Archive | June 19th, 2012

Iran, Syria, Russia, China plan naval drill in Mediterranean


Countries’ militaries to stage large-scale maritime maneuvers off Syrian coast. Drill to include 90,000 soldiers, submarines, aircraft, tanks and warships


Joint military drill amid violent crackdown – The armies of China, Russia, Iran and Syria are planning to hold naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea over the next few weeks, Iranian news agency Fars reported Tuesday.

According to the report, 90,000 soldiers from the four countries will take part in the large-scale maritime war games, which will be held off the Syrian coastline.

The military maneuvers will include naval and anti-aircraft forces, as well as 400 aircraft, 900 tanks, Iranian submarines, minesweepers, warships and Russian destroyers.

The report also stated that Egypt has agreed to allow 12 Chinese warships to pass through the Suez Canal, adding that the military convoy is scheduled to dock in Syrian ports over the next two weeks.

Meanwhile, negotiations between the six powers and Iran are not yielding progress, and could end sooner than scheduled. Russian and Iranian diplomats speaking to the press hours after talks kicked off in Moscow said that the sides are grappling to iron out differences and that the atmosphere was “not positive.”

The EU delegation spokesman told reporters that world powers were sticking by a previous demand for Iran to halt enriching uranium to 20% – a level approaching that needed to make an atomic bomb.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran, Syria, Russia, China plan naval drill in Mediterranean

Russian Navy Preparing to Defend Base in Syria


The Moscow Times

Russia is preparing to send Marines to defend its naval base in Syria amid continued unrest in the Arab state, Interfax reported Monday, citing a Navy source.

The information confirms reports in Russian and Western media Friday.

Two large troop transport vessels and a rescue tugboat will defend Russian citizens and infrastructure in the port city of Tartus and also evacuate equipment if necessary, the source said.

Tartus is home to Russia’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union.

The report did not say when the ships would arrive or how many Marines would accompany them.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused Russia of sending attack helicopters to Syria, warning that the shipment “will escalate the conflict quite dramatically.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected Clinton’s claim, saying that Russia is only shipping air defense systems under previously signed contracts.

Some experts alleged that the helicopters Clinton said were en route to Syria could be old ones that underwent maintenance in Russia.

Russia has shipped billions of dollars worth of missiles, combat jets, tanks, artillery and other military gear to Syria over more than four decades. Moscow says that it’s currently providing Assad with weapons intended to protect Syria from a foreign invasion and that it is not delivering the kinds of weapons needed to fight lightly armed insurgents in cities.

Here is a brief look at some of the weapons systems Russia has recently shipped to Syria or pledged to deliver in the future, according to official statements and Russian media reports. Russian government officials have remained secretive about the arms trade, so a complete list of Russian weapons and other military gear sent to Syria is unavailable:

Pantsyr-S1 air defense system. The truck-mounted short- and medium-range system combines air-defense missiles and anti-aircraft artillery with sophisticated radar to hit aerial targets with deadly precision at ranges of up to 20 kilometers and an altitude of 15 kilometers. It has further strengthened Syria’s air defense system, which has been developed with Moscow’s help since the Cold War.

Igor Sevastyanov, a deputy head of the Rosoboronexport state arms trader, said last week that the Pantsyr contract is still being implemented. Sevastyanov didn’t offer specifics, but Russian media reports have said that the contract envisaged the delivery of 36 such units, which include a truck mounted with guns and missiles together with a radar.

Buk-M2 air defense system. The medium-range missile system is capable of hitting enemy aircraft and cruise missiles at ranges of up to 50 kilometers and an altitude of up to 25 kilometers. It is a sophisticated weapon that is capable of inflicting heavy losses to enemy aircraft if Syria comes under attack.

Bastion anti-ship missile system. Armed with supersonic Yakhont cruise missiles that have a range of up to 300 kilometers, it provides a strong deterrent against an attack from the sea. Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said last fall that Moscow would fully honor the Bastion contract. Russian media reports said that Russia has already fulfilled the Bastion deal, which was worth $300 million and included the delivery of more than 70 Yakhont missiles.

Yak-130 combat jets. Russian media reports said early this year that Syria had ordered a batch of 36 Yak-130 combat jets worth $550 million. Officials wouldn’t confirm or deny the deal, which would significantly bolster the Syrian air force’s capabilities. The Yak-130 is a combat training jet that can also carry modern weapons for ground attack missions.

The Kremlin insists that the continuing Russian arms sales don’t violate international agreements, and it has scoffed at Western demands to halt the trade.

A Russian ship carrying a load of weapons arrived in Syria just a few weeks ago amid international anger over Assad’s refusal to honor a UN-sponsored peace plan.

