.
Mr Assad told pro-Kremlin daily Izvestia in the extensive interview that Syria would never be a “puppet” of the West and said Washington had never succeeded in reaching its political aims through war.
“The comments (accusing the regime of using chemical weapons) made by politicians in the West and other countries are an insult to common sense … It is nonsense,” Mr Assad said.
He accused the US of first making the accusations that his regime used chemical weapons in an attack outside Damascus that activists say killed hundreds, and only later starting to look for proof.
Mr Assad said the frontline in the area where the incident took place was not clear and the Syrian regime would have risked killing its own army forces if it used chemical weapons.
“This contradicts elementary logic,” he said. “Such accusations are completely political and the reason for them is a number of victories by the government forces against the terrorists.”
With calls mounting for military action against Syria, Mr Assad warned Western states to stop interfering in the affairs of other countries and instead “listen to the opinion of the people”.
“If someone is dreaming of making Syria a puppet of the West, then this will not happen,” he said. “We are an independent state, we will fight against terrorism and we will build relations with whom we want for the good of the Syrian people.”
He warned the US against attacking Syria and argued Washington’s previous military campaigns in recent years had always fallen short of their aims.
“The US faces failure just like in all the previous wars they waged, starting with Vietnam and up to our days,” he said.
“America has taken part in many wars but could not once achieve its political goals for which the wars were started. Yes, it is true, the great powers can wage wars, but can they win them?” he asked.
Turkey speaks out, Russia concerned
Meanwhile, Turkey would join any international coalition against Syria even if a wider consensus on action could not be reached at the United Nations Security Council, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was quoted as saying on Monday.
“We always prioritise acting together with the international community, with UN decisions. If such a decision doesn’t emerge from the UN Security Council, other alternatives … would come onto the agenda,” Mr Davutoglu told the Milliyet daily.
“Currently 36-37 countries are discussing these alternatives. If a coalition is formed against Syria in this process, Turkey would take its place in this coalition.”
Turkey has emerged as one of Mr Assad’s most vocal critics during the two-and-a-half-year conflict, sheltering half a million refugees and allowing the opposition to organise on its soil.
Also on Monday, Russia expressed its concern to Washington that the US would respond militarily to a suspected chemical weapons attack by Syrian government forces, and urged restraint, the Russian foreign ministry said.
Referring to a telephone conversation between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday, the ministry said Moscow had also urged Washington to refrain from falling for “provocations”.
“The minister (Mr Lavrov) stressed that the official announcements from Washington in recent days about the readiness of US armed forces to ‘intervene’ in the Syrian conflict have been received in Moscow with deep concern,” the ministry said in a statement.
US remarks that Syria’s agreement to allow the UN to inspect the site of the suspected chemical weapons attack was “too late to be credible” appeared to signal a military response was more likely.
A senior senator said he believed President Barack Obama would ask for authorisation to use force when Congress returned from recess next month.
But Russia, an ally of Mr Assad, has suggested rebels may have been behind the alleged chemical weapons attack.
“In connection with this, the Russian side calls for (Washington to) refrain from the threat of force on Damascus, not to fall for provocations and to try to help create normal conditions to give the UN chemical experts’ mission, which is already in the country, the possibility of conducting a thorough, objective and impartial investigation,” the statement said.
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who once served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff, believes that the chemical weapons used in Syria may have been an Israeli “false flag” operation aimed at implicating Bashar Assad’s regime.
Wilkerson made his astounding assertion in an interview on Current TV, the network once owned by former Vice President Al Gore and recently purchased by Al-Jazeera.
Wilkerson said that the evidence that it was Assad’s regime that had used the chemical weapons was “flaky” and that it could very well have been the rebels or Israel who were the perpetrators. Asked why Israel would do such a thing, Wilkerson said: “I think we’ve got a basically geostrategically, geopolitical inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.”
“I think we saw really startling evidence of that,” Wilkerson continued, “in the fact that President Obama had to tell Bibi Netanyahu ‘Pick up the phone, you idiot, call Ankara and get yourself out of this strategic isolation you’re in right now.”
A “false flag” operation is a covert attack on foreign or domestic soil carried out by governments or organizations under a false identity, aimed at placing blame on the enemy. It originates with a ruse once used in naval warfare in which ships would hoist the enemy’s flags in order to infiltrate his ranks.
Wilkerson, 63, a former Army helicopter pilot who flew combat missions in Vietnam, served as Colin Powell’s chief of staff in 2002-2005. He was responsible for reviewing the intelligence information used by Powell in his by now infamous February 2003 United Nations Security Council appearance on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
After his retirement, Wilkerson described this presentation as “a hoax” and became an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. He now serves as a professor at Virginia’s William and Mary College and is a guest commentator on several U.S. television networks.
Speaking on the Current’s Young Turks program, Wilkerson said that because of the instability in the Middle East, Israel’s current geo-strategic situation is “as dangerous as it’s been since 1948.” He added that President Obama “has got to be very circumspect about what he does in exacerbating that situation.”
“Netanyahu is clueless as to this,” Wilkerson said. “I hope President Obama gave him a lecture in geostrategic realities.”
By Christopher Bollyn on September 2, 2013
FOX News supports military action against the Assad government of Syria but does not inform its viewers that the network’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, is part-owner of an oil exploration company illegally exploiting the resources of Israeli-occupied Syria. Click to enlarge
Millions of Americans get their news from FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, or through some other news outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch. FOX News and Murdoch-owned news outlets generally support U.S. military action against Syria, but they do not inform their viewers and readers that Mr. Murdoch has a vested interest in war with Syria. Rupert Murdoch is part-owner of an Israeli-American company that has been granted the rights to explore for oil on the Golan Heights –Israeli-occupied Syrian land. It is highly unethical for FOX News not to disclose this information to its viewers.
Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy. Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild are major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel. Dick Cheney is also on the company’s advisory board.
It is illegal under international law for Israel to grant oil exploration rights on occupied territory, as Craig Murray wrote in his February 2013 article “Israel Grants Oil Rights in Syria to Murdoch and Rothschild”:
For Israel to seek to exploit mineral reserves in the occupied Golan Heights is plainly illegal in international law. Japan was successfully sued by Singapore before the International Court of Justice for exploitation of Singapore’s oil resources during the Second World War. The argument has been made in international law that an occupying power is entitled to operate oil wells which were previously functioning and operated by the sovereign power, in whose position the occupying power now stands. But there is absolutely no disagreement in the authorities and case law that the drilling of new wells – let alone fracking – by an occupying power is illegal.
The fact that Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are invested in oil exploration efforts in occupied Syria suggests that they support the overthrow of the Assad government in Damascus in order to weaken Syria and divide the nation in much the same way as Yugoslavia was dismembered in the 1990s.
“Israel Grants Oil Rights in Syria to Murdoch and Rothschild” by Craig Murray, February 21, 2013
“Business and Financial Leaders Lord Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch Invest in Genie Oil & Gas,” IDT Corp. Press Release, November 15, 2010
Management of Genie Oil and Gas
Strategic Advisory Board of Genie Oil and Gas
This article was first published on bollyn.com.
