Archive | October 4th, 2013

Mask of Zion Report: The lunacy of Zionist maniac Naziyahu

Mask of Zion Report Oct 3, 2013

by crescentandcross

Israeli Weekly Cabinet Meeting

The lunacy of Zionist maniac Benjamin Naziyahu and what it means for Iran, Egypt, the region and the world. MUST-LISTEN, ONE-OF-A-KIND analysis and exposé by the one and only Jonathan Azaziah.

moz-report-oct-3-2013.mp3

Download Here

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, InterviewComments Off on Mask of Zion Report: The lunacy of Zionist maniac Naziyahu

Worldwide Militarization and the Weapons Industry: America’s Surveillance and Targeted Assassination Machine

NOVANEWS
Global Research

 

Perpetual mass-media deception and pervasive surveillance encompass a never ending train of abuse that won’t end any time soon. As long as armaments factories continue producing weapons of death for the fortune 500 Wall Street elite who reside in U.S. capitalist society, war and threats of war will continue to expand and take on an ever deadly character.

Over 1000 military bases stationed, world-wide, nuclear weapons, a nuclear, first-strike posture by U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems and thousands of tanks, planes, bombers, armadas, special forces killer teams, hundreds of proxies and the Central Intelligence Agency that massacres civilians in Pakistan with drones on a routine basis, not because the missiles are missing their targets as claimed but because slaughtering civilians is a rapacious and depraved tool of the U.S. war mongers and their imperial war machine–that includes the civilian CIA, for resource control against Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and any other nation the U.S. bombs to sustain its militarized war economy and claim to control the world’s most coveted petroleum resources in the Caspian Basin and Africa.

No other power in the world divides sections of the globes into various coms–Africom, Centom, Eucom, Pacificom and Southcom, among others.

CIA uses the corporate war military complex tools of surveillance and an informant network to understand who it is slaughtering and the people who are hit by the missiles are seen as associated with the “target,” whoever this person is. It is not an accident, but a tool of state terrorism that is used in all counter-guerilla or counter-terror wars run by CIA and military to target friends, associates and family of those who are an impediment to U.S. imperial control or a convenient enemy for the military industrial complex to ratchet up domestic armaments spending and perpetuate the standing armies in the Pentagon branches with hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-payer money.

That CIA funds the Pakistani ISI and ISI, in turn funds the Taliban doesn’t really matter in the make-believe-media world of War on Terror that permanently threatens civilian slaughter against innocent bystanders whose personal relations are somehow tied up in this internecine web of war and deception based upon racism, fear lies and conformity to sustain the fortunes of the Wall Street ruling class, the CIA, the military and armaments industry. Nor does it matter that the CIA organized the airlifts for weapons transport via Saudi, Qatari and Jordanian military aircraft that put weapons into the hands of NATO backed Sunni-terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda to destabilize Assad. It also doesn’t matter that there are fewer than 50 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan according to former CIA director Leon Panetta and that the Taliban had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. The U.S. must occupy militarily permanently to sustain the war industry and keep its finger on the tap of Caspian Basin oil.

Various authors are claiming that because the United States and Russia are coming to an agreement on the chemical weapons of Bashar Al Assad that this somehow represents progress. But this is a mere farce and at best unfounded optimism due to the current, media staged U.S. posturing. The armaments industry still controls the United States. COINTELPRO is currently in full operation against those who oppose the U.S. war machine.

This war, foreign and domestic doesn’t just end–and people shouldn’t attempt to fool themselves or others. Just because one slaughter/attack was temporarily eluded, and look at how it is done, through an international, disarmament-policing mechanism, a smaller power is compelled to agree to give up their weapons to a more dominant body, which in turn dominates every one and the people doing it are largely guilty of war crimes. How does this represent a progress? The United States doesn’t need to use violence everywhere anymore. It has become so powerful that merely threatening to do so achieves the same results. It has hundreds of thousands of military and private contractors, JSOC not to mention CIA in Afghanistan, CIA in Pakistan, troops stationed in Korea, Germany, special-forces killer teams in over 120 nations, a spy network that spans the entire domestic United States with over 800,000 employees in the secretive domestic national security state that records and monitors U.S. citizens phone calls and e-mails, people employed in private prisons to warehouse the massive population of unemployed black male, many of whom are prisoners for non-violent crimes in the counter-insurgency style war on drugs that is a boon to the U.S. private prison industry and the U.S. uses cut-throat killer mercenaries in Syria who have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It isn’t even proven that Assad used weapons against his people and so the U.S. and Russia now negotiate how Assad will disarm, yet the greatest purveyor of violence in the world–the United States government remains armed to the teeth after it obliterated 3 million people in Vietnam, millions in Iraq and burned to death 300,000-400,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and is now threatening Russia that it will back out of negotiations to include Syria within the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) if Russia doesn’t include Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter into the U.S. Russia accords, essentially allowing a NATO/U.S. military attack against Syria if it is seen as “not complying,” according to the D.C. war criminals’ corrupt, hypocritical standards.

All of this when it is obvious that Assad’s use of weapons against civilians two days after UN inspectors arrived in Damascus would have been a completely irrational act and completely unlikely. Various left commentators want to continuously point out that Assad has committed crimes, including torture, but the instigator of the secret rendition program that snatched and locked away detainees in the imperialist police state war on terror was George W. Bush, not Assad.