The new Russian weapons supplies add to Syria’s massive arsenal of hundreds of Soviet-built combat jets, attack helicopters and missiles and thousands of tanks, other armored vehicles and artillery systems. Russia said it also has military advisers in Syria training the Syrians to use the Russian weapons, and it has helped repair and maintain Syrian weapons.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Russian Navy Preparing to Defend Base in Syria



by Gilad Atzmon


In the last two weeks we have learned that one of central London’s abandoned houses has  been reclaimed and transformed into a “radical” centre for “discussion, action, and education around the issue of Palestine.” The  Palestine Placepromised to become a “squatted hub of activity from the 2nd-17th June running everything from film screenings, lectures, workshops and trainings to cultural, musical and culinary events”. But it didn’t take more than a week for the ‘radical’  place to become yet another crypto-Zionist gathering engaged primarily in gatekeeping and even expulsion of some distinguished activists and thinkers.

I have learned yesterday that Ken O’Keefe, one of our most prominent solidarity activist, a man who spent many months of his life in Gaza, a man who is married to a Palestinian woman and is father to two Palestinian kids, a man who possesses  a Palestinian passport and a key to Gaza, given to him personally by Ismail Haniya – two days ago this man was rudely expelled from Palestine Place.  Clearly a Palestinian Passport and  a ‘key to Gaza’ were not sufficient for London’s Palestine Place’s radical committee.

As soon as Ken told me about his expulsion I spoke with two Palestinian grassroots activists, both of whom had participated in missions alongside Ken. They both repeated the same shocking line –

Palestine Place, forget about them, it is taken over by the PSC and the BDS gang.

The news about PSC and the ‘BDS gang’ being dominated by AZZ  are now widely accepted amongst most commentators on Palestine but still, I was intrigued to know what happened there in this ‘radical’  Palestine Place that led to these ‘pro’ Palestinian squatters to behave like Israelis and evict KenO’Keefe.

Palestinian solidarity activist and writer Martin Iqbal was in Palestine Place when it all happened, he wrote about it yesterday.

“During an open discussion at Palestine Place in June 2012, one attendee brought up the subject of Gilad Atzmon’s alleged anti-Semitism. The gentleman proceeded to misrepresent Atzmon’s words in order to paint him as a racist who merely seeks to attack Judaism.

During this discussion the subject of holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism came up. At no point was the holocaust denied by anybody present, however this writer did make the point that we must make a distinction between ‘revisionism’ and ‘denial’. All historical events must be open to investigation and questioning; the very concept of history is based on revisionism. What legitimate reason could we possibly have for shielding any historical event from examination? We are constantly reminded that we must learn from history lest it repeat itself (reminiscent of the ‘never again’ mantra), yet we are prevented from examining these very elements of history!”

So it seems the people who run ‘Palestine Place’ are very concerned with the commemoration of the Shoa, and I wonder why didn’t they just call the house the  Yad Vashem-London Branch.  And we also might wonder, why are Palestinian solidarity activists so concerned with the protection of the Zionist Holocaust narrative? Don’t they know in the PSC and  in the BDS that the Palestinaians are actually the last victims of Hitler?

Iqbal continues, “This particular discussion at Palestine Place continued for ten or fifteen minutes before the next scheduled discussion was due to begin. During this time, dedicated pro-Palestinian activist Ken O’Keefe came to Gilad Atzmon’s defence, drawing attention to Atzmon’s idea that Jewishness and Jewish culture must be part of our investigation of Israeli and Zionist ideology. Are Israel’s tanks, gunships and warplanes not adorned with the Jewish Star of David? Is ‘Israel’ not a self-professed Jewish State? The gentleman who had chosen to accuse Atzmon of anti-Semitism had misrepresented Atzmon’s views and launched into a baseless ad hominem attack.”

So here we are.  In spite of the obvious fact that Palestinians refer to Israelis and the IDF as Yahud, in the London “radical” centre for “discussion, action, and education around the issue of Palestine, the visitors are not even allowed to make the obvious point that the Palestinian plight has something to do with the Jewish State and the Jewish nature of Israel.

Iqbal stresses that “Immediately before the next scheduled speaker, a spokesman for Palestine Place made an announcement to the following effect: some people have decided to air their views on the holocaust, we must remind you that at Palestine Place we do not tolerate anti-Semitism and we will not be discussing the holocaust any further.”

It is far from being clear why airing one’s views about history in general or the Holocaust in particular makes anyone into an anti – Semite or, more precisely a Jew hater. In fact what we see here is a desperate crypto-Zionist attempt to dominate the discourse and divert attention from the real issues. Israel is the Jewish State, its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols, its lobbies are dominating American and British foreign affairs and it seems that its AZZ allies are desperately trying to censor the discourse of Palestinian solidarity.

I totally agree with Iqbl’s observation that “it is incredibly sad and disheartening to see that the Palestine Solidarity Movement is utterly beholden to Zionism’s biggest rhetorical weapon: false charges of anti-Semitism coupled with a religious observance of and adherence to the dogma of ‘the holocaust’.

Apparently Ken O’Keefe and Martin Iqbal returned to the Palestine Place two days ago to find out that they were not welcome in the house of ‘radical and open discussion’.

Ken was told that revisionism is not allowed in the radical pro-Palestinian premises. I guess that he was surprised to find out that revisionist historian Ilan Pappe was speaking in the house only last week. I guess that in AZZ-dominated Palestinian Place, revisiting Palestinian history is allowed but only as long as one doesn’t not touch the Jewish past. This is the current Talmudic state of  institutional Palestinian solidarity discourse in the Britain.