Bombshell: Syria’s ‘chemical weapons’ turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the U.S. water supply and sold at Wal-Mart
Natural News can now reveal that the Syria chemical weapons narrative being pushed by the White House is an outlandish hoax.
To understand why, you have to start with the story published in The Independententitled Revealed: Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria.
Sounds scary, right? As The Independent reports:
The Government was accused of “breathtaking laxity” in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.
What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via “arms control” regulations? You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are:
• sodium fluoride
• potassium fluoride
You can see this yourself in the screen capture of The Independent breaking news story. Note the headline and the subhead. The headline describes “nerve gas chemicals” and the subhead explains them as “sodium fluoride” and “potassium fluoride.”
U.S. water fluoridation chemical is Syria’s “chemical weapon”
If these chemical names sound familiar, that’s because sodium fluoride is the same toxic chemical that’s routinely dumped into municipal water supplies all across the USA under the guise of “water fluoridation.”
In fact, the forced feeding of sodium fluoride to the U.S. population is called a “public health” victory by the CDC, FDA and dentists everywhere. Yet this same chemical, when sold to Syria, is openly and repeatedly referred to as a “chemical weapon.” This is true across the BBC, the Guardian, Daily Record and Sunday Mail, France24.com and literally thousands of other news websites.
According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, any government “regime” that uses chemical weapons against its own people should be bombed / invaded / overthrown by a coalition of other United Nations members. By his own definition, then, the United States of America should now be invaded by the UN because the government uses a deadly chemical weapon — sodium fluoride — on its own people.
By implication, then, John Kerry is now calling for the UN to bomb the USA. As the international media now confirms, sodium fluoride is a chemical weapon, and this chemical weapon is used against the American people every single day in the water supply, a favorite attack vector for terrorists.
“Evidence” of chemical weapons nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride
As you might have guessed, Secretary of State John Kerry is running around “pulling a George Bush” by claiming Syria has used weapons of mass destruction on its own population. Here’s a sample of his claims:
“In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin.” Kerry said this onNBC’s Meet The Press.
But what, exactly, is he saying? That hair samples have tested positive for “signatures” of sarin, not sarin itself. What is a “signature” of sarin? The fluorine element, which is of course the basis for sodium fluoride.
In other words, this “evidence” of chemical weapons in Syria may be nothing more than a collection of hair samples taken from people who drank fluoride. As this study shows on SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, hair analysis is a commonly-used practice for assessing exposure to fluoride. It concludes, “hair may be regarded as biomaterial of high informative potential in evaluating prolonged exposure to fluorides…”
Typically, this analysis is conducted with ICP-MS instrumentation, using a plasma torch that disintegrates all organic molecules, leaving only the resulting elements (fluorine). Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental fluorine.
Read that again, because it’s crucial to understanding the hoax being perpetrated by the White House: Tests on hair or other tissues, if done using ICP-MS (the most common elemental analysis technology used today), would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin.
Sarin has the chemical formula:
You will notice that the only elements in this formula are:
Out of those five elements, four of them (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous) occur naturally in the human body in large quantities. Fluorine is the only element that strongly stands out against the rest in terms of elemental analysis. And fluorine is the same element that forms the basis of sodium fluoride. Sarin can, of course, also be detected as a complete molecule using liquid chromatography systems (HPLC), but this is highly unlikely to have taken place given the inherent instability of the molecule, which breaks apart upon exposure to simple moisture in the air or in the body.
Thus, ICP-MS testing could be used to intentionally “blur” the evidence, making sodium fluoride appear to be “signatures” of sarin, precisely as Kerry is now claiming in the media. As the whole point of all this is to fabricate evidence to justify a political war in the first place, there isn’t any real scientific scrutiny being applied to all this. Obama, Kerry and others are spouting whatever they think the people will swallow, and since most of the U.S. public is scientifically illiterate, it turns out they will swallow some real whoppers.
Same sodium fluoride chemical added to water for infants
Sodium fluoride, by the way, is also added to drinking water for babies and infants. It’s a key ingredient, actually, in a product called Nursery Water that’s “enriched” with extra sodium fluoride, the same chemical now being called a “chemical weapon” by the international media. You can see this for yourself at www.NurseryWater.com or just check out the photo below:
As you can see, this sodium fluoride infant water — which the White House effectively calls a “chemical weapon” — is sold at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Albertson’s, Safeway, K-Mart, Rite Aid and even Toys “R” Us. Bet you never knew you could buy chemical weapons at Toys “R” Us, did ya?
The Nursery Water label, shown below, lists “sodium fluoride” as a key ingredient:
You’ll also notice that the label includes instructions for using this sodium fluoride baby water:
“…ready to mix with formula and cereal, dilute juice or drink – just open and pour!”
Yep, you read it: the same “chemical weapon” that’s about to start World War III is part of your baby’s formula recipe. When sodium fluoride is in the hands of Syria’s Assad, it’s called a “chemical weapon,” but when it’s part of your baby’s diet, it’s called “nutrition.” How’s that for Orwellian doublespeak?
Syria’s “chemical weapon” also added to Colgate toothpaste
Just in case adding Syria’s “chemical weapon” to baby water isn’t enough for you, it’s also a key ingredient in Colgate toothpaste.
Yep, according to dentists, chemical weapons also “fight tooth decay,” so they should be added to toothpaste. Check out the label on this Colgate toothpaste and see for yourself:
Keep this in mind the next time you carry toothpaste with you when you attempt to travel by air. The TSA can pull you aside and legitimately accuse you of working for the Assad regime as a chemical weapons terrorist while charging you with the federal crime of “transporting chemical weapons.”
Mainstream media admits U.S. food companies use chemical weapons against their own customers
Unless the mainstream media retracts all its thousands of stories about sodium fluoride being a “chemical weapon” sold to Syria, it must come to terms with the fact that it is also accusing the U.S. food industry of using chemical weapons on consumers.
Sodium fluoride, after all, is added to countless consumer products, from toothpaste and mouthwash to drinking water. Sodium fluoride does not magically change from a “chemical weapon” in Syria to a “nutritive mineral” by crossing the ocean. Sodium fluoride is sodium fluoride, and it’s dangerous no matter who consumes it.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear a dentist recommending dumping sodium fluoride into the local water supply. You can correctly counter their absurd request by threatening to call Homeland Security to report them as a terrorist for engaging in the indiscriminate deployment of a chemical weapon in the water supply — a favorite target for terrorists worldwide.
By the way, I’m not joking on this: I actually encourage you to call Homeland Security and report your local city council members as terrorists who are mirroring the Assad “regime” in Syria by using sodium fluoride “chemical weapons” on the public. You might even call the United Nations and ask them to intervene in the USA’s use of chemical weapons against its own people… right? Isn’t that what John Kerry is asking the world to do in the case of Syria? Why does the USA have immunity from using chemical weapons on its own people when Syria is threatened with war for using the exact same chemical weapons on its population?