Speaking about the crimes of the designated official enemy Assad for past crimes committed with CIA collaboration when the U.S. war, surveillance assassination machine spans the globe and is not ruling out another massacre, when it already massacres and knocks off civilians and enemies of U.S. empire via drone hits designed to inflict terror and maintains a vast diplomatic, military and intelligence occupation world-wide and war criminals belonging to the capitalist ruling class who used Assad as a torture proxy reside free of punishment seems a bit hypocritical. This is no time for jubilation. No victory has been won.

Posted in USAComments Off on Worldwide Militarization and the Weapons Industry: America’s Surveillance and Targeted Assassination Machine

Terrorism & Invisible Balance of Power

NOVANEWS

By Imran Farooqi

In his book, “Invisible Balance of Power, US vs Islamic Militants: Dangerous Shift in

International Relations”, published in 2005, Sajjad Shaukat has taken present ‘different

war’ as an interaction of ‘state terrorism’ led by the United States and the ‘group

terrorism’ by the Al Qaeda or Islamic militants. It is notable that a number of authors

have written books about the 9/11 tragedy, but ground realities developed in accordance

with the book. After seeing the main title, some people think that the book is against the

US or its western allies, but without any prejudice, he has discussed both the sovereign

and non-sovereign entities on parallel lines in this research-based book. On the one hand,

he has pointed out Al Qaeda’s ambush attacks, targeted killings, beheadings etc., while

on the other, he has mentioned special operations by the US forces in Afghanistan and

Iraq, and CIA-tortures cells in various Islamic countries. In this regard, missile strikes

by the drones on Pakistan’s tribal areas and elsewhere amounts to state terrorism, which

are being responded by the internal backlash…suicide attacks and hostage-takings by the

Muslim radicals. Shaukat has proved that both the warring parties kill innocent civilians

through ruthless terror.

Giving a number of references of the power-theorists like Machiavelli, Hobbes,

Morgentahu etc. Shaukat has written that power factor or use of force has failed in this

different war which took origin from the privileged and unprivileged status quo led by the

most developed states and the less developed countries respectively.

Besides, Shaukat has introduced new ideas about the issues relating to the Islamic

ideology, Jehad, liberalism, Western world, terrorism, causes of suicide attacks etc.

Particularly, future observations of the author like a prolonged war, failure of military

paradigm by the state actors in coping with the non-state actors, increase in US cost of

war, rise of more terrorism, unsuccessful mission of NATO in Afghanistan, plane plot in

UK, international financial crisis, warlike situation between America and Iran, Syria and

Israel including other developments have proved correct.

Shaukat also gave positive suggestions to the US, but President Obama did not act upon

them. Therefore war on terror has resulted into more implications as already predicted

by the author. For example, he elaborated that Al Qaeda fighters have been creating

economic instability in the world through their subversive acts, giving a blow to the

larger economies of the US and the developed nations.

The book indicates that realism (power factor) must be reconciled with idealism, which

is essential for world peace and geo-political interests of the US-led developed countries

and those of the small countries by reforming the system of the UN.

It is due to the present scenario of war against terrorism—which already pointed out by

the author that the publisher reprinted the book after seven years.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Terrorism & Invisible Balance of Power

Childhood Denied

NOVANEWS

by 

Childhood is a beautiful and strange thing. Before we truly learn how precious it is, it is already over. For many Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation childhood ends even earlier than you’d think. The commonplace elements of a child’s life in Palestine, which under normal circumstances would be filled with school books, football and games with friends, is instead interrupted by the harsh realities of occupation that include soldiers, checkpoints, walls, discrimination and racism.

When childhood ends for a Palestinian under occupation is impossible to tell. Many who try to carry on with a normal life under the circumstances hope to enjoy the innocence of youth without having it shattered by the oppressive regime that surrounds them. Not all are so lucky. Atta Sabah is one of them.

OZ_palestinian child with bicycle
An Israeli soldier prevents a Palestinian boy from riding his bicycle in the streets that are blocked to Palestinian residents, in the West Bank city of Hebron on June 20, 2012. (Hazem Bader /AFP / GettyImages)

I spend more time than most focused on news from Palestine and the Middle East and every so often there is a story I learn about that I heard nothing of previously. In a situation where death and violence has become routine, not every bullet or victim registers a headline. So when I heard Atta’s story I decided it had to be highlighted, not because it is particularly unique but because it is commonplace and yet unheard of.

Atta is a Palestinian refugee residing in Jalazon refugee camp. He is 12 years old. The camp, whose residents mostly come from the villages surrounding Al-Lyd, is about 20 miles east of there today in the West Bank between Ramallah and Nablus.

Earlier this year, in May, Atta and his friends were doing what most kids at their age should be doing; playing around. Boys will be boys. But when boys are boys in under occupation, the mere act of playing around could lead to horrific outcomes. Atta and his friends were tossing around his school bag. When Atta went to retrieve it from where it had landed, he saw it was in the possession of an Israeli soldier.

What is an Israeli soldier doing in the path of school kids? Guarding the illegal Israeli colony of Beit El, which is home to thousands of illegal Israel settlers and adjacent to the Jalazon refugee camp. Atta wanted his school bag back. The soldiers told him to come back for it the next day.

OZ_jalazon
Detail of map showing Beit El and Jalazon.

The following day Atta returned in an effort to get his school bag back from the soldier who had it. As he approached the soldiers, one of whom held up his bag, he paused feeling nervous and uncomfortable with the situation, and then when he turned around…BANG.

Atta, an unarmed Palestinian refugee of 12 years who just wanted his school bag back was shot in the stomach. The bullet—a live fire bullet—exited through his back but not before severing his spinal cord. The shot damaged his liver, lungs, pancreas and spleen and has left him paralyzed from the waist down.