It reminds me an old Jewish joke.
Q:  How many synagogues do you need in a village with just  one Jew
A: two apparently, one for the Jew to go to, and one for him to boycott.

Sadly enough, the AZZ solidarity-controlled zone has become one extended synagogue. We are held back by endless futile internal wars that lead nowhere.

A few months back we learned about leading Palestinian activists such as Nahida Izzat and Sami Ibrahem, both pushed out by the PSC.   Intoxicated by its destructive powers, the PSC then kicked out distinguished British solidarity activists such as Ex PSC chairman Francis Clark-Lowes and Camden PSC secretary Gill Kafash.

I guess that the only encouraging news here is deLiberation, the new British online magazine. This magazine was formed six months ago by activists and writers who were pushed out by the PSC. Within just a few weeks it has become one of the most popular internet journals in Britain. If anyone in the solidarity movement is interested in becoming ‘mass movement’, it seems as if we in deLiberation know how to do it.


Are US Jewish organizations hypocrites on immigration?



American Jewish organizations have loudly applauded President Obama’s decision to issue an executive order, allowing law-abiding, school-attending young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to remain in the country to apply for two-year deferrals of deportation and for work permits.

JTA reported on the long list of groups praising the move:

– “This is a major success for advocates around the country, including many from the Jewish community, who have been pressuring the Administration and Congress to take action on this issue for over a decade,” said Mark Hetfield, Interim president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society …

– Rabbi David Saperstein, president of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, emphasized in a separate statement that “the law-abiding young women and men who were brought to the United States by undocumented parents will now have the opportunity to thrive in the country they know as home without the looming specter of possible deportation.”

– Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), stated in a press release that the administration’s “new policy will end the inhumane and mindless practice of deporting young people who came to the US as children, have grown up and been educated here, and who are already or soon will be productive members of our society.”

– The Anti-Defamation League called the decision “an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion” and “a responsible and important step in the right direction toward comprehensive immigration reform.

– National Jewish Democratic Council president and CEO David Harris and chair Marc Stanley cast the decision as one having special Jewish resonance. “American Jews — as descendants of immigrants, if not immigrants ourselves — understand profoundly what it means to have a shot at success in America. The provisions announced by the President today provide that opportunity.”

And yet, by contrast Israel’s policy decisions on illegal immigration – culminating in today’s airlift of South Sudanese back to their homeland – has resulted in a resounding silence from the same organizations.

Even before the Obama announcement Dan Sieradski, a leftist self-described ‘new media activist,’ a high-profile Jewish participant in “Occupy Wall Street,’ creator of “Occupy Judaism” and professional thorn in the side of the American Jewish establishment, pointed this out in a June 8 blog post entitled It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!

Over the past several days, Sieradski’s Twitter stream has been a non-stop barrage of criticism and frustration, pointing out that the organizations that have historically lobbied the U.S. government in the direction of liberal immigration policies in the United States, are not exerting the same kind of political pressure when it comes to Israeli treatement of refugees and economic migrants. Here is just a small sample of Sieradski’s tweets:

Daniel Sieradski ‏@mobius1ski: Same Jewish orgs that took 48 hours to respond to anti-African violence in Israel all had same-day press releases about the DREAM Act

Daniel Sieradski ‏@mobius1ski: i think u.s. jewry’s afraid to speak out against israel’s treatment of africans b/c if they tug at the thread of racism all will unravel

And in his characteristic flair for the dramatic, he added (referring to Jewish Federations of North America):

Daniel Sieradski ‏@mobius1ski: i’d self-immolate in jfna’s lobby if i thought it’d make a difference. but they’d just cover their eyes and ears, pretend nothing happened.

It was Sieradski who first attacked American Jewish organizations on Twitter for not quickly condemning the attacks on the African migrants in South Tel Aviv and the inflammatory remarks by when they began in late May. Later the same day, journalist Peter Beinart made the same criticisms a blog post entitled The Sound of Silence. Over the next few days, condemnations were, in fact, issued by the organizations. Would they have happened without the online pressure? Who knows?

But while the violence was condemned, generally, the organizations have stayed away from the hot button of Israel’s immigration policies, even as it has moved into active mass deportation of South Sudanese refugees, and the construction of large-scale detention centers. This leads us into the all-too- familiar territory of how and when American Jewry should intervene, criticize, or even comment on internal Israeli policies.

Posted in USAComments Off on Are US Jewish organizations hypocrites on immigration?

Christian missionary group with pig’s head taunt Arab-Americans at Dearborn festival


Tensions flared Friday evening at the annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn as members of some Christian missionary groups — including one called the Bible Believers — taunted Arab Americans with a pig’s head and signs that promoted hatred of Islam.

“You’re gonna burn in hell,” one missionary shouted at a group of young Arab-American boys listening to him speak on Warren Avenue, where the festival takes place.

The festival continues today in Dearborn, but the members of the Bible Believers won’t be there because they’ll be protesting a gay festival in Ohio, said Arab Festival organizers.