Same “nerve gas chemicals” exported to Syria are imported from China by nearly every U.S. city
By the way, the same sodium fluoride that was exported to Syria as a “chemical weapon” is routinely imported by U.S. cities to dump into the municipal water supply. They call it “water fluoridation” and dentists push it like candy because it actually causes wildly increased tooth decay, mottling and discoloration (all of which adds up to increased repeat business for dentists).
As documented by Natural News, sodium fluoride is touted by China’s exporters as a multi-purpose chemical that functions as a deadly pesticide, absorbs chemicals in the nuclear industry and more. See these two photos for more proof. These were created as marketing materials by China’s fluoride export industry:
Uses: It’s mainly used as a flux in the aluminum smelting by fused-salt electrolysis; also an opalizer in the manufacture of enamel; an opacifier and auxiliary solvent of glass and enamel; an insecticide of crops; a flux in aluminum alloy casting; and in the production of ferrous alloy and effervescing steel; as well as a wear-resistant filler for resin and rubber-boned abrasive wheels.
As I first said back in 2012, “Fluoride is a chemical weapon!” Now it turns out John Kerry agrees with me, and he’s using fluoride as an excuse to bomb a sovereign nation.
Quick question: If Russia begins bombing the USA, can they use the same excuse that Obama and Kerry are using on Syria? “We had to save the American people from the chemical weapons used by the Obama regime!”
Sources for this story include:
on Thursday, AP reported that “the intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no ‘slam dunk,’” and that this “uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden”:
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad’s authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
Kerry had said: “We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons.”
By Thursday, we knew that what Kerry said on Monday was not true. He said “we know.” But, according the U.S. intelligence officials cited by AP, we don’t know.
|Information Minister: We have incontrovertible proof that terrorists used chemical weapons
Damascus, (SANA) – Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi reiterated that Syria never used any chemical weapons in any shape or form, not in the Ghouta area in Damascus countryside nor anywhere else, and that it would never use it even if it possessed it, adding that there’s evidence that such weapons were used by terrorist groups including satellite imagery and witness testimonies.
In an interview given to al-Mayadeen TV on Saturday, Minister al-Zoubi said that Syria and its friends have incontrovertible proof that the projectiles in question were launched from sites controlled by terrorists on sites containing civilians, therefore terrorists are fully responsible for these actions and all their repercussions.
He pointed out that the Syrian armed forces seized a warehouse in Jobar area containing large containers of chemical materials manufactured in Saudi Arabia and certain European countries, medicine for protection from chemicals in case the terrorists were exposed to them, and equipment used in manufacturing chemicals, adding that this isn’t the first time the army uncovered warehouses containing chemicals made in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and some European countries.
Al-Zoubi stressed that if any chemical weapons were used in areas including Jobar, then they were used by members of terrorist groups and the foreigners who operate with them and constitute the true basis of these groups and who showed no scruples in committing any act.
The Information Minister cited what happened in Khan al-Assal, saying that those who used chemical weapons there can use it anywhere else, and that the use of such weapons shows that the terrorist groups are feeling helpless and confused as they attempt to halt the Syrian Army’s progress.
Al-Zoubi affirmed that Syria is cooperating in a significant, transparent and direct manner with the UN committee investigating chemical weapons use, adding that Syria will never permit inspection committees under any pretext and that this is a final position, and as far as the UN committee is concerned, its task is to investigate specific incidents such as what happened in Khan al-Assal as per the agreement between Syria and the UN which has nothing to do with inspection which violates sovereignty.
He explained that the committee will investigate sides agreed upon by the committee and the Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry, including Khan al-Assal which prompted Syria to request the committee in the first place.
The Minister said that the committee informs the Syrian authorities of its movements and that the authorities in turn will ensure their safety and requirements in areas where there are no terrorist groups, while other areas are a different matter altogether.
Al-Zoubi said that Syria made clear its decision to confront terrorist groups which must surrender their weapons and withdraw from areas where chemical weapons were allegedly used so that the committee can inspect them and so that Syrian state establishments can also examine the areas and the environmental situation in them, adding that those who speak from abroad on behalf of the terrorist groups must order them to withdraw from these areas.
He noted that when the recent incidents took place, Syria said in an official statement that there’s an attempt to divert the committee from its tasks and mission because it has sites to visit and evidence to go through, and that the attempts to disrupt the committee shows dissatisfaction over the way Syria responded to this team and its cooperation with it, saying that this would explain why the Ghouta incident took place on the first day of the committee’s actual work.
The Minister wondered why the US didn’t act when Khan al-Assal incident took place, pointing out that at that time, Syria made an official complaint, addressing the UN and requesting an investigation committee, adding “when they realized that the ones who committed the crime in Khan al-Assad were armed terrorist group, they tried to delay the committee and started hindering any agreement and talking about several areas and conditions.”
On news of the US increasing its ships’ presence in the Mediterranean, al-Zoubi said that the US habitually has a fleet in the Mediterranean, but if the media talk about the US administration considering “options” is meant to pressure Damascus to cease its military operations against terrorists, then this pressure will not succeed and is a waste of time, as confronting terrorism in Syria will continue and is an issue form which the Syrian leadership will not back down.
He explained that the international and regional conditions don’t permit a US military strike against Syria, asserting that such an attack is no picnic to any side, as there are international and regional balances to be considered and actual facts on the ground.
“If the Americans connect their movements in the region to talk about chemical weapons and their use and bring ships and forces, then this connection is tenuous and shows a lack of understanding of the matter,” al-Zoubi said.
“When investigations prove that armed groups were the ones who used chemical weapons , will the US attack the armed terrorist groups which it adopts and arms with its regional allies? Will the international community take a real stance or will it look for an excuse for those groups and justify their use of this kind of weapon?” he wondered.
The Minister said that the idea of foreign military intervention isn’t valid because Syria is still a standing state with its establishments, army and its own strength, not to mention its honest friends, allies and brothers in the region.
Al-Zoubi stressed that if any US or foreign military intervention takes place, then it will have very grave repercussions, first of which would be chaos and fire which will burn the entire Middle East.
He asserted that Syria is still prepared to participate in the Geneva conferences without preconditions, saying that the ball isn’t in Syria’s court now but rather in the court of those who reject the political course and seek solutions that employ force, threats, economic sanctions and other similar steps.
The Minister concluded by saying that the Syrian government has two parallel courses: the political course and combating terrorism, affirming that neither courses will be abandoned at any time because they are a national, regional and international necessity, and that this position will remain the same whether the Geneva conference is held or not.
Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.
The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army, the diplomat said.
“We are asking UN to incorporate 3 more locations where the Syrian soldiers inhaled the nerve gas also in the suburbs of Damascus. So the spectrum of investigation is increasing compared to the initial phase of investigation,” Jaafari said.
Jaafari spoke shortly after an informal meeting of the UN Security Council, where its five permanent members discussed the UK’s proposed draft resolution. The text blames Assad’s government for an alleged chemical attack on August 21, and demands a swift response.