What possible explanation could there be for this barbaric act? Defense for Children International, an NGO that works to document and advocate on behalf of children’s rights, noted on this incident:

Eyewitness reports show that the situation was calm, that no clashes were taking place at the time and there was no “mortal danger” to Israeli forces that would allow the use of live ammunition.

Contradicting eyewitness reports, when asked about the use of live ammunition against an unarmed child, the Israeli army Spokesperson’s Unit stated that “on the afternoon of May 21, 2013 a violent and unlawful riot took place in the area, with the participation of dozens of Palestinians who threw rocks and Molotov cocktails towards the soldiers.”

The UNRWA operated boy’s school for the Jalazon refugee camp is very close to the ever expanding Israeli colony of Beit El. In this picture of the entrance to the school you can clearly see the red roof tops of the settlement on the hilltop in the background.  In fact, as the map below shows, the settlement’s proximity means the school is in Area C even though it is merely 1000 feet from the heart of the camp. This means soldiers are regularly around the school and childhoods end much quicker here than in many other places.

Atta must now adjust to a new life. Life in a refugee camp was difficult to begin with but now, unable to walk, things just got more complicated. The family is struggling to cope. There is no assistance geared toward supporting Atta’s dire needs now.

Atta is also under no illusions about justice. When asked what he thinks will happen to the Israeli soldier who shot him, clearly against even the Israeli military’s rules of engagement, he replied “I’m not expecting anything to happen to him.”

He’s right. Impunity for crimes is a cornerstone of Israel’s military occupation and in Jalazon, as settlements expand and the occupation further entrenches itself, more childhoods will likely be shattered before any fair or transparent investigations take place of any Israeli soldiers or their commanders face justice for these crimes.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Childhood Denied

What the government shutdown teaches us about the Afghanistan warAn Iraq war

NOVANEWS

veteran’s perspective 

For both Republicans and Democrats, life stays lavish while playing political games with our lives are used as bargaining chips.
BY MIKE PRYSNER

Let’s look at this debate and the shutdown for what it really is, and what the attitudes about the politicians involved teach us about their management of our lives.

For veterans and service members, the government shut down means the closing down of many essential services. The Veterans Benefits Administration will be unable to process education and rehabilitation benefits, which are critical to so many vets being able to pay their bills. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals will be unable to hold hearings, extending our already outrageous wait period even longer.

If the shutdown continues, the 3.6 million veterans who receive disability and compensation payments for wounds in service—many of whom completely rely on these paychecks to eat—will not be paid. “Thank you for your service”?

The Republicans, on their quest to attack all social programs, civil rights and social rights, are mad that 50 million people will have access to healthcare who didn’t before. This is their opportunity to rally their base against “big government” to pad their pockets from lobbyist friends and boost their anti-worker election strategy.

The Democratic Party is cool with the shutdown. Instead of fighting the right-wing assault that will affect millions, they’re excited to use this towards their election strategy, too, with new ammunition to paint the Republicans as causing hardship for the “middle class”—so they’re happy to wait it out. No rush for them.

So these Congressmen, who are mostly millionaires and work only around 135 days out of the year, playing a political chess game and in their rich-guy spat consider our lives fair game to throw on the table. Our lives and the lives of our families are expendable, to enrich the lives and careers of these rich politicians.

These same politicians gush endlessly over loving the troops and veterans, especially when it comes to justifying multi-billion-dollar contracts to defense corporations—like the recent  1.2 billion (yes, billion) dollar deal to buy 48 missiles for the United Arab Emirates. Seems like our tax money well spent, if you’re a Lockheed Martin CEO or a prince in the UAE. (NPR, Sept. 23, 2013)

At home and abroad, their careers more important than our lives

U.S. troops are now dying and loosing
limbs patrolling areas the 
generals and
politicians know 
we will abandon.

Now the let’s look at how the politicians take this same attitude in the government shutdown to the war in Afghanistan. We’re about to mark its 12th year anniversary. The vast majority of Americans oppose it. But Congress has no qualms about approving funds to keep that war going endlessly.

Those same politicians know and acknowledge from their classified foreign policy briefings that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Just take it from the general who commanded the war (and the CIA), David Petraeus, when he thought nobody was listening: “You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. … This is the kind of fight we’re in for our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”

They tell us we’re fighting and dying and killing to keep the Taliban from coming back to power. But that isn’t actually true. The U.S. is negotiating with the Taliban behind the scenes and begging them to join a national unity government (i.e., putting them in power).

But they also  know and acknowledge that the Taliban, bolstered by a national, multi-dimensional resistance movement against the U.S./NATO occupation, don’t really care about the offers that include bowing to the U.S. military, because they’re committed to a long war and know, like the U.S. commanders, that they’ve created a no-win situation for the U.S. military effort.

The people of the United States do not support this ridiculous exercise and the politicians also know that the U.S. must withdraw from Afghanistan. But they don’t want to do it right away because none of them want to take responsibility for telling the truth and saying that the war is lost and that we need to leave immediately.

Neither the politicians nor the generals want to even suggest that they would tarnish the image of the U.S. military as the most invincible, powerful force ever known. They use that a lot, in their dealings with many other countries, as we know.

So they keep us there. They “end” the war in a “phased withdrawal” that lasts several years. That way they can maintain the myth that the U.S. is not retreating from the battlefield without “victory.” We die and get badly wounded just so they can save face. What makes this even more disgusting is that these politicians are mostly privileged millionaires who, except in the rarest case, never see their children go to war nor served themselves.