The three-day festival is the largest public gathering of Arab-Americans in the U.S.; it has drawn Christian missionaries for years, but in 2009, some become more aggressive, leading to arrests and legal feuds. Dearborn has the highest concentration of Arab-Americans in the U.S., many of them Muslim, making it a magnet for some Christian missionaries.

The Bible Believers also protested at last year’s Arab Festival, holding up both anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic signs and causing one Arab-American Muslim girl to cry.

About a dozen with the group stood facing the festival on Friday with signs that made bigoted remarks about Islam and its prophet, Mohammed. One of the missionaries had a pig’s head mounted on a pole that he displayed in front of his group. Muslims don’t eat pigs because their faith teaches that the animal is unclean.

Some of the signs the missionaries held read: “Islam is a religion of blood and murder” and “Muhammad (Islam’s prophet) is a … liar, false prophet, murderer, child molesting pervert.”

Wayne County sheriffs tried to keep the peace; a few times, three officers on horseback rode by, trying to keep the young Arab Americans at a distance from the Christian missionaries.

At one point, some kids started throwing water bottles and pop cans at the missionaries. Others chanted “Allah-U-Akbar” (God is the greatest). One of the Christians shouted in response “Jesus Akbar.”

At another point, three girls wearing Islamic headscarves yelled back at the missionaries: “Read the Quran,” referring to Islam’s holy book.

A Christian missionary with another group told a group of Arab-American Muslim boys that they are ”transgressing against God.” One boy then spilled some water on the missionary.

Most of the confrontations were between elderly missionaries and Arab-American kids.

Earlier in the day, a group of Christian missionaries targeted the biggest mosque in Michigan, the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, standing right outside the mosque lawn to hand out fliers during Friday prayers.

In his Friday sermon, the imam of the mosque, Hassan Al-Qazwini, warned parents that some missionaries at the Arab Festival could target their children for conversion: ”Be careful. … They could be taken (spiritually) from us.”

Other missionaries at the festival were less confrontational, handing out fliers telling Muslims to convert and handing out free Christian books.

One wore a T-shirt that read ”I (heart symbol) Muslims” while handing out fliers that urged Muslims to ”accept the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Christian missionary group with pig’s head taunt Arab-Americans at Dearborn festival

Burmese “Pro-Democracy” Movement a Creation of Wall Street & London


By Tony Cartalucci

Photo: Soros-funded Mizzima proudly reports Burmese “pro-democracy” leader Aung San Suu Kyi phoning-in to the 2011 “Liberal-Progressive” Clinton Global Initiative confab, fully-funded by big-oil, big-banks, and other elements of the corporate-fascist Wall Street-London combine.

November 19, 2011 – No lie told by the corporate-fascist controlled media, no carefully crafted narrative they’ve created comes anywhere close to being as deceitful or as misleading as the one they’ve conjured up for Burma’s celebrated “humanitarian” and “pro-democracy icon” Aung San Suu Kyi. Holding the same meaningless Nobel Peace Prize as warmongering Wall Street puppet President Barack Obama, and featured in some of the most softly lit photography found throughout the Fortune 500 press houses, Suu Kyi has been granted an almost saint-like demeanor. She is portrayed as the softly-spoken leader of Burma’s “pro-democracy” movement, single-handedly standing up against the military-led government of the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar, also known by its British imperial label of Burma.

Image: The 2006 Burma Campaign UK report, “Failing the People of Burma?” (.pdf) reveals the entire “pro-democracy” movement, including Aung San Suu Kyi herself, is a product of US and British funding and the building of neo-imperial networks designed to overthrow and replace the government of Burma.


In reality, no one single-handedly does anything, and the tale of how Suu Kyi’s movement has come into existence, funds itself, and expands its influence throughout Burmese politics is one that surely mismatches the saintly image she is meant to project.

However, none of this should come as a surprise. Why would the corporate-media, who has lied to the world to grant the West the green light to mass-murder over a million Iraqis based on a verified pack of lies, and backing a stable of disingenuous servants of the West, masquerading as “pro-democracy” leaders, all the sudden be backing the real deal? A 200636-page document out of the “Burma Campaign UK” explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi’s image and her “movement.” It also details the complicity of then Thai Prime Minster and verified Wall Street-stooge Thaksin Shinwatra’s government in aiding the West in their Burmese agenda.

The most telling information begins on page 14 of 36 of the report’s .pdf. Titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” the report enumerates the vast resources the West has invested in building a “pro-democracy” movement, in tandem with similar disingenuous movements throughout the region, and indeed throughout the world, and insists that even more support be given to initiate a “transition” in Burma. It states:

“The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute (nb no support given since 2004) and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people, who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma.

The United States is committed to working for a democratic Burma and will continue to employ a variety of tools to assist democracy activists.”

The report then continues detailing the specifics of each organization mentioned, including the National Endowment for Democracy:

“The National Endowment for Democracy (NED – see Appendix 1, page 27) has been at the forefront of our program efforts to promote democracy and improved human rights in Burma since 1996. We are providing $2,500,000 in FY 2003 funding from the Burma earmark in the Foreign Operations legislation. The NED will use these funds to support Burmese and ethnic minority democracy-promoting organizations through a sub-grant program. The projects funded are designed to disseminate information inside Burma supportive of Burma’s democratic development, to create democratic infrastructures and institutions, to improve the collection of information on human rights abuses by the Burmese military and to build capacity to support the restoration of democracy when the appropriate political openings occur and the exiles/refugees return.”