“There is no consensus in the Council on any draft of the resolution, whether it is British or French or American… because members of the Council do not believe the authenticity of the accusations provided by this delegation or that delegation,” the Syrian diplomat said.
Jaafari also accused the US, UK and France of being “part of the problem,” rather than “a solution to the crisis.” These Western states are providing “armed terrorists groups” in Syria with weapons and all kinds of logistical support, he stated.
Following the alleged chemical weapons attack on March 19 in Khan al-Assal near Aleppo, which killed over 30 people, the Syrian government asked the UN chief for assistance in investigating the attack and identifying who was behind it, Jaafari said.
But Ban Ki-moon, “his experts in the department of disarmament, as well as the three Western delegations in the Council, objected to the second part of our request,” he said. “They objected to our request to identify who did it from day one, because they knew who did it in Khan al-Assal.”
The diplomat said that, even though “everyone agreed” that the March 19 attack involved chemical weapons, the UK, the US and France did not submit any draft resolutions to the UN Security Council then.
“They did not raise a finger in the media to say that what happened in Khan al-Assal was wrong,” Jaafari said.
After the incident near Aleppo, the UN set up a fact-finding mission. The investigation, however, got stalled as a group of Western countries insisted on a more thorough inquiry, which would also look into alleged chemical weapons use in Homs in December 2012. The rebel groups insisted that Assad’s forces were responsible for that attack. The investigators also required access to Syrian military installations, which the UN said Damascus denied them access to. In addition, the UN excluded Russian and Chinese experts from the investigation team, and Syria protested this decision.
Moscow repeatedly called on its partners not to delay the investigation and not to draw any conclusions before the findings were complete. However, some Western states – mainly the US and the UK – claimed that “limited but persuasive information” allegedly proved “with varying degrees of confidence” the Assad’s forces were behind the use of chemical weapons.
“The Syrian government is against the use of chemical weapons by all means,” Jaafari said on Wednesday, adding that the government wants those behind such attacks in the country to be held accountable.
“We want the investigation team currently present on Syrian soil to continue investigating this crime and to come up with a scientific report to be examined by the Security Council members,” he told journalists.
The UN team is currently working at the site of the alleged August 21 attack in a suburb of Damascus. According to Ban Ki-moon, they are expected to finish their investigation in four days, then the results will be sent to the Security Council. The experts have collected samples and interviewed victims and witnesses, the Secretary General told reporters in The Hague on Wednesday.
“The team needs time to do its job,” he pointed out.
However, the US, the UK and France continue pushing for a response to the Syrian chemical attack. American State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Wednesday that the US will not let Syria “hide behind” the Russian veto in the UN Security Council against military intervention.
August 28, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) – The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.
The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.
Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:
One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.
Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.
That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government – a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.
In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.
The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.
The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:
…if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.
The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.
The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.
Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.
Post-9/11 American leaders are demonic haters of humanity and creators of evil wars. The civilized world rejects them.
“Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us,” Gen. Clark said, adding later that “this country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup.” He then listed several key individuals behind the Project For A New American Century who deliberately lied to the American people and the world about America’s intentions in the Middle East: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney. “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control,” said Gen Clark.
The plan to radically remake the Middle East was hatched a decade before the September 11 attacks happened. Gen. Clark said he remembered a meeting he had with Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 about America’s military success in Desert Storm. At the time, Gen. Clark was commanding the national training center and Wolfowitz was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. Wolfowitz told Gen. Clark that the war with Iraq revealed two realities. “We learned that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won’t stop us,” and that “we’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”
The decision to attack Syria was taken by the nutcases in Washington and their evil masters in Israel when many of us were barely out of the womb so this has been a long time coming, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. That is a lie.
A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie, saying it over and over again may make it true in the minds of brainwashed zombies, but not in the minds of spiritually aware, mentally awakened, politically educated, and emotionally invested individuals.
Michael Snyder writes in his article, “15 Signs That Obama Has Already Made The Decision To Go To War With Syria”:
The Obama administration seems absolutely determined to help radical Islamic jihadists that have beheaded Christians, that have massacred entire Christian villages, and that havepledged loyalty to al-Qaeda topple the Assad regime and take over Syria. Yes, the Assad regime is horrible, but if these jihadist lunatics take control it will destabilize the entire region, make the prospect of a major regional war much more probable, and plunge the entire nation of Syria into a complete and utter nightmare.
Even after Syria granted the United Nations access to the site where chemical weapons were allegedly used by Assad, the U.S. responded with “too late.” Talk about childish. America is run by an evil little girl out of a Hollywood horror flick.
It would be one thing if America was like Genghis Khan, you know, someone who is masculine and powerful, and demands respect regardless of how ruthless and evil he is. But no, America is not that. American foreign policy is guided by spoiled evil little children who have never been in a fight but still act like the world belongs to them.
If a general who led warriors in Vietnam was heading America, good, at least you can respect him when he uses his army against you. But, no, a lying scumbag, a professional ass-kisser like Obama is who speaks for America.
Barack Obama is Walter White on steroids but without the natural charisma and without the talent for acting. He is pure evil, and a total psychopath who has lied throughout his political career. He wants to break Syria, not to bring a dictator down. His target is a nation and a people, not a man.
Obama has done nothing good. He didn’t actually kill Bin Laden, he started new wars, and he brought Al-Qaeda back to life by arming and funding them in Syria. So not only did this war criminal not kill the leader of Al-Qaeda, but he empowered the terrorist organization in the mad quest to overthrow Assad.
Only a demonic spirit is capable of that level of evil, deception, and criminality.
Rixon Stewart — August 25, 2013
As with any crime when you want to ascertain who the culprit is the first question to be asked is: who benefits?
In the case of the suspected nerve gas attack in Syria, the Syrian government would gain absolutely nothing from the atrocity. If anything it would be counterproductive; alienating President Assad’s domestic supporters and giving clear propaganda points to the Western sponsored rebels.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, if the Syrian government forces were intent on defeating the al-Qaeda-linked opposition then why would they launch an alleged nerve gas attack on women and children rather than opposition fighters?
It defies logic. All the more so as the Syrian government forces have been gaining ground recently in their offensive against the militants.
No, the only real beneficiaries from last week’s suspected nerve gas attack are the Western-sponsored militants. Just as Syrian government forces were on their way to inflicting a decisive defeat on the militants, the alleged use of nerve gas by the Syrian government has opened up the very real prospect of Western military intervention to prevent that.
So not only would the Syrian government gain absolutely nothing from using chemical weapons against their own people, it would also save the “Syrian opposition forces” from impending defeat.
The timing and location of the attack also seem to defy reason. Coming just three days after a team of United Nations chemical weapons experts checked into a hotel in Damascus, a few kilometres from the site of the chemical weapons attack.
Even if we ignore clear indications that Syrian government forces wouldn’t benefitfrom the nerve gas attack, or United Nations investigator’s claims to have found evidence that opposition forces used Sarin earlier this year, this still ignores thequestionable nature of some of the other evidence pointing to Syrian government involvement.