In the meantime, they get bought dinner at 5-star steakhouses with their defense contractor friends, going home to their families in big homes, with no worries about putting their rich-mans-club career in jeopardy. At that same time, we do something very different.

We kill the time losing legs on pointless patrols through fields we know will return to the hands of the people resisting in them; we spend the time getting blown apart by rockets in outposts we know will close down when it is politically convenient for those rich politicians.

While the generals and politicians order us to retreat in slow motion, to protect their image and the endless flow of cash to the defense industry, countless lives and limbs are sacrificed.

Like their current posturing match, they are also playing a political chess game in Afghanistan, in which our lives are expendable to suit theirs.

The government shutdown charade and the saving-face strategy in Afghanistan are both examples of how our “leaders” are incapable of managing our lives, and why we shouldn’t follow their ridiculous orders.

Posted in USAComments Off on What the government shutdown teaches us about the Afghanistan warAn Iraq war

U.S. Gov’t Is Greatest Enemy of Freedom & Privacy – Here’s Why & How to Protect Yourself

NOVANEWS 

For many Americans, it is inconceivable to imagine the United States of America,

finger print

the so-called “Land of the Free”, as a police state…but it is a police state and has been one surreptitiously for decades. This article clearly outlines why that is the case and what you can do to protect your privacy from government spying.

The first step toward living a private life is knowing who your enemy is, and to find your enemy, look no farther than government. Government is the greatest enemy of freedom and privacy. The two principal powers of government are the power of the purse and the power of the sword. Both are utilized to create a highly controlled and regulated society where everyone is monitored from birth to death – by both digital and physical spying.

Go here to read the details  – and here – of how they undertake to do that and what you can do to thwart their efforts – and read some of the following articles which will prove helpful to ensure your security and privacy.

Related Articles:

1. The U.S. Is a Police State – Here’s Why & How to Protect Your Privacy

finger print

 

For many Americans, it is inconceivable to imagine the United States of America, the so-called “Land of the Free”, as a police state…[but it] is a police state and has been one surreptitiously for decades. [This article clearly outlines why that is the case and what you can do to protect your privacy from government spying.] Read More »

finger print

 

Revelations about the breathtaking scope of government spying are coming so fast that it’s time for an updated roundup. Here it is and it will shock you. Read More »

3. Think Your Password Is Secure? Hardly!

Most things we think about password security are completely wrong as I found out when I tested one of my passwords against Silent Circle’s crypto analysis tool. Words: 487 Read More »

4. Internationalize Your Internet Address – Here’s Why & How

 In this article I explain why you should seriously consider internationalizing your domain name, teach you some basic terms so that you can understand how to choose the jurisdiction of your domain name (as well as make sure that your personal or business information is not leaked out into the public domain) and tell you how to do it. Read on! Read More »
The overreach of the “War on Terror” and heavy-handed copyright laws lend the cover for any US agency to monitor and control your Internet activity. These, and myriad other laws, mean that your personal/business website can be seized at the drop of a hat under the flimsiest of pretexts. Fortunately, it is relatively easy and cheap to move your digital presence across borders where it can dwell in friendlier jurisdictions. Read More »

6. It’s Imperative to Protect Your Security/Privacy Online – Here Are 5 Ways To Do So

Online privacy is becoming more important…Below are five different tools and services that…you can set up…in 5 minutes. Each of them will go a long way in securing your privacy online. Words: 460 Read More »

7. Your Password Isn’t Enough to Keep Your Info Secure on the Internet – So What’s a Person to Do?

With password leaks and dumps becoming common occurrences our lives are simply becoming too easy to crack. That string of characters you use as a password can’t protect you any more. What’s being done about improving the situation? What’s being done about making our lives more secure? This infographic attempts to answer those questions and more. Read More »

8. Google Yourself and You May Be Amazed – Or Even Dismayed – At What People Know About YOU!

To answer the question “How much can people learn about me by simply Googling me?” just Google yourself, or as some people say, complete your own “vanity search”. You may be amazed – and perhaps even dismayed – at what is out there about you! Why should you care? Because friends, relatives, employers, recruiters, hiring managers, and even strangers may be searching for information about you on the web so shouldn’t you better control what people can learn about you online? Read More »

9. Social Media Sites are Tracking You! Here’s How to Better Manage Your Online/Phone Apps

As our lives become increasingly digital it is easy to share more and more information online and with our phones. Some of these sites and apps that you use, however, may not be as trustworthy as you think. This extremely informative infographic shows quite clearly what is going on and what you can do to stop apps from either tracking you altogether or to the extent that they currently are.

10. Become a PT: Live the “5 Flags of Freedom” – Here’s How

It takes time to get out of the system legally and into freedom. Frankly, most people are too conditioned to go for it. They are stuck in the system and are convinced it’s the only way so it’s not for everyone. For those of you who truly seek freedom and are willing to take on the challenge, though, it’s 100% possible. Think about it! Read More »

 

Posted in USAComments Off on U.S. Gov’t Is Greatest Enemy of Freedom & Privacy – Here’s Why & How to Protect Yourself

New Rules on Bombing Random countries

NOVANEWS

real-time-with-bill-maher-12

Forget the debate on Syria, we need a debate on why we’re always debating whether to bomb someone. Because we’re starting to look not so much like the world’s policeman, but more like George Zimmerman:

itching to use force and then pretending it’s because we had no choice.