NED is cited as behind the creation of the New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) radio, all posing, just as the recently exposed Thai-US propaganda front, Prachatai, as “independent” media sources despite the fact they are in reality fully-funded by the US government.

LinkThe role of US State Department-run Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) is also discussed in detail, including the revelation that US foreign policy specifically supports and actively promotes Aung San Suu Kyi and “her” agenda.

“Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA’s October 10, 2003 editorial, “Release Aung San Suu Kyi” is prominently featured in the Burmese section of RFA’s website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi’s speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government.”

The US also pours vast resources into organizations affiliated with Aung San Suu Kyi, including “Prospect Burma,” a London-based Soros-funded organization:

“The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi. With FY 2003/04 funds, we plan to support Prospect Burma’s work given the organization’s proven competence in managing scholarships for individuals denied educational opportunities by the continued repression of the military junta, but committed to a return to democracy in Burma.”

Of course, billionaire-bankster and geopolitical meddler George Soros not only funds and coordinates with the above mentioned “Prospect Burma” organization, but also directly funds activities through his “Open Society Institute” literally training an army of subversion meant to return to Burma and overthrow the government:

“Our assistance to the Open Society Institute (OSI) (until 2004) provides partial support for a program to grant scholarships to Burmese refugee students who have fled Burma and wish to continue their studies at the undergraduate, or post-graduate level. Students typically pursue degrees in social sciences, public health, medicine, anthropology, and political science. Priority is given to students who express a willingness to return to Burma or work in their refugee communities for the democratic and economic reform of the country.”

Throughout the period covered in the “Burma Campaign UK” report, includes a description of then Thaksin Shinawtra’s government and its support of Western activities to subvert the government of neighboring Burma. The Thai Ministry of Public Health, also implicated in grants to the US propaganda front, Prachatai, is mentioned specifically:

“Last year the U.S. government began funding a new program of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide basic health services to Burmese migrants outside the official refugee camps in cooperation with the Thai Ministry of Public Health. This project has been supported by the Thai government and has received favorable coverage in the local press. Efforts such as this that endeavor to find positive ways to work with the Thai government in areas of common interest help build support for U.S.-funded programs that support Burmese pro-democracy groups.”

While many may be tempted to claim that such work is humanitarian in nature, it is mentioned several times that the actual goal of dolling out scholarships and other aid is specifically to create a pro-Western bloc meant to overthrow the anti-West regime in Burma. With names like “National Endowment for Democracy” people are meant to believe that a benign, benevolent agenda is being carried out that is in the best interest of all involved. In reality, the National Endowment for Democracy is packed wall-to-wall with corporate-fascist interests, warmongering elitists, and confessed imperialists.

NED & Freedom House are run by Warmongering Imperialists

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD’s and “terrorism,” NED is employed under the cover of bringing “democracy” to “oppressed” people. However, a thorough look at NED’s board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.

Upon NED’s board of directors we first find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their “entry into the complex China market easy.” Surely Bohn’s ability tomanipulate China’s political landscape through NED’s various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears “conflict of interest” is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.

Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as “Vice President of Congressional Relations” as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil’s ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.

We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED’s board of directors including Francis FukuyamaZalmay KhalilzadWill Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this “think tank” are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled “Rebuilding Americas Defenses.” As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous rights advocate Freedom House also gravitates.

The “Statement of Principles,” signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” Of course by “international order” they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House’s Paula DobrianskyDan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.

A PNAC “Statment on Post-War Iraq” regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House’s Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring “Which Path to Persia?” report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC’s latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America “hostage” and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to “help the Libyan opposition.”

An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses’ Ellen Bork(2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.

It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garners within its ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of “supporting freedom around the world.” It is also safe to say that the principles of “democracy,” “freedom,” and “human rights” they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda.

The “Aung San Suu Kyi Deception”

Aung San Suu Kyi has been leading the Burmese “pro-democracy” opposition for over a decade and has garnered support from every globalist cadre, think-tank, and organization imaginable. In addition to the now fully discredited Nobel Peace Prize, she was also a finalist in the Chatham House Prize 2011, and not surprisingly a benefactor of corporate-funded, duplicitous “pro-bono” legal service Freedom NowAung San Suu Kyi herself, was born into an immensely wealthy and politically well connected family. She studied abroad,worked for the UN in New York City, and received a Ph.D from the University of London before returning to Burma to lead the “pro-democracy” movement. Whatever her convictions may really be, the West has fully hijacked her movement as a means of removing the current military junta and replacing it with one more conducive to their corporate agenda, which most assuredly has nothing to do with “democracy for the people.”

Knowingly or unknowingly serving the globalist agenda since 1972, Aung San Suu Kyi now leads the Western- backed opposition bidding to oust Myanmar’s ruling regime.