Mail Online headline. Click to enlarge
Above all though it ignores plans that emerged at the beginning of the year that the ‘U.S. backed a plan to launch a chemical weapons attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime‘. That report appeared at the end of January in the Daily Mail but has subsequently been removed from the Mail’s website.
Fortunately, some enterprising observers managed to save copies of the webpage before the Mail entirely removed it. But it only goes to show how the corporate media appears to be working in collusion with Western intelligence.
Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the corporate media has almost become an arm of Western intelligence; used to feed the public disinformation and shape their perception of events.
You would think that most would be a little more sceptical about the claims made in the Western corporate media, especially after the fiasco over Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
We can only hope they are. As that episode appears to be repeating itself in claims about Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
In the latest development in the ongoing crisis, Syria has agreed to allow United Nations chemical weapons experts to inspect the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack.
This apparent conciliatory move by Syria was quickly rebuffed however. With a senior White House official saying the move was “too late to be credible“.
The official insisted on anonymity because of lack of authorization to speak publicly about the developments.
Nonetheless the rejection of the Syrian gesture means we are heading down the same road we travelled once with Saddam Hussein and his fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction. Only this time the conflict at the end of the road could be much bigger than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Indeed, with both Iran and Russia pledging support for President Assad we could face a potentially catastrophic conflict.
Obama set for holy Tomahawk war
By Pepe Escobar
The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine invoked to legitimize the 2011 war on Libya has just transmogrified into ”responsibility to attack” (R2A) Syria. Just because the Obama administration says so.
On Sunday, the White House said it had ”very little doubt” that the Bashar al-Assad government used chemical weapons against its own citizens. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry ramped it up to ”undeniable” – and accused Assad of ”moral obscenity”.
So when the US bombed Fallujah with white phosphorus in late 2004 it was just taking the moral high ground. And when the US
helped Saddam Hussein to gas Iranians in 1988 it was also taking the moral high ground.
The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors’ hotel. If you don’t believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.
Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad’s offer of access for the inspectors came ”too late”. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed – but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman.
As far as the Obama administration and UK Prime Minister David ”of Arabia” Cameron are concerned – supported by a barrage of corporate media missiles – that’s irrelevant; Obama’s ”red line” has been crossed by Assad, period. Washington and London are in no-holds-barred mode to dismiss any facts contradicting the decision. Newspeak – of the R2A kind – rules. If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that’s because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy – all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception – all over again.
The Saudi-Israeli axis of fun
The window of opportunity for war is now. Assad’s forces were winning from Qusayr to Homs; pounding ”rebel” remnants out of the periphery of Damascus; deploying around Der’ah to counterpunch CIA-trained ”rebels” with advanced weapons crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border; and organizing a push to expel ”rebels” and jihadis from suburbs of Aleppo.
Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol’ Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ”On the Way to Attack” and even printed the ideal Order of Battle. (see photo)
Months ago, even AMAN, the Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) concluded that Assad was not a fool to cross Obama’s chemical weapon ”red line”. So they came up with the concept of ”two entwined red lines”, the second line being the Syrian government ”losing control of its chemical weapons depots and production sites”. AMAN then proposed different strategies to Washington, from a no-fly zone to actually seizing the weapons (implying a ground attack).
It’s now back to the number one option – air strikes on the chemical weapons depots. As if the US – and Israel – had up-to-the-minute intelligence on exactly where they are.
The House of Saud had also telegraphed its wishes – after Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, was appointed by King Abdullah as head of Saudi General Intelligence. Abdullah’s hard on is explained by his mother and two of his wives coming from an influential, ultra-conservative Sunni tribe in Syria. As for Bandar Bush, he has more longevity than Rambo or the Terminator; he’s back in the same role he played in the 1980s Afghan jihad, when he was the go-to guy helping the CIA to weaponize president president Ronald Reagan’s ”freedom fighters”.
Jordan – a fiction of a country totally dependent on the Saudis – was easily manipulated into becoming a ”secret” war operation center. And who’s in charge? No less than Bandar’s younger half-brother, and deputy national security adviser, Salman bin Sultan, also known as ”mini-Bandar”. Talk about an Arab version of Dr Evil and Mini Me.
Still, there are more CIA assets than Saudis in the Jordanian front.
The importance of this report cannot be overstated enough. It was initially leaked to Lebanon’s Al-Safir newspaper. Here’s Bandar’s whole strategy, unveiled in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, already reported by Asia Times Online. After trying – for four hours – to convince Putin to drop Syria, Bandar is adamant: ”There is no escape from the military option.”
Mix Kosovo with Libya and voila!
Former president Bill Clinton resurfaced with perfect timing to compare Obama’s options in Syria to Reagan’s jihad in Afghanistan. Bubba was right in terms of positioning Bandar’s role. But he must have inhaled something if he was thinking in terms of consequences – which include everything from the Taliban to that mythical entity, ”al-Qaeda”. Well, at least al-Qaeda is already active in Syria; they don’t need to invent it.
As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama – including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks – they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo – with a Libya add-on – is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea.
Facts are, of course, absent from the narrative – including the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (a remix in Syria with the Russian embassy?) and getting to the brink of a war with Russia.
Syria has nothing to do with the Balkans. This is a civil war. Arguably the bulk of the Syrian urban population, not the country bumpkins, support Damascus – based on despicable ”rebel” behavior in places they control; and the absolute majority wants a political solution, as in the now near-totally torpedoed Geneva II conference.
The Jordanian scheme – inundating southern Syria with heavily weaponized mercenaries – is a remix of what the CIA and the Saudis did to AfPak; and the only winner will be Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis. As for the Israeli solution for Obama – indiscriminate bombing of chemical weapons depots – it will certainly result in horrendous collateral damage, as in R2A killing even more civilians.
The prospects remain grim. Damn another coalition of the willing; Washington already has the British and French poodles in the bag, and full support – in air-con safety – from the democratic Gulf Cooperation Council petro-monarchies, minion Jordan and nuclear power Israel. This is what passes for ”international community” in the newspeak age.
The Brits are already heavily spinning that no UN Security Council resolution is needed; who cares if we do Iraq 2.0? For the War Party, the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Syrian ”rebels” could not promote US interests seems to be irrelevant.
Washington already has what it takes for the Holy Tomahawks to start flying; 384 of them are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. B-1 bombers can be deployed from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And bunker-busting bombs will certainly be part of the picture.
What happens next requires concentric crystal balls – from Tomahawks to a barrage of air strikes to Special Ops commandos on the ground to a sustained air campaign lasting months. In his long interview to Izvestia, Assad gives the impression he thinks Obama is bluffing.
What’s certain is that Syria won’t be a ”piece of cake” like Libya; even depleted on all fronts, Gaddafi resisted for eight long months after NATO started its humanitarian bombing. Syria has a weary but still strong army of 200,000; loads of Soviet and Russian weapons; very good antiaircraft systems; and full support from asymmetrical warfare experts Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Russia, which just needs to forward a few S-300 air defense batteries and relay solid intelligence.
So get used to how international relations work in the age of newspeak. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s army in Egypt can kill hundreds of his own people who were protesting against a military coup. Washington couldn’t care less – as in the coup that is not a coup and the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath.