 

by Bill Maher

The Guardian, UK

New rule: 12 years after 9/11, and amidst yet another debate on whether to bomb yet another Muslim country, America must stop asking the question, “Why do they hate us?” Forget the debate on Syria, we need a debate on why we’re always debating whether to bomb someone. Because we’re starting to look not so much like the world’s policeman, but more like George Zimmerman: itching to use force and then pretending it’s because we had no choice.

Now, I’m against chemical weapons, and I don’t care who knows it. And there’s no doubt a guy like Bashar al-Assad deserves to get blown up: using toxic chemicals on unsuspecting civilians is purely and profoundly evil.

Editor’s note : Bill Maher needs to fire his script writer!

“…the UN Resolution 2118 agreed to last Friday by Washington, London and Paris, does not attribute the blame for the chemical weapon incidents… to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The significance of that is that it discards from the official discourse the erstwhile and spurious allegations from the Western powers that the Syrian government forces were the perpetrators. That is an important nullification on the record of the West’s propaganda line.”

While there is no evidence (or motive) pointing to the Assad government  there is little doubt among analysts that the Washington warmongers’ backed rebels were responsible for the chemical attacks.

“However the threat is not over ……………………

 These rabid (Jihadi) terrorists funded by covert operations of many governments  misusing Islam whether Al Qaeda or Al Nusra or Al Shabab etc., are all agent provocateur organizations,the storm troopers of criminalized governments waging covert war against other countries and sometimes against their own people using such covert organizations.We need a WHITE PAPER on these organizations by an International Committee with regional sub -committees to probe how they were established to save regions from their scourge. They have been deployed all over the world wherever a provocation for war was needed.”

Notes, Analysts Finian CunninghamSoraya Sepahpour-Ulrich and Niloufer Bhagwatrespectively, all independent (researchers and writers) and they are not alone in their cognizance. 

But enough about Monsanto. When it comes to Syria, I do understand the appeal of putting the world on notice that if you use poison gas, the United States of America will personally fuck you up: we will seek out the counsel and support of the entire family of nations, and then, no matter what they say, we will go ahead and fuck you up.

But however valid that argument may be, it is, I believe, outweighed by the fact that we have to stop bombing Muslim countries if we ever want to feel safe from terrorism in our own. The Chemical Weapons Convention is important, but to the jihadi in the street, it just looks like we’re always looking for a new reason to bomb them. We keep calling this part of the world a tinderbox – and we keep lighting fires there.

Even worse, bombing seems to be our answer for everything.

Since 1945, when Jesus granted America air superiority, we’ve bombed Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Somalia, Bosnia, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. And Yemen only because the tenth one was free.

How did we inherit this moral obligation to bring justice to the world via death from above? Are we Zeus? It doesn’t make any sense.

Our schools are crumbling, and we want to teach everyone else a lesson?

And look, like I said, I’m no fan of Assad. And I say that openly: I don’t care if it costs me jobs in Hollywood. I think he’s the worst kind of sociopath – the kind who commits unspeakable acts, but who looks like a menswear salesman.

Fearless_Reader_Snake_Oil_Salesman

I’m just pointing out that in recent years, our foreign policy debates look like the Facebook page of a loner who shot up a McDonald’s. We’re the only country in the world that muses out loud about who we might bomb next:

Iran, yeah we might bomb you … thinking about it … maybe, depends on my mood.

We did this with Iraq after 9/11, even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. We do it with Iran every day. And now, it’s Syria’s turn. We’re like a schoolyard bully who’s got every kid in the class nervous they’re going to be next – and I don’t know if anyone should have that power. Can you imagine going to work and sitting at the lunch table in front of ten people and saying:

Hey, you think we should … kill Bob? It would send a message to Steve.

Who acts like this?

People in other countries don’t talk like this. Probably because, if they did, we’d bomb them. Is there no self-awareness about how arrogant it looks to sit around politely pondering who needs a good bombing?

And,we’re the only nation – as we have seen in this Syrian fiasco – who threatens to drop bombs on you while telling you we don’t want to get involved!

We’re just bombing, please, don’t get up – no boots on the ground, just a little light bombing, we’ll be out of your hair in a week.

I remember being on the Howard Stern show 12 years ago this week, right after 9/11, and Howard said that, in retaliation for 9/11, America should bomb a Muslim country, any Muslim country, it didn’t matter which one. And yet somehow, I was the one on trial for talking crazy.

And I thought to myself, really? Bomb any Muslim country – that’s the policy? Get a map of the Middle East and just throw a dart at it?

Well, apparently George W Bush was listening that day because that’s exactly what we did.

Source: The Guardian, UK.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on New Rules on Bombing Random countries

Syria and Russia: A Real Dilemma

NOVANEWS 

hermitage-e1377996879144

[ Editors Note: This is an interesting analysis from a Russian Mid East specialist on how the American NeoCons view the Syrian tragedy as a trap for Russia. Viktor is not saying this is his prediction, but his view from afar as to why they have been backing Obama’s Syrian regime change all along, strange bed fellows indeed. 

We look forward to bringing a few selections a week from our new Journal partner in the East to see if we can gain a broader and deeper insight into the geopolitical mayhem swirling around us. It already has been very interesting…Jim W. Dean ]

   … by  Vikto Titov,   … with  New Eastern Outlook, Moscow

Many conservative American political experts, connected to the Republican Party “hawks”, believe that, supposedly, it is becoming more apparent as deliberations on Syrian chemical weapons continues, that the Russian “triumph” over the U.S. on the issue of Syrian chemical weapons is simply a misconception.