In 2007 there was the so-called “Saffron Revolution,” made a spectacle by the corporate-owned media, but gained little ground. Similar “uprisings” have been attempted, and more are on the way. The army of subversive “scholars” the US and its corporate-funded foundations is raising will continue to grow until it reaches the critical mass necessary to destabilize and overthrow the government in Burma.

Quite obviously, Suu Kyi is well aware of her organization and movement’s finances and that she owes her entire existence to the United States, the United Kingdom, and ultimately the corporate-fascist financiers of Wall Street and London. Just as deposed autocrat and Wall Street stooge Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand attempts to portray himself as an icon of regional democracy and progress, so too does Suu Kyi, albeit many times more convincingly.

The aura of saintliness built up around Suu Kyi has made it almost sacrilege to speak anything disparaging of her, even if it is backed up by a 36-page document spelling out her extensive ties to the most degenerate mass-murdering megalomaniacs ever to walk the planet. Despite many of her defenders being proponents of “free speech,” they quickly abandon their moral convictions when their leader is criticized. It is indeed possible that many of these people actually do believe that Wall Street and London can fund her millions of dollars and built entire networks for her with the expressed goal of subverting a sovereign nation’s government, and her intentions to still be pure and progressive. It is also likely that people truly believe, despite being habitually lied to by the corporate media, that this time they are finally telling the truth about a woman standing up against all the corporate-media represents and promotes.

In reality, Suu Kyi is the centerpiece of an expensive, long-running propaganda campaign, that if exposed and derailed would knock out the teeth of Wall Street and London’s Southeast Asian designs and undermine their agenda globally. With the above information in mind, stories coming out of Burma may make more sense to those seeking the truth, even if it means having to come to terms over the reality of an endearing public figure. One must ask themselves, what is more important – continuing to believe in the discredited Suu Kyi, or finding someone, or even becoming someone who truly stands for all that she disingenuously pretends to promote?

Posted in UKComments Off on Burmese “Pro-Democracy” Movement a Creation of Wall Street & London

Internet intrusion and increased repression in Ethiopia


By Graham Peebles
Graham Peebles views the Meles Zenawi regime’s chronic suppression of the internet and media freedoms in Ethiopia and asks how long will Addis Ababa’s allies in the US, Britain and the European Union tolerate the regime’s flagrant violations of rights enshrined in domestic and international law.

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are basic human rights and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not for a government – whose function is to serve the people – to decide who or indeed if these freedoms should be allowed. Although etched into the Ethiopian constitution, freedom in its various democratic manifestations remains a fantasy for the people, who are increasingly controlled, inhibited and impoverished. The Ethiopian government under the leadership of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is imposing ever more stringent and repressive measures of subjugation. If it could it would control and restrict the very air the people breath.

Internet control and privacy

In its latest assault on the human rights of the people, the governing Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) decreed certain activities on the internet to be illegal. Access to the internet inside Ethiopia is very poor. According to Open Net Initiative (ONI) Ethiopia “has the second lowest internet penetration rate in sub-Saharan Africa (only Sierra Leone’s is lower)… Only 360,000 people had internet access in June 2009, a penetration rate of 0.4 per cent.”

The Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation (ETC), a government owned and run body, and the Ethiopian Telecommunication Agency (ETA) have exclusive control over internet access in the country. According to the media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWB) on 7 June, “Ethiopia’s only ISP [Internet Service Provider], state-owned Ethio-Telecom, has just installed a system for blocking access to the Tor network, which lets users browse anonymously and access blocked websites”. In order to achieve such selective blocking, according to RWB, “Ethio-Telecom must be using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), an advanced network filtering method” that is used by repressive states, such as China and Iran. This sophisticated system, RWB says, “allows governments to easily target politically sensitive websites and quickly censor any expression of opposition views”.

Internet filtering in Ethiopia has been in place for some years, according to Freedom House. Its report, Freedom on the Net 2011, states: “Tests conducted by Freedom House found that in mid-2010 the websites of Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were inaccessible. In March 2010, Voice of America reported that its website was blocked in Ethiopia.” The BBC reported that in June 2010 emails sent from Ethiopia to the Committee to Protect Journalists were also blocked.

This latest invasion of privacy and restriction of freedoms comes on the back of a new law passed on 24 May which, among other things, bans the use of Voice over the Internet Protocol (VoIP) hardware and software, such as Skype, which enables people to use the internet as the transmission medium for telephone calls, and imposes a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment for the heinous crime of making a telephone call to a family member or friend.

Internet access, and national and international calls, which have to be made through the state telecommunications provider, the ETC, are extremely expensive. A 2010 study by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) found that Ethiopia’s broadband internet connections were among the most expensive in the world when compared with monthly income, and come second only to those in the Central African Republic.

The new legislation also allows the government to inspect any imports of voice communication equipment and accessories, and to ban such imported shipments without prior notification. One suspects this may well simply be the first step in establishing total government control over access and use of the internet, leading to monitoring of emails, social network sites, chat platforms and so on, all of which could now be targeted and monitored. Indeed, RWB  has already voiced its fears that the DPI “will be misused for surveillance purposes by a government that already subjects the political opposition and privately-owned media to a great deal of harassment”.