No one knows for sure what exactly happened in the chemical weapons saga near Damascus. But that’s the pretext for yet another American war – just a few days before a Group of 20 summit hosted by Putin in St Petersburg. Holy Tomahawk! R2A, here we go.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
He may be reached at email@example.com.
You know everything is changing when the Washington Post runs a major story on the 14th largest Jewish community in the world: the Iranian Jewish community (30,000 people) and reports they are doing just fine and, although free to emigrate, choose to stay.
You need to read the piece but here are a few quotes:
Community leaders say that Jews here have become more religious since Iran’s revolution. With 60 active synagogues spread across Iran, including a dozen in Tehran alone, sermons and religious courses perpetually draw large participation.
But that gravitation toward deeper faith has not included an embrace of Zionism or any upsurge in immigration to Israel, the leaders say.
“There is a distinction between us as Jews and Israel,” said Haroon Saketi, who owns a clothing boutique in the city of Isfahan. “We consider ourselves Iranian Jews, and it has nothing to do with Israel whatsoever. This is the country we love.”
Iranian Jews are quick to point out that, other than their religious beliefs, there are no cultural differences between them and other Persians, the ethnic group that dominates Iran.
In other words, other than being more religious than us and having been in their country for 30 centuries, Iranian Jews are just like Jews here. They like Israel. Many visit Israel. But Iran is home.
And here is the best quote from Ciamak Mosadegh, a member of the Iranian parliament: We are not tenants in this country. We are Iranians….
Compare that with the Israel First organizations like AIPAC and the AJC; legislators like Eliot Engel and Brad Sherman; neocons like Krauthammer, Kristol, Dershowitz, Commentary: and the rest who think of themselves as tenants here, with their real homes in Israel.
This is especially nuts because, with all due respect to Iran and most countries Jews live in today, the United States is the best and most secure home Jews have ever had. If Iranian Jews can say, without qualification, that they are “not tenants” in Iran, how can any American Jew proudly proclaim their tenant status? But they do.
The good news is this. According to every major poll of American Jews, only a tiny minority are Israel Firsters. Unfortunately, they are the loudmouths with the lobby and the money.
But, hey, they are losing. If they weren’t, that Post story would never have appeared.
I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We’ve overcome the greatest of adversities.
And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
Israel’s mean-spirited response to Iran’s olive branch actually illuminates its own aggressive posture. Along comes Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president, and instead of applauding his initiatives to meet with President Obama and resolve outstanding issues by diplomacy, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz says “there is no more time for negotiations.”
And although Rouhani only just took office last month, his appeal for negotiations was dismissed by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as a deceitful “charm offensive.” “One must not be fooled by the Iranian president’s fraudulent words,” Netanyahu said. “The Iranians are spinning in the media so that the centrifuges can keep on spinning.”
Yet, as Andrea Germanos of Common Dreams neatly summarized, “Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, and while the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly referred to Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,’ there is no proof that exists.”
Consequently, we have the spectacle of Israel, atop a veritable mountain of perhaps 300 nuclear weapons that it will not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect, calling for the U.S. to escalate its threats against Iran, which has exactly zero nuclear weapons. We also have UN member Israel threatening, and urging the U.S. to threaten, another UN member with military force, a violation of the UN Charter.
Yet, Rouhani appears to be actively demonstrating he means what he says, and UN members are looking forward to his speech tomorrow. In an editorial, The New York Times noted Iran’s “recent flurry of remarkable gestures: Iran’s leadership has sent Rosh Hashana greetings to Jews worldwide via Twitter, released political prisoners, exchanged letters through the Swiss with President Obama, praised “flexibility’ in negotiations and transferred responsibility for nuclear negotiations from conservatives in the military to the Foreign Ministry.”
And Israel is not going to give him a chance? The man only just assumed office! Israel’s response shows how far it has strayed from its own philosophy of non-violence, which dates back to the Jerusalem Talmud of the third century A.D. As Wikipedia notes, under Jewish doctrine, “the requirement is that one always seek a just peace before waging war.” Not so today!
While President Obama maintains Iran’s unproven nuclear military buildup may threaten Israel, the fact is that, compared to Israel and America, Iran is a peace-loving society that has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years. Since WWII alone, the U.S. has struck militarily, or overthrown by force and violence, some 50 nations. One of them, of course, was our unprovoked CIA overthrow of Iran in 1953. And where the U.S. spends about $700 billion a year on the military and Israel spends $14 billion, Iran spends $9 billion, yet the U.S. and Israel, projecting their own warlike instincts, claim Iran is a military menace. A bit more objectively, Professor “Juan” Cole, the University of Michigan historian and Middle East authority, points out that Iran has not attacked another nation in modern times.
It is the U.S. today that has emerged as the world’s most dangerous country. What other nation is making drone strikes across the Middle East, Africa and even in the Philippines, killing ”terror suspects” and civilians alike without a pretense of legality? (President Obama openly says he takes responsibility for these atrocities as if this admission alone does not qualify him as a war criminal.) It is the U.S., that has surrounded Iran with 40 military bases, not the other way around, just as it is the U.S. that operates more than a thousand bases globally while Iran has none. It is the U.S. that has spread its atomic arsenal around the globe. It is the U.S. that used radioactive ammunition in its wars against Iraq, just as it used Agent Orange in its war against Viet Nam. And, according to recently declassified CIA files, the U.S. even played a role in Iraq’s chemical attacks on Iran during their bloody war.
The American public has a vital stake in the outcome of any peace negotiations that may follow President Rouhani’s UN speech Tuesday. Reducing tensions in the Middle East could deprive the Pentagon of the rationale for its horrendous spending spree and allow taxpayers to divert their money to their needed domestic agenda. Instead of senseless killing, it might even save some lives for a change. Fancy that!
As a new era in history has begun to dawn on humanity, new doors are being opened in both opportunities and also in the realms of potential threats and conflagrations. This reality has been noted most clearly in the developing affairs of Africa, a continent that is on the verge of transformation through both technology and evolving international interactions. In the face of potential progress driven by Africa’s lucrative natural resources and economic potential, an ominous threat looms above Africa, the threat of the neo-imperialist, globalist agenda which has scarred the face of humanity with its continual drive of global hegemony. This “globalist agenda” is a militarized corporatism in a neo-imperialist systemoperating from all sides of the western political spectrum and representing the corporate elite of Wall Street and London; no clearer was the nefarious nature of these interests shown than in the subversion of Libya two years ago in 2011.
Before delving into the demise of Libya, it is necessary to understand neo-imperialisms’ ambitions for Africa; its goal is the subjection of Africa into its orbit in order to serve as a critical lynchpin in the establishment of a unipolar world order (including ousting potential Chinese competition). The unipolar world order is the creating of a single center of global economic, political, and military power coupled with the control of international trade and the distribution of resources as is admittedly the agenda noted by Dr. Carroll Quigley in his “Tragedy and Hope” among various other publications from western corporate-financier think tanksranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Brookings Institute. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also spoken of hegemonic ambitions on the part of the west to establish a unipolar order at a 2007 Munich conference.
As Libya again takes prominence again in the media with the increasing unrest even provoking a mobilization of U.S. Marines from Spain to Italy, across from Libya, hinting a potential military involvement in the already decimated state, it is important to review the foundational history of the current Libyan dilemma before the “disinfo” echo chamber of the mainstream media begins a new full-throttle propaganda blitz. The increasing urgency for this review is news headlines even alleging a “new war” in Libya because of militia rivalries.
Libya has recently been ravished by increasing internal strife and ethno-tribal divisions that was the continuation of NATO’s systematic destruction of the nation-state in 2011. In Dr. Webster Tarpley’s “Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen”, it was explained that four primary factors contributed to the Libyan “revolution” in 2011 with the primary one being racist and monarchist elements among the eastern Libyan Harabi and Obeidat tribes found in the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor who had historically resented Gaddafi for toppling the western-backed King Idris which hailed from that region. This would explain why many of the protestors in eastern Libya were photographed carrying pictures of King Idris. That is not to say that all participants in the opposition were negative elements but it cannot be denied that negative elements had been pervasive as pawns of the western subversion and even culminated in the wide presence of Al Qaeda flags in Benghazi, even atop the Benghazi courthouse, reflecting the prominent role of radical Islamist militias that will be discussed below. It is not to be forgotten that insurrectionary activity is not new in this region as Gaddafi had witnessed continuous waves of strife and militarized opposition, often propped up by the west for geopolitical purposes, and this was reflected during an Islamist insurgency in the 1990s, often with racial overtones. Tony Cartalucci in “Libya at Any Cost” documented the censored history of unrest in Libya driven by western interests:
1980′s: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990′s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden’s assistance.
1994: LIFG kills 2 German anti-terrorism agents. Qaddafi seeks arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden in connection to the attack but is blocked by MI6 who was concurrently aiding the LIFG.
2003: Upon Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD programs, Libya’s collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group. Ironically this information would give Western nations an entire army to rebuild and turn against Qaddafi in 2011.
2005: NFSL’s Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan “Day of Rage,”beginning the “February 17th revolution.”
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO’s Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric,literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing “unarmed protesters” with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameroncall for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from “protecting civilians” to “ousting Qaddafi.” Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington’s full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda’s ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.
2011: Late April; Documented evidence is revealed that Libya’s rebels are conducting a barbaric campaign, employing extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate military force, child-soldiers, landmines, and torture. New York Times blames a lack of support.
2011: Late April, early May; Followed by calls to assassinate Qaddafi, ordnance crash into his son’s home killing him and 3 of Qaddafi’s grandchildren. NATO concurrently seeks a new UN resolution authorizing ground troops while aggressor states seek to release seized Libyan assets to the rebels
This tribally-based resentment that categorized much of the violence in 2011 contributed to racially-driven atrocities committed against Libyan blacks that make up a third of the Libyan population and inhabit the western regions including the Fezzan tribes of the Libyan southwest. Dr. Webster Tarpley also documented the prominent role of Al Qaeda mercenaries in the Libyan conflict whose nest in eastern Libya had been a world-leading nurturing ground for extremism according to the US Military Academy at West Point’s “Combating Terrorism Center” (CTC) 2007 reportson foreign fighters in Iraq. The key rebel city of Darna, for example, was commandeered by a rebel terrorist triumvirate featuring Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, formerly of the Al Qaeda-tied “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” (LIFG), who fought against NATO forces in Afghanistan. At his side were Sufian bin-Kumu, Osama bin Laden’s former chauffeur and an inmate at Guantánamo Bay for six years, as well as al-Barrani who is also a devoted member of LIFG.
Tarpley does an excellent job in demonstrating how such figures were not atypical but were the norm in a region that was the world’s “terrorist capital” according to the CTC. It is also disturbing to note the desperate attempts at damage control by the CTC in the wake of NATO’s disastrous intervention where previously documented facts were purposefully obscured and spun to cover NATO’s illegitimacy. Tarpley also documented the role of western assets such as the Libyan National Salvation Front as well as the French-assisted defection of top-Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari in 2010 who would later collaborate with the west in fomenting military mutinies against Gaddafi in northeast Libya.
Being the only African nation to rank as “high” on the Human Development Index and boasting a highly developed infrastructure, Libya under Gaddafi has become the globalists’ geopolitical gateway into Africa. To the detriment of all free humanity, this gateway has been trampled down by the illegal NATO war on Libya which revolved around verified propaganda regarding Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi’s alleged atrocities, a misrepresentation of the Libyan rebels, and a complete media blackout regarding geopolitical forces at play. These claims would culminate in international myths spun around Gaddafi who was claimed to be bombing his people, hiring African mercenaries, and staging mass rapes to terrorize opposition as the official dogmas justifying NATO’s aggression.
Integral to the narrative justifying NATO’s intervention revolved around painting Gaddafi as a brutal tyranny launching a bloody crackdown against a “peaceful” movement with a host other atrocities ranging from hiring African mercenaries, using the air force against protestors, staging mass rapes, and threatening “genocide” against Benghazi. The NATO narrative of the revolution being the noble Libyan masses rising up against Gaddafi and his mercenaries was painted most clearly in the early March 14, 2011 Reuters article titled, “Libyan jets bomb rebels, France pushes for no-fly zone.” In this typical mainstream media report, rhetorical justification is given for the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine in sanctioning a no-fly zone in Libya based on the tired narrative of Gaddafi using air power to brutally suppress what is seen as an indigenous uprising, seeming to be heading down the pathos becoming a “tragedy for Libya.” A warning for an upcoming bloodbath against Gaddafi was sounded. Interestingly, even the “Independent” would later publish an article debunking this, pointing out the unreliability and factually-depraved basis for this propaganda among other accusations levied against Gaddafi. This baseless propaganda, already having poisoned western perception of what happened in Libya, would later be supplemented with reports involving the role of alleged mercenaries and mass rapes to whip up justification for intervention.
In reality, such a narrative was factually bankrupt as masterfully documented by Maximillain Forte in his “Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya” which directly nails the illegitimacy of the NATO campaign. While Gaddafi is certainly no saint and while many groups did have legitimate grievances against him, he nonetheless had a solid support base in Libya while the rebels were overall lacking legitimacy and were being driven by Islamist radicals, exiled politicians with globalist ties, and decades of ethnically-based tension. Gaddafi had invested heavily into the infrastructure and the social structure of his country, bringing the country to nearly eradicating illiteracy and also combating homelessness which had previously been a constant problem. Women rights were also championed as women in Libya were allowed to study and work where they desired as even BBC noted.
While Gaddafi had invested in infrastructure, the globalists sought to offset this by asserting their presence in Libya through both the destruction of its infrastructure and seeking to bring Libya into their economic orbit. There was a concerted effort to undermine Gaddafi’s agenda of building a united, strong, and self-sufficient African community and strengthening African multilateral institutions. Furthermore, Libya provided a gateway into Africa for the Pentagon’s “AFRICOM” to undermine and oust Chinese economic interests on the African continent which were a major challenge for western corporate interests’ access to resources and economic hegemony. Another key point was Gaddafi’s goal of creating a single, gold-based, African currency called the “gold dinar” with which he planned to trade African oil for. This would have conflicted directly with western corporate and banking interests and their international fiat monetary system upon which the IMF and their “casino economy” is built. Countries’ purchasing power would be determined by the amount of gold they had as opposed to fiat paper currency that made no substantial backing.
Regarding the specific claims of Gaddafi’s atrocities as parroted by the mainstream media, Forte gives many insights that help dismantle the myths behind the “humanitarian” war. For example, the claims of air strikes by Gaddafi are noted to have been a fabrication peddled by the BBC and Al Jazeera. The claims were completely unfounded and based on fake claims. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen would admit during a Pentagon press conference that they had seen no confirmation of such reports. David Kirpatrick of the New York Times would be cited by Forte as admitting that, “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories…and making vastly inflated claims about his [Gaddafi’s] behavior”.
The claims of African mercenaries, integral to portraying Gaddafi as being on one side against Libya as a whole, were perhaps the most atrocious and racist of the myths, sprung from the rebels’ own tribal animosities towards indigenous Africans in Libya and migrant African workers that were common throughout the country.Human Rights Watch would claim that it found no evidence at all of African mercenaries in eastern Libya where the rebellion and fighting were centered and even noted that Gaddafi had attempted to end discrimination against these people, contradicting, as Forte noted, the rabid claims made throughout the mainstream press including Time Magazine, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The Los Angeles Times also found no evidence of such mercenaries with the New York Times even pointing out the “racist overtones” involved in the conflict and the disinformation they helped spread. Amnesty International would later confirm that “mercenaries” put on display by the rebels had been undocumented African migrant workers and noted things like rampant discrimination and disproportionate detention of black Libyans in Az-Zawiya. Mainstream media and Al Jazeera would attempt to cover its crimes by pointing out, though briefly, the reality that Africans in Libya were being subjected to lootings, abduction, and killing by the rebels. All of this, of course, in light of the fact that Africans were an integral part of Libyan society, making up 33% of the population. A severe crime never to be forgotten is theethnic cleansing of the beautiful black Libyan town of Tawargha, previously inhabited by 35,000 people, expelled by racist militants calling themselves, “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”Another crime was the systemic slaughter of blacks in western Libya by the eastern rebels advancing on Tripoli (see here as well).
Another hysteria peddled by the media revolved around Gaddafi’s alleged planning of mass rapes, often blamed on nonexistent “mercenaries, which was then used by the media to help garner sympathy to the rebels. The source for these claims, also adequately exposed by Forte, began with Al Jazeera, a propaganda outlet for the Wall Street-London backed Qatari regime, claiming that Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops and ordered them to use rape against those who opposed him. These claims were then redistributed throughout the media and found their way to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo would later fraudulently claim that Gaddafi had ordered the rape of hundreds of women and that Gaddafi had personally ordered Viagra to be distributed. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton would also make these allegations (seeForte’s article).
In reality, a UN rights inquiry in Libya headed by Cherif Bassiouni would find these claims a baseless “mass hysteria.” Bassiouni told of a woman to “claimed to have sent out over 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse.” Bassiouni would ask to see these questionnaires, but never receive them, casting doubt on the narrative. It was pointed out that it seems improbable that 70,000 questionnaires were sent out in March considering the fact that the postal service wasn’t working. Bassiouni whose team would uncover only 4 cases of sexual abuse in their study. The boxes of Viagra that Gaddafi supposedly distributed were found fully intact right next to burnt-out tanks, indicating staged propaganda (Forte). Further confirming this is Amnesty International and who further shamed the imperialist establishment and thoroughly shattered this lie. According to the “Independent”, “Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising, says that “we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped”.
The most disingenuous claim peddled by the media to justify the Libyan war was the “save Benghazi” crusade. While it is true that Gaddafi had employed “overblown” rhetoric threatening to fight from house to house and “squash the cockroaches”, the media emphasizing these claims admits the radical-extremists nature of the hordes fighting among the rebels. The same media would also disregard Gaddafi’s “overblown” rhetoric when it was convenient to do so but attached to the Benghazi narrative as it seemingly gave justification for NATO to intervene. There is no evidence that Gaddafi had genocide planned as he only made the charges to the armed groups causing upheaval in the east of the country and even offered them amnesty and an open passage into Egypt across the border to avoid bloodshed. Professor Alan J. Kuperman exposed the propaganda talking-points of this argument, citing as evidence for the fact that Gaddafi had no genocide planned the reality that he did not perpetuate it in areas that he had captured fully or partially from the rebels including Zawiya, Mistrata, and Ajdabiya.
The very actions of NATO itself would discredit the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine employed to justify NATO’s intervention as NATO would be directly responsible for the deaths of countless civilians. NATO would gun down civilians in the central square of Zawiya and “taking a fairly liberal definition of command and control” facilities by targeting a residential district, killing some of Gaddafi’s family members and three of his grandchildren. NATO was also responsible for targeting Libya’s state television, killing three civilian journalists and earning condemnation by international journalist federations (see Forte’s article).
NATO oversaw the death of 1,500 refugees fleeing Libya by sea, mostly sub-Saharan Africans, the same people who were baselessly demonized as mercenaries. NATO would ignore their distress calls even though refugees would make contact with vessels belonging to NATO members. NATO also would launch numerous unjustifiable strikes against Libya furthering the damage toll. Above all, NATO was giving cover to rebels who were perpetuating verifiable genocide against cities, such as Sirte, with NATO backing and airstrikes to order, cutting off electricity, food, and water and using bombardment against civilians. Under this blueprint of destruction, scores of people would die in multiples of what was happening initially in Benghazi against armed rebel gangs which Gaddafi was fighting making a mockery out of the pre-text used to justify their globalist, faux-humanitarian war in the first place (Forte).
NATO and the globalist war on Libya was one bankrupt of any moral grounding or political justification. It was a war born of compromised interests that sought not the liberation of an oppressed people but rather the pillages of Libya which would later serve as a gateway into the heart of Africa. While the globalists attempt to sell their wars as moral and for the betterment of the world, they are at heart driven only by a desire to spread hegemony and consolidate control, with the ultimate goal being global hegemony. Any attempt to invoke a moral cover should be shunned in light of the barrage of fake atrocities attributed to Gaddafi and complementing crimes by NATO, best captured in the lies regarding Gaddafi massacring his people, hiring mercenaries, and staging mass rapes among other echo chamber distortions. Only when we tear down the media’s curtain of deception can we better understand the events at play and position ourselves intellectually to combat globalist imperialism which seeks to subvert us all.
A Greek Orthodox church in Aleppo, Syria seen here in 2009. Two new mass graves containing over 30 bodies in the Christian city of Sadad were recently discovered, evidence of what one archbishop called “the most serious and biggest massacre” of Christians in Syria.