According to them, President Putin is dragging Russia deeper and deeper into the Syrian quagmire. Because, allegedly, there is a chance that it will become Russia’s new Afghanistan. The decision of President Obama to abandon the idea of an air and missile strike on Syria in exchange for the Syrian chemical weapons resolution, according the neoconservative extremists, is only a temporary tactical win for President Putin.

This was one of the supposed goals of the Russian leader. His more long-term objective, according to them, is to thwart the plans of U.S.-Saudi expansion in the Middle East, although Washington would like to call it “spreading democracy”.

John McCain - making a fool of himself in Syria with al-Qaeda

John McCain – making a fool of himself in Syria with al-Qaeda

Nevertheless, the Republican “hawks” are confident that a tactical win is not at all the same thing as a long-term strategic success.

Even a whole series of tactical wins, with which Russia was able to completely dissuade American persistence with regards to Damascus, is not at all a strategic victory.

In the opinion of many right-wing American analysts, Moscow is currently almost fully responsible for the stockpile of Syrian chemical weapons and their disarmament.

Meanwhile, Syria, according to the American “hawks” and their Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is almost on its last legs, it is broken and numerous insurgents and the Al-Qaeda are operating on her territory.

Arguments are also being thrown around that the rebel ranks contain a few hundred insurgents from the Northern Caucasus. For a concrete example, they mention the supposed leader of an especially brutal branch of Al-Qaeda, the Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, which is currently fighting in Syria.

He is allegedly Chechen and his group is responsible for the most heinous crimes, such as executions by decapitation, as well as abducting two priests in Aleppo. This group has damaged the “reputation” of the insurgents to such an extent with these acts, that many of them even claim that the group, or at the very least a part of it, is headed by Russian secret services.

It is widely known that the Northern Caucasus jihadists in Riyadh and Doha are regularly instructed to concentrate on clandestinely “fighting” against Russia in those parts of the Northern Caucasus where Muslims currently reside, which is Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan.

This was even before Russia got involved in the Syrian conflict. But now, of which the right-wing American analysts are certain, the Caucasus insurgents will be given a wonderful opportunity to fight Russia directly in Syria, if, as was promised by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov - has been a busy bee

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov – has been a busy bee

Moscow will provide her own forces to protect the international inspectors, who will be in Syria as part of the program to destroy its chemical weapons, which is stipulated in the Geneva resolution between Russia and the U.S. that was backed by the UN.

The White House is clearly proceeding from the assumption that there needs to be a an absolute agreement between Moscow and Damascus that Russia will defend Assad until the end, because it has robbed Syria of its last means of deterrence and intimidation in the form of its chemical weapons, and that Russia is now connecting its future in the region with this regime, like it happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

If Assad is to be victorious, or at the very least manages to retain some sort of power, then this, according to American “hawks”, will guarantee the interests of, primarily, Iran. Presently, they claim, Russian intentions in Syria are unclear, aside from the feelings of her own self-esteem and her political ambitions in the Middle East.

Furthermore, if we are to distance ourselves from Damascus a bit, the Republican Party neo-conservatives are certain that Putin is firmly opposing the anti-Syrian resolution of the Security Council because, in his time, his predecessor Medvedev allowed the passing of a similar resolution against Libya, after which he felt himself betrayed when the West used this resolution to overthrow Gadhafi.

Moscow’s arguments, both then and later on, always seemed strange to the West because even then, before the Security Council vote, it was absolutely clear that the resolution, backed by Britain and France with Arab support, paid for by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, plainly pursued the goal of overthrowing the regime of the Libyan colonel.

This is why, currently, Putin needs to defend Assad through and through to avoid repeating the incident in Libya, and even the one in Iraq too, when the leaders of those countries – even if they were odious, they allied with Russia – were killed in the most brutal manner, the gruesome scenes of which were broadcasted on international television.

The Washington “hawks” cynically claim that when Putin leaves his post as the head of the Russian Federation, he will be unable to restore Russia’s place in the world. It is more likely that, they claim, his opposition to the west will be seen as an attempt to conceal Russia’s continuing economic decline, which also inhibits really preventing this process of restoring Russia’s place in the world.

Can Obama continue to ride the tiger without falling off?

Can Obama continue to ride the tiger without falling off?

At the same time, according to Washington analysts, the worst that can be said of President Obama is that he is repeating the Afghanistan mistakes of President Bush with Syria. In standing on the sidelines and watching as Syria is ablaze with the fires of civil war, he is likely creating Syria’s problems of tomorrow.

Assad, Washington claims, is unlikely to regain control over the country, which can very likely become a lawless expanse for Al-Qaeda operations. This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.

But the issue is that, strategically speaking, the U.S. would not lose a whole lot if that situation were to arise within Syria. They are still left with powerful and wealthy allies in the Middle East, such as Israel and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

If Washington is able to somehow strike a deal with Iran under the new president Rouhani (although the chances of that are very slim, but it is too early to completely rule out an agreement), then its positions will strengthen even in the event that the Syrian conflict is extended.

Russia must realize that if some sort of deal is reached between Teheran and Washington and Iranian oil returns to the market, the prices for the “black gold” will plummet and Russia’s oil-based economy will be in danger.

A question remains: what about Assad? Will he benefit from such a deal? The answer is – not likely. The insurgents are just as close to Damascus as they were on August 21. They are still controlling a sizeable part of the country.

All of this is worsened further by the influx of Arabian mercenaries that began to arrive in the middle of September of this year. They have undergone training in special camps in Jordan and Turkey, paid for with Wahhabi money of Riyadh and Doha, with the help of instructors from the CIA.