Up until now government acts of repression have been mainly targeted at independent journalists, political activists and opposition supporters living and working outside the country. Journalists working abroad and publishing online find themselves attacked in print by comments from government stooges, as Freedom House states in its report. It said: “In addition to censorship, the authorities use regime apologists, paid commentators and pro-government websites to proactively manipulate the online news and information landscape.” This new move, however, throws a noose around all internet users. As ONI states, “Ethiopia is increasingly jailing journalists, and the government has shown a growing propensity toward repressive behaviour both off- and online. It seems likely that censorship will become more extensive as internet access expands across the country.” Such is democracy under Meles Zenawi.

Unlawful laws of control

The reasons offered for the new legislation by the regime are the well-trodden justifications of the unjust, made by the unlawful. RWB quotes the authorities, as saying that “the ban was needed on national security grounds and because VoIP posed a threat to the state’s monopoly of telephone communications”. Duplicitous at best, such actions of extreme repression are born out of paranoia. And let us point out there should be no such state telecommunications monopoly anyway.

These measures fit into a broader pattern of restrictions of freedom, all of which violate human rights laws. The Anti Terrorist Proclamation that came into effect in 2009, to a chorus of international criticism and fury, set the tone of repression and is being followed with ever-greater ferocity. The Ethiopian constitution, a legally binding document, of course proclaims universally recognized freedoms – all of which the government contravenes. As ONI states, “The Ethiopian government maintains strict control over access to the internet and online media, despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and free access to information.”

What the constitution says

Relevant constitutional statements of intent specifically relating to the media; include Article 29on the “Right of Freedom of Thought, Opinion and Expression”. This states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without any interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.

It also says: “Freedom of the press and other mass media, and freedom of artistic creativity, is guaranteed.”

Regarding the right to privacy, Article 26 makes plain that “Everyone has the right to the inviolability of his notes and correspondence, including postal letters, and communications made by means of telephone, telecommunications and electronic devices. It adds that “Public officials shall respect and protect these rights.”

Censorship by the printing presses

In tandem with the current illegal attacks on internet freedom, the state-owned printing presses are tightening the screws of suppression and are, according to RWB, “demanding the right to censor the newspapers they print”.

Not only is there a state monopoly on telecommunications, but the press are also state owned. There is only one Amharic-language daily national paper, with around 32,000 readers, in a country of 85 million people.

Both television and radio are firmly under the control of the Meles regime.

Berhanena Selam is the main state printer, and has a virtual monopoly on newspaper and magazine printing. Along with other state-owned printers, it is trying to impose political censorship on media content before publication. According to RWB, “In a proposed ‘standard contract for printing’ recently circulated by state printers, they [the printers] assume the right to vet and reject articles prior to printing.” Article 10 of the proposed contract, entitled “Declining to print content violating the law”, states “the printer has the right to refuse to print any text if he has ‘adequate reason’ to think it breaks the law”. This in itself breaks the law as it contravenes Article 29 of the constitution, which prohibits any form of press censorship.

Not only do the actions of the Meles regime – a centralist government in the extreme – contravene the Ethiopian constitution, but the the grave breaches of human rights contravene numerous legally binding international treaties signed by the government. Internet access is a human right and is covered by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This has been clearly emphasized by the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, who has reminded “all states of their positive obligation to promote or to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and the means necessary to exercise this right, including the internet”. He also stresses that “there should be as little restriction as possible to the flow of information via the internet”.

Complete control of the media pertains inside Ethiopia, and these controls are becoming ever more intense with greater disinformation and manipulation of the press and the primary source of news, television.

The Meles regime exercises a brutal and deeply repressive dictatorship. How long will the West, whose dollars, pounds and euros support the needy throughout Ethiopia, continue to turn a blind eye to the myriad human rights violations and a deaf ear to the cries of the people for justice and freedom? Sit not in silence America and Britain as your strategic, undemocratic “ally” in the Horn of Africa suppresses and controls the people of Ethiopia while claiming to act in their interest. Demand that international law is observed, federal law honoured and human rights upheld.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Internet intrusion and increased repression in Ethiopia

US State Department betrays American citizens for IsraHell


By Lawrence Davidson
Lawrence Davidson argues that the corrupting influence of the Zionist lobbies in the USA has mean that American officials abroad routinely betray US citizens where Israel is involved.

The State Department is that branch of government that has responsibility for foreign policy. Every US embassy and consulate is an extension of the State Department. US citizens travelling abroad, be it on a short vacation to Canada or Mexico or an extended venture for business or study to anywhere on the globe where the US has diplomatic relations, can rely on assistance in an emergency from the State Department. Well, almost anywhere.

Israeli exceptionalism

“…the behaviour of the State Department’s diplomatic personnel in Israel is quite different to that of diplomats in other countries. In fact, like everything else touching on Israel, US diplomatic practice has been corrupted by the power and influence of the Zionist lobby in Washington.”

How about Israel? In theory there is no difference between the behaviour of State Department personnel in Israel and anywhere else. If you go to the State Department’s website and look under Israel, “Entry and Exit Difficulties, it will tell you how to contact the embassy or consulates, in case of need, depending on where in the country you are. Thus, if you are stuck at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport you should contact the consular section of the US Embassy (972) (3) 519-7575. If you are stuck at the Allenby Bridge border crossing you have to ring up the consulate in Jerusalem (972) (2) 630-4000. But, again, that’s theory.

In practice, however, the behaviour of the State Department’s diplomatic personnel in Israel is quite different to that of diplomats in other countries. In fact, like everything else touching on Israel, US diplomatic practice has been corrupted by the power and influence of the Zionist lobby in Washington.

The case of Sandra Tamari

Take the recent case of Sandra Tamari. Ms Tamari is a Quaker, the mother of two children, an American citizen of Palestinian dissent, and also a member of the St Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee. She travelled to Israel at the end of May 2012 to “participate in an interfaith delegation involving Palestinians and Israelis working for peace and coexistence”. She was stopped at Ben Gurion airport and “aggressively questioned for over eight hours before being taken to a detention centre and deported back to the United States. During the questioning, Israeli security personnel demanded that she show them her personal email account and accused her of being a terrorist.”

Given her situation, Ms Tamari attempted to contact the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. It took a couple of hours for her to actually get someone to speak to. This someone was Chris Kane, a general service officer. According to Ms Tamari’s account, here is how part of the conversation went:

Tamari: They are threatening to deny me entry and to deport me.

Kane: Are you Jewish?

Tamari: No

Kane: Have you been here before?…

Tamari: Yes, several times. I am a Palestinian with family in the West Bank.

Kane: Oh, you have family in the West Bank. Then there is nothing I can do to help you. In fact, if I interceded on your behalf it will hurt your case with the Israelis…

Tamari: I don’t understand. You are saying you can’t speak with them. You have no influence…

Kane: … They won’t harm you. You will be sent home on the next flight out. I hope I have been of good service to you.

Tamari: Frankly, you have done nothing for me.

Kane: Well, at least you can say I did it kindly.

US abdication of responsibility towards its citizens where Israel is involved

“If, by mistake, someone did end up in the [US] Tel Aviv embassy with a bit of heart and showed it in an actual attempt to help someone like Tamari, it would go down as a blot on their service record. He or she would probably find themselves quickly reassigned to Nepal or Iceland.”

As comical and Kafkaesque as this exchange might sound, it is not particularly unusual. Americans active in the cause of Palestinian rights are often stopped at border points controlled by Israel. Often they are harassed. Sometimes they are deported. Whatever the case, an appeal to the US Embassy or the Jerusalem consulate will not get you help.

Why is this so? The politicians who make up our national elected officials, from the president on down, are committed to the Zionist view of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. With rare exceptions, this has been the case for at least 65 years. That has been long enough to purge the State Department of almost anyone who was sympathetic to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. If, by mistake, someone did end up in the Tel Aviv embassy with a bit of heart and showed it in an actual attempt to help someone like Tamari, it would go down as a blot on their service record. He or she would probably find themselves quickly reassigned to Nepal or Iceland.

The situation can get much worse than that experienced by Ms Tamari. When, in March 2003, 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, an American citizen from Olympia Washington, was murdered by the Israeli army while trying to stop a home demolition, the State Department did little. Indeed, if it were not for the public protest of Corey’s parents and their supporters, it is likely the State Department would have done little beyond issuing regrets. As it was, it took over a year for the State Department to issue a call for an independent investigation of the incident. Nor has State Department ever applied sufficient pressure on the Israelis to bring such an investigation into reality.

Again, when in May 2010 Israeli soldiers murdered a 19-year-old American citizen, Furkan Dogan, during an illegal raid, carried out in international waters, on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza, the State Department’s reaction was muted at best. There was a tendency on the part of Washington to stall and then rationalize Israeli actions. In Congress, the flotilla participants were labelled terrorists.

This behaviour on the part of our elected officials and appointed diplomats is a function of corruption. I remember often being challenged by Zionists who would ask, why do you attack Israel? Aren’t there many other nations which you could complain about? My answer, then and now, speaks to problems we face both in the federal government in general and the State Department in particular. It goes like this:

“The fact is that Zionist influence spreads far beyond Israel’s area of dominion and has, for a long while now, exerted a corrupting power within many of the political institutions of Western governments, and particularly that of the United States. In other words, unlike the Russians or the Chinese and other such governments, the Israelis and their supporters directly influence the policy makers of our own country and this often results in our abetting Israel’s crimes. This makes it imperative that Zionist Israel be singled out as a high priority case from among the many other oppressive regimes that may be candidates for criticism and protest.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on US State Department betrays American citizens for IsraHell

TUT Pod-Broadcast: Romney would to the exact opposite as Obama when it comes to IsraHell

TUT Pod-Broadcast June 18, 2012

by crescentandcross

Romney would to the exact opposite as Obama when it comes to Israel.

Mark Dankof joins the program to discuss this and other relevant items.


Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on TUT Pod-Broadcast: Romney would to the exact opposite as Obama when it comes to IsraHell

Shoah’s pages