According to information from Arabian sources, a large group of insurgents has already arrived in Syria, or will arrive at any moment, from Afghanistan, and they have been trained in the latest methods of destroying armored vehicles and aircraft, conducting sabotage operations and are equipped with the necessary weapons.

The Syrian conflict is just heating up and predicting the shape and form of its conclusion is a thankless job, if not completely pointless.

Red Square in Moscow -  (1801...by Fedor Alekseev

Posted in Russia, SyriaComments Off on Syria and Russia: A Real Dilemma

Ex-NSA/CIA chief Hayden jokes of putting Snowden on kill list

NOVANEWS
Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) (AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski)Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) (AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski)

When it comes to Edward Snowden, it’s reasonable to expect a little hard talk from former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden. After all, it is HIS baby that’s been shamed by Snowden’s leaks.

But hinting that there are ‘lists’ on which Snowden should be is taking things to a new level.

Speaking at a panel discussion on Thursday, the ex-NSA director made it clear that he’s aware of Snowden’s nomination for a European Human Rights Award.

But Hayden revealed that he’d rather see the NSA whistleblower on a kill list than a short-list:

“I must admit in my darker moments over the past several months, I’d also thought of nominating Mr. Snowden, but it was for a different list,” Hayden said during a cybersecurity panel hosted by the Washington Post.

As the audience laughed, US lawmaker Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, offered Hayden his support: “I can help you with that,” he said.

Though Hayden didn’t specify exactly what list he had in mind, the idea was crystal clear and fits with the threatening tone of previous statements he’s made on Snowden. He has previously equated Snowden’s hacktivist supporters to terrorists, dubbing them “twentysomethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in five or six years” and labeled Snowden himself a ‘morally arrogant young man’ who will probably ‘end up like an alcoholic’.

Regardless, this latest ‘kill list’ remark is the most sinister of all Hayden’s thinly veiled threats towards Edward Snowden.

The NSA whistleblower has recently made the shortlist of finalists for this year’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

Snowden is wanted in the US on espionage charges, after leaking secret documents revealing the US surveillance program PRISM used to gather private data.

In August, he was granted temporary asylum in Russia, where he currently resides.

Posted in USAComments Off on Ex-NSA/CIA chief Hayden jokes of putting Snowden on kill list

I$raHell options

NOVANEWS

Will Washington’s apparent back-tracking of the military option against Syria cause Israel to accelerate its drive to war against Iran,
asks Mohamed El-Said Idriss 

 

  Israeli   options

Since returning to power after the fall of the Ehud Olmert government in early 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been persistent in his attempts to force his vision of the Middle East on Washington, and this has brought him to loggerheads with US President Barack Obama, who entered the White House with a different vision.

Obama was determined to reach a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the term that has come to replace the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama hoped to follow through on the two-state solution that had been espoused by the previous George W Bush administration. However, Netanyahu had a better grasp of the Bush administration’s project, the nature of which was summed up by Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice at the peak of the Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006 when she said that from this war a new Middle East would be born.

The most important feature of that new Middle East would be that the Arab-Israeli conflict would be replaced by an Arab-Iranian conflict. Iran, not Israel, would become the regional enemy number one, according to this vision, and the Arabs and Israelis would join forces against this lynchpin of global terrorism. Needless to say, terrorism, in the Israeli lexicon, refers to the resistance forces fighting against Israel, behind which stands Tehran.

Accordingly, Netanyahu has set the fight against Iran as his government’s priority, and this has brought him into an early collision course with Obama, whose priority was to resolve the Palestinian question.

Netanyahu has since had occasion to rejoice that the situation has turned out perhaps better than he had hoped for, albeit less due to his own machinations than to the dynamics of the Syrian crisis. Those dynamics ended up by pitting the US face-to-face against Iran, the Syrian regime’s staunchest supporter. They drove a wedge between Ankara and Tehran while at the same time greasing the wheels that led to the resumption of the warmth in the relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

As a result of the chemical weapons attack against civilians in Al-Ghouta on 21 August, Washington suddenly found itself face-to-face with the “red line” that Obama had drawn with respect to US military intervention in Syria. And that red line was very close to another, Iranian-related red line that Netanyahu had forced on Obama in the course of his campaign to push the US towards the military option against the Iranian nuclear programme.

It was little wonder, therefore, that Israel and its allies should have intensified their pressures on Obama to prove true to his word and launch an offensive against the Syrian regime on the grounds that it had crossed Obama’s red line. Israeli officials made it clear that any US wavering on this matter would cause Israel to lose faith in Obama’s commitment to turn to the military option against Iran should Tehran cross the red line that Israel had drawn regarding Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon.

For a while all seemed to be going well for Netanyahu, with the result that his shock must have been all the deeper when Obama took Russian President Vladimir Putin up on his initiative to eliminate Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons.

Although Israel would probably be the major, if not the sole, beneficiary of the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal and Damascus’s signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention, as these weapons have been the only real military counterweight to Israel’s own arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the Israelis have still been severely disappointed at the waning of the military option against Syria.

They had hoped for a military strike that would decimate Syria’s strategic capacities — not just its chemical weapons, but also and more importantly for Israel its missile and aerial defence systems — without Israel having to lift a finger. They had also hoped that, after putting the Syrian regime in its place, the US would summon the will to do the same with Iran. To the Israelis, a US war against Syria would be the best route to a US or US-Israeli war against Iran.

When Obama felt compelled to turn to the US Congress to obtain a mandate to go to war against Syria, the Israelis were incensed. This had nothing to do with questions of international law, since under the UN Charter the Security Council is the sole agency that has the authority to confer such a mandate in cases where a country is not acting in self-defence, and Syria has never posed a direct military threat to the US or US interests. Rather, to the Israelis, by turning to congress Obama was merely “searching for excuses to avoid having to take the decision for war”, as the Israeli press has put it.

According to Uri Ariel, the Israeli minister of housing and Knesset member for the right-wing Jewish Home Party, the “weak” American stance on Syria “teaches Israel an unforgettable lesson — which is not to build its hopes on US support in its fight to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons”. Ariel has added that “we need to realise that we will be alone in the confrontation with the Iranian regime, and we must begin to prepare, as of now, for that battle.”

The question now is whether Washington’s apparent back-tracking on the military option against Syria will lead Israel to accelerate its war drive against Iran. This is a question that has come to occupy politicians, commentators and strategists in both Israel and the US.

In a recent Washington Post article, Dennis Ross, former US envoy to the Middle East and an adviser to Obama, said that the cancellation of the military strike against Syria would drive Israel to undertake military action against Iran. The Israelis believe that once the hardliners in Iran see that the US is incapable of using force against Syria, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani — a moderate — will be unable to restrain them, especially those in the Revolutionary Guards, from pursuing their ambition to possess nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Ross wrote, Washington’s reversal of policy on the military strike option against Syria would make Israel feel that there was no point in waiting and that there was no reason to give diplomacy a chance or to continue to believe that the US was truly interested in finding a solution to the issue.

Ross’s assessment is consistent with preliminary reactions in Israel to Washington’s shelving of the Syrian attack plan. Statements such as that by Ariel were echoed by both Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Moshe Ya’alon. Voicing his disappointment, Netanyahu asked “if I am not for myself, who will be for me? If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?” Israel “will strike deep into the enemy if it dares to attack us”, he said, adding that Israel was capable of defending itself with its navy and outstanding air force.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu has not given up on the Syrian gambit as the route towards Iran. He stressed that it was not sufficient for the Syrian regime to hand over its chemical weapons arsenal. “The world must ensure that those who use chemical weapons pay the price. The message that will be delivered to Syria will be heard loud and clear in Iran. [The Iranians] are watching the situation to see how the West behaves towards Syria.”

For his part Ya’alon focussed more on Israel’s defence capabilities and its need to be on guard against all the eventualities that could arise in the region. “In the end, we must rely on ourselves, on our strength and on our deterrent power,” he said.

Israeli frustration and dismay has also turned to alarm in the face of three other developments. The first has been that the subject of Syrian chemical weapons has given the Russian president the opportunity to point the finger at the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal. Once again the Israelis, who have long harped on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, have found the sands shifting beneath their feet.

According to Putin, “there is only one reason why the Syrian chemical weapons exist, and that is the existence of Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction.” The implication was that the Israeli arsenal had generated the need for a deterrent in Syria. The Russian president then went on to speak of the difficulties that he believed lay ahead in stripping Syria of its chemical weapons, indicating that there was a need to strike a balance between the non-conventional weapons possessed by Israel and the Syrian chemical weapons and Iranian nuclear programme.

The second development relates to Russia’s role in undermining US-French-British plans for a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. The three powers had wanted the resolution worded in such a way that any failure on the part of Syria to meet its obligations with regard to the provisions on the handover of its chemical weapons and the signing of the chemical weapons treaty would automatically invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would sanction the use of force.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated that Russia’s input into the draft resolution had been to delink any Syrian failure from the automatic invocation of Chapter VII.

However, the Israelis were undoubtedly even more dismayed by Iran’s diplomatic breakthrough at the 68th session of the UN General Assembly and the meetings between Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif and his French and British counterparts. Rouhani’s remarks at the UN and in a subsequent press conference to the effect that the crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme could be resolved within six months to a year did not go down well in Israel, which has cautioned its friends and allies to beware of Iran’s “diplomatic flexibility”.

It would have been even more alarmed by Obama’s telephone call to Rouhani, the first direct communication between a US and Iranian head-of-state in over 30 years. The Israeli reaction was summed up by commentator Tsvi Bar’el in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, where he wrote that “the fear of losing the reason to attack Iran and the fear that the US will fall into the trap concealed by the Iranian president’s sweet-talk are driving Israelis crazy.”

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, has referred to Iran as the “core of the great danger” to Israel. That great danger resides in the “strategic arch that stretches from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut”, or what some have referred to as the “Shia crescent” which would also include Iraq.

Netanyahu had been confident that he could provoke the US into a war against Iran, and his optimism had been encouraged by the successes of the US and European economic pressures on the country, which he regarded as one of his most important achievements. Then there was the thrill of the approaching success, heightened as the Americans moved their fleet preparatory to a military intervention in Syria that would ultimately lead to the fall of Hizbullah and open up an opportunity for a face-to-face confrontation between the US and Iran.

However, then the bubble suddenly burst. Now the US and Iran would be facing each other off, but not on the battle field, but rather over the negotiating table. The Syrian president has managed to extend his rule in Damascus, and Russia, which is allied with Syria and on good terms with Tehran, has managed to acquire stronger clout in the region, even raising the subject of Israeli WMDs.

Perhaps Israel does have cause for alarm. If Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad meets his obligations under the UN resolution, and if negotiations over the Iranian nuclear programme are crowned with success, then Israel’s own WMDs might come next. At all events, as its hopes dwindle of dragging its US ally into a war in the region, Israel may indeed wake up to find itself in a new Middle East, and one with which it is not familiar. (see Editorial p. 20)

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell options

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING