Archive | December 22nd, 2014

NUSRA CONVOY SCORCHED BY SYRIAN ARMY IN SUWAYDAA

NOVANEWS
AL-WA’ER TERRORISTS SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER AT COMMANDERS

الجيش يقصف مقراً للإرهابيين بحي الوعر ويواصل عملياته البرية في ريف حمص

SUWAYDAA:  This province has not seen much action probably due to a traditional fear combatants have of dragging Druze fighters into any existential conflict.  The Druze have a reputation for being ferocious in battle due to their belief in reincarnation which guarantees all their warriors a return to the wombs of their mothers after earthly death.  They have no interest in martyrdom, but, once their families are threatened, they combine together to form a wall of stubborn resistance that has become legendary.

Enter Nusra.  Yesterday, in an effort to fool the SAA, Nusra tried to move a convoy out of Jordan through Suwaydaa.  But, the Druze (Muwahhidoon) are uniformly pro-government.  They certainly could never coexist with Wahhabist derelicts and cannibals.  They immediately provided the coordinates for the movement of a large caravan of pickups with 23mm cannons.  The SAA was quick to set up artillery vectored at the axis of Al-‘Alaali/Al-Mudawwara/Al-Shawmara.  The scene is described by reports as “hallucinogenic” with rat carcasses flying up in the air like popcorn in a popper, their vehicles seemingly transformed into chariots with radiant plumes of fire and, of course, the cacophonic squealing of rats as they receive their first baptism in a temporal Hell as a prelude to the eternal confirmation with Mephistopheles.

HOMS:

1

Al-Wa’er:  We have been telling all of you about the ethnic character of the reptiles still left in this quarter of Homs.  They are mostly, if not all, non-Syrian, and while the indigenous killers have either surrendered or taken the express to other more amenable parts of the country, these Nusra Wahhabists are determined to fight on in the face of hopeless odds.  At Al-Mool Al-Azraq, (The Blue Mall),  the SAA atomized a Command-and-Control center acting as the supreme HQ for the huddled microbes here.  As the artillery fire intensified, MI could hear the cringing vermin shouting epithets in Russian at “commanders” elsewhere in the Houlaa vowing to exact vengeance for their abandonment.  There is no way to know how many were killed or wounded; what we do know is they have no way to treat their wounded cannibals as all medicine has run out.  It’s surrender or die.  Preferably the latter.

Fighting continuing in Kafr Laahaa, Taldu, Al-Naassiriyya.

Ruhoom and ‘Unq Al-Hawaa:  ISIS losing every battle.  No more details about on-going combat.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on NUSRA CONVOY SCORCHED BY SYRIAN ARMY IN SUWAYDAA

DER’AH’S DAY OF JUDGMENT IS AT HAND

NOVANEWS

CITIZENS OF ALEPPO FORM NEW MILITIA TO FIGHT WITH SYRIAN ARMY AGAINST OBAMA’S MURDERING RATS

ميداني

The fingers of a Syrian Army officer tells you where you’ll find dead rats in Der’ah. 

Al-Shaykh Miskeen:  A vehicle with 6 Nusra rodents aboard was put to flames killing a notorious leader in the process:

Abu Turaab (Id pending.  It means Father of Dirt. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, dirt to dirt)

Busraa Al-Shaam:  Reported 13 Nusra and allied rodents killed as SAA continues advance in this archeologically priceless town with a magnificent colosseum.

Taysiyya southeast of the city.  Rich in Byzantine and Roman ruins, and the Church of St. George, subjected to massive pillaging by the heroes of the United States Senate and the French Parliament.

West Al-Ghaariyya northeast of the city:  The SAA killed these vermin and wounded a major terrorist figure in Nusra:

‘Abdullah Sa’adeddeen Al-Khalaf

Abu Maariyyaa Al-Qahtaani (This IRAQI SNAKE SPITTLE, is heavily involved in the internecine rivalries between ISIS and its enemies.  He is now trying to recuperate despite the intrusions of Jordanian quacks)

Fighting reported in the Old Customs Building area and Al-Hammaadiyya Quarter. 

ALEPPO:

الجيش

The citizens of Syria have become so disgusted by the proliferation of Turk-supported rats that they have formed their own fighting militia called the Liwaa` Al-Shamaal (Brigade of the North).  They intent to bond with the SAA to fight the Erdoghani plague-carrying rodents of all varieties.  The fighters are from a whole string of towns north of Aleppo like ‘Anadaan, Huraytaan, Kafr Hamraa, Hayyaan, Maari’, Tal Rif’aat, A’zaaz.  Great news.

VIDEO OF THE WEEK.  THE MUPPETS GO A’JIHADING: (Thanks, Anonymous)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=88c_1418980725

Posted in SyriaComments Off on DER’AH’S DAY OF JUDGMENT IS AT HAND

Indian lawmakers demand Modi to speak on mass conversions

NOVANEWS
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. — AP/File
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. — AP/File

NEW DELHI: Opposition lawmakers, charging that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done little to stop hard-liners in his party from forcibly converting religious minorities to Hinduism, threw Parliament into an uproar Monday, with the upper house of Parliament adjourned after descending into shouting matches.

Right-wing Hindu groups allied to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party — and whose members are overwhelmingly BJP members — have conducted a series of ceremonies across India over the past week to convert Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.

Some of the Muslims have complained that they changed their religion out of fear. India is largely Hindu, but has large Muslim and Christian minorities.

Read: India ruling party chief urges law against conversions

Modi, an avowed Hindu nationalist and longtime member of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Dal or the National Volunteers Association, one of the main groups behind the conversions, has remained largely silent on the issue.

Parliament has been repeatedly thrown into an uproar over the past week amid arguments over the conversions. Opposition lawmakers say Modi’s silence is damaging the secular nature of Indian society and the religious freedoms guaranteed by its Constitution.

The Upper House of Parliament was adjourned Monday after opposition lawmakers demanded that the prime minister clarify his position on the conversions.

Muslims make up about 13 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion people. The Muslim community has been particularly wary of Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which won a huge majority in general elections in May.

Posted in IndiaComments Off on Indian lawmakers demand Modi to speak on mass conversions

BBC Chief Questions the Future of Jews in UK

NOVANEWS
Reported by Gilad Atzmon

Danny Cohen, the director of BBC Television, asserted this week that rising anti-Semitism has made him question the long-term future for Jews in the UK. Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem,  Cohen said, “I’ve never felt so uncomfortable being a Jew in the UK as in the last 12 months.”

The ultra Zionist, The Times Of Israel, reported that in a conversation with Yonit Levi on Israel’s Channel 2 TV station, Cohen acknowledged that Britain might not be his ‘long term home.’   “And it’s [being a Jew in the UK] made me think about, you know, is it our long-term home, actually? Because you feel it. I’ve felt it in a way I’ve never felt before actually.”

One may wonder whether a person who thinks that Britain may not be his ‘long term home’ should run the biggest and most important British media outlet.  Might it be more appropriate for such a powerful job to be left in to a person who is primarily loyal to Britain and see this country as his home?

Share

Posted in UKComments Off on BBC Chief Questions the Future of Jews in UK

The Liberal Idiocy on Russia/Ukraine

NOVANEWS

Exclusive: American pundits are often more interested in scoring points against their partisan rivals than in the pain that U.S. policies inflict on people in faraway lands, as columnists Paul Krugman and Thomas L. Friedman are showing regarding Russia and Ukraine, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Among honest and knowledgeable people, there really isn’t much doubt about what happened in Ukraine last winter. There was a U.S.-backed coup which ousted a constitutionally elected president and replaced him with a regime more in line with U.S. interests. Even some smart people who agree with the policy of going on the offensive against Russia recognize this reality.

For instance, George Friedman, the founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, was quoted in an interview with the Russian liberal business publication Kommersant as saying what happened on Feb. 22 in Kiev – the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych – “really was the most blatant coup in history.”

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman.

Brushing aside the righteous indignation and self-serving propaganda, Stratfor’s Friedman recognized that both Russia and the United States were operating in what they perceived to be their own interests. “The bottom line is that the strategic interests of the United States are to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon,” he said. “And the strategic interests of Russia are not to allow the U.S. close to its borders.”

Another relative voice of reason, at least on this topic, has been former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who – in an interview with Der Spiegel – dismissed Official Washington’s conventional wisdom that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked the crisis and then annexed Crimea as part of some diabolical scheme to reclaim territory lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

“The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest,” the 91-year-old Kissinger said. “It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia” – as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had suggested.

Kissinger noted that Putin had no intention of instigating a crisis in Ukraine: “Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn’t make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine.”

Instead Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity over Ukraine and making the grave mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue.

While the comments by Henry Kissinger and Stratfor’s Friedman reflect the reality of what demonstrably happened in Ukraine, an entirely different “reality” exists in Official Washington. (Note that both interviews were carried in foreign, not U.S. publications.) In the United States, across the ideological spectrum, the only permitted viewpoint is that a crazed Putin launched a war of aggression against his neighbors and must be stopped.

Facts, such as the declaration in September 2013 from a leading neocon, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, that Ukraine was “the biggest prize” and an important step toward ousting Putin in Russia, do not fit into this story frame. [See Consortiumnews.com’s A Shadow U.S. Foreign Policy.”]

Nor do the comments of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who was caught in a pre-coup phone call, handpicking Ukraine’s future leaders and discussing how to “glue this thing.” Nor her public statements about the United States investing $5 billion in Ukraine’s “European aspirations.”

White Hats, Black Hats

Instead of dealing with what actually happened in Ukraine, U.S. pundits and politicians – from conservative to liberal – have bought into a fantasy version of events in which the coup-makers all wore white hats and the elected president and his eastern Ukrainian supporters – along with Putin – all wore black hats.

But there are, as always, rhetorical differences across the U.S. partisan liberal-conservative divide. On Ukraine, the American Right urges an escalation of military tensions against Russia while chiding President Barack Obama for weakness (when compared with Putin’s toughness) – and liberals cheer on Obama’s supposed success in driving the Russian economy into a painful recession while accusing the Right of having a man-crush on Putin.

This liberal “theme” of jabbing the Right for its alleged love of Putin takes the Right’s comments about his forcefulness out of context, simply to score a political point. But the Right-loves-Putin charge has become all the rage with the likes of Paul Krugman, Thomas L. Friedman and other liberals who are bubbling with joy over the economic suffering being inflicted on the people of Russia and presumably eastern Ukraine.

Krugman, who is quickly jettisoning his reputation for thoughtfulness, published a second columnon this topic in a row, showing that he has fully bought into all the propaganda “themes” emanating from the U.S. State Department and the compliant U.S. mainstream news media.

In Krugman’s mind, it was Putin who instigated the crisis with the goal of plundering Ukraine. Operating from that false hypothesis, Krugman then spins off this question: “why did Mr. Putin do something so stupid? … The answer … is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin’s background. Remember, he’s an ex-K.G.B. man — which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug. Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows.

“And for years he had no incentive to learn anything else: High oil prices made Russia rich, and like everyone who presides over a bubble, he surely convinced himself that he was responsible for his own success. At a guess, he didn’t realize until a few days ago that he has no idea how to function in the 21st century.”

But Krugman is not only operating from a false hypothesis – the reality was that the Ukraine crisis was forced on Putin, not that he went seeking it – Krugman also has a simplistic view of the KGB, which, like the American CIA, certainly had its share of thugs but also had a significant number of smart analysts. Some of those KGB analysts were in the forefront of recognizing the need for the Soviet Union to reform its economy and to reach out to the West.

Putin was generally allied with the KGB faction which favored “convergence” with the West, a Russian attitude that dates back to Peter the Great, seeking Russia’s acceptance as part of Europe rather than being shunned by Europe as part of Asia.

Putin himself pined for the day when Russia would be accepted as a part of the First World with G-8 status and other big-power accoutrements. I’m told he took great pride in his success helping President Obama in 2013 resolve crises with Syria over the mysterious sarin-gas attack and with Iran over its nuclear program.

As Kissinger noted, Putin’s hunger for Western acceptance was the reason he obsessed so much over the Sochi Olympics – and even neglected the festering political crisis in neighboring Ukraine.

In other words, Paul Krugman doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding Ukraine. His stab at offering a geopolitical analysis suffers from what an economist should recognize as “garbage in, garbage out.” [See also Consortiumnews.com’s Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack.]

A Spreading Idiocy

Still, this liberal mindlessness appears to be catching. On Sunday, the New York Times’ star columnist Thomas L. Friedman weighed in with his own upside-down analysis, smirking about the economic suffering now being felt by average Russians because of the U.S.-led sanctions and the Saudi-spurred collapse of oil prices.

Friedman wrote: “In March, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Rogers, was asked on ‘Fox News Sunday’ how he thought President Obama was handling relations with Russia versus how President Vladimir Putin had been handling relations with the United States. Rogers responded: ‘Well, I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we’re playing marbles. And I don’t think it’s even close.’

“Hmmm. Marbles. That’s an interesting metaphor. Actually, it turns out that Obama was the one playing chess and Putin was the one playing marbles, and it wouldn’t be wrong to say today that Putin’s lost most of his — in both senses of the word.”

Ha-ha-ha. Putin has lost his marbles! So clever! Perhaps it also wouldn’t be wrong to say that Tom Friedman has lost any credibility that he ever had by getting pretty much every international crises wrong, most notably the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when he was just as smarmy in paving the way for that bloody catastrophe.

Washington Post liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. also joined in the “group think” on Monday, writing“even … some of [Obama’s] older bets were paying off. The Russian economy is reeling from sanctions imposed in response to its invasion of Ukraine (and from low oil prices). An approach seen by its critics as not tough enough is beginning to show its teeth.”

Beyond the propagandistic quality of these columns – refusing to recognize the complex reality of what actually happened in Ukraine, including the overwhelming referendum by the voters of Crimea to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia – there is this disturbingly smug pleasure at how the U.S. actions are hurting the people of Russia.

Whatever you think of Putin, a key reason why he has remained so popular is that he brought some stability to the Russian economy after the “shock therapy” days of plunder under Boris Yeltsin when many Russians were pushed to the brink of starvation. Putin pushed back against some of the corrupt oligarchs who had amassed vast power under Yeltsin (while also striking alliances with others).

But the cumulative effect of a more stable Russian economy was that a fragile middle class was taking shape in a country that has notoriously failed to generate one over the centuries. Because of the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, which essentially forced Putin’s response and then led to Obama’s sanctions, the Russian middle class is losing its modest savings as the ruble’s value collapses.

In other words, the part of Russia’s population that could best propel Russia toward a more democratic and progressive future is being dismantled, in part, by punitive U.S. policies – while liberals Krugman, Friedman and Dionne celebrate.

Insider Rivalries

What really seems to matter to these pundits is getting a shot in at their conservative rivals, not the fate of average Russians. This attitude reminded me of an earlier phase of these mindless liberal-conservative food fights – in 1990 when conservative Robert Novak looked for ways to resolve Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait by accepting Saddam Hussein’s private offers to withdraw rather than resorting to war.

Yet, when Novak appeared on CNN’s “Capital Gang,” Al Hunt, a centrist who played the role of liberal pundit on the show, ridiculed the old “Prince of Darkness” for his uncharacteristic bent. Hunt hung the nickname “Neville Novak” around Novak’s neck, comparing him to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who sought to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II.

When I later asked Hunt why he had derided Novak for looking at more peaceful solutions to an international crisis, Hunt defended the “Neville Novak” line by noting all the times that Novak had baited opponents for their softness against communism. “After years of battling Novak from the left, to have gotten to his right, I enjoyed that,” Hunt said.

Yet, the human consequences from the failure to resolve the Kuwait crisis peacefully have been almost incalculable. Beyond the hundreds of U.S. and coalition deaths and the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed, the Persian Gulf War set the stage for a decade of harsh economic sanctions against Iraq and marked a turning point for Saudi Osama bin Laden to begin targeting the United States.

Arguably, if Novak had been listened to – if Hussein’s peace feelers had been taken seriously – history might have taken a very different and less violent course. However, among Washington’s insiders, it seems that nothing is more important than their sparring with each other, in television and in print.

Now, these liberal columnists are enjoying bashing conservatives over their supposed love of Putin and their tolerance for Putin’s “invasion” of Ukraine. Not only are the likes of Paul Krugman, Thomas L. Friedman and E.J. Dionne Jr. spreading dangerous propaganda, they are setting the stage for a new Cold War and possibly even a nuclear confrontation.

Posted in Russia, UkraineComments Off on The Liberal Idiocy on Russia/Ukraine

How the Iran-Nuke Crisis Was Hyped

NOVANEWS

A prized weapon in the U.S. geopolitical arsenal is “information warfare,” the ability to promote false or misleading information to heighten the pressure on an adversary, often using supposedly neutral UN agencies as a front, as may have happened on Iran’s nuclear program, reports Gareth Porter.

By Gareth Porter

In a critique of the handling of the Iran file by the International Atomic Energy Agency, former IAEA Director General Han Blix has called for greater skepticism about the intelligence documents and reports alleging Iranian nuclear weapons work and warned that they may be used to put diplomatic pressure on Tehran.

In an interview with this writer in his Stockholm apartment late last month, Blix, who headed the IAEA from 1981 to 1997, also criticized the language repeated by the IAEA under its current director general, Yukiya Amano, suggesting that Iran is still under suspicion of undeclared nuclear activity.

Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaking to the United Nations

Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaking to the United Nations

Blix, who clashed with U.S. officials when he was head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from 2000 to 2003, said he has long been skeptical of intelligence that has been used to accuse Iraq and Iran of having active nuclear-weapons programs.

“I’ve often said you have as much disinformation as information” on alleged weaponization efforts in those countries, Blix said.

Referring to the allegations of past Iranian nuclear weapons research that have been published in IAEA reports, Blix said, “Something that worries me is that these accusations that come from foreign intelligence agencies can be utilized by states to keep Iran under suspicion.”

Such allegations, according to Blix, “can be employed as a tactic to keep the state in a suspect light — to keep Iran on the run.” The IAEA, he said, “should be cautious and not allow itself to be drawn into such a tactic.”

Blix warned that compromising the independence of the IAEA by pushing it to embrace unverified intelligence was not in the true interests of those providing the intelligence.

The IAEA Member States providing the intelligence papers to the IAEA “have a long-term interest in an international service that seeks to be independent,” said Blix. “In the Security Council they can pursue their own interest, but the [IAEA] dossier has to be as objective as possible.”

In 2005, the George W. Bush administration gave the IAEA a large cache of documents purporting to derive from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons research and development program from 2001 to 2003. Israel provided a series of documents and intelligence reports on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work in 2008 and 2009.

Blix’s successor as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, recalled in his 2011 memoirs having doubts about the authenticity of both sets of intelligence documents. ElBaradei resisted pressure from the United States and its European allies in 2009 to publish an “annex” to a regular IAEA report based on those unverified documents.

But Amano agreed to do so, and the annex on “possible military dimensions” of the Iranian nuclear program was published in November 2011. During the current negotiations with Iran, the P5+1 (U.S., UK, Russia, China, France plus Germany) has taken the position that Iran must explain the intelligence documents and reports described in the annex.

The provenance of the largest part of the intelligence documents — the so-called “laptop documents” — was an unresolved question for years after they were first reported in 2004 and 2005. But former senior German foreign office official Karsten Voigt confirmed in 2013 that the Iranian exile opposition group, the Mujahedeen E-Khalq (MEK), gave the original set of documents to the German intelligence service (BND) in 2004.

The MEK has been reported by Seymour HershConnie Bruck, and a popular history of the Mossad’s covert operations to have been a client of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, serving to “launder” intelligence that Mossad did not want to have attributed to Israel.

Blix has been joined by two other former senior IAEA officials in criticizing the agency for its uncritical presentation of the intelligence documents cited in the November 2011 annex. Robert Kelley, the head of the Iraq team under both Blix and ElBaradei, and Tariq Rauf, the former head of the Agency’s Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office, have written that the annex employed “exaggeration, innuendo and careful choice of words” in presenting intelligence information from an unidentified Member State of the IAEA on the alleged cylinder at the Parchin military facility.

Blix said he is “critical” of the IAEA for the boilerplate language used in its reports on Iran that the Agency is “not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities….”

Blix added that it is “erroneous” to suggest that the IAEA would be able to provide such assurances if Iran or any other state were more cooperative. As head of UNMOVIC, Blix recalled, “I was always clear that there could always be small things in a big geographical area that can be hidden, and you can never guarantee completely that there are no undeclared activities.”

“In Iraq we didn’t maintain there was nothing,” he said. “We said we had made 700 inspections at 500 sites and we had not seen anything.”

Blix emphasized that he was not questioning the importance of maximizing inspections, or of Iran’s ratification of the Additional Protocol. “I think the more inspections you can perform the smaller the residue of uncertainty,” he said.

Posted in IranComments Off on How the Iran-Nuke Crisis Was Hyped

Did Manning Help Avert War in Iran?

NOVANEWS

From the Archive: A little-noticed disclosure from cables leaked by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning showed how the U.S. government put Yukiya Amano in as the UN’s top nuclear inspector so he could hype claims about Iran building a nuclear bomb, as Robert Parry reported on the eve of Manning’s sentencing in 2013.

By Robert Parry

From U.S. embassy cables leaked by Pvt. Bradley Manning, you can easily imagine how the propaganda game might have played out, how Americans could have been panicked into supporting another unnecessary war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. Except that Manning’s release of the documents spoiled the trick.

The gambit might have gone this way: One morning, a story would have led the front page of, say, the Washington Post citing how the widely respected International Atomic Energy Agency and its honest-broker Director-General Yukiya Amano had found startling “evidence” that Iran was nearing a nuclear bomb – despite a longstanding U.S. intelligence estimate to the contrary and despite Iranian denials.

A protester marching in support of Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning. (Photo credit: bradleymanning.org)

A protester marching in support of Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning. (Photo credit: bradleymanning.org)

Next, the neocon-dominated opinion pages would ridicule anyone who still doubted these “facts.” After all, these articles would say, “even” the IAEA, which had challenged President George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq in 2002, and “even” Amano, who had initially believed Iran’s denials, were now convinced.

Neocon think tanks would rush to join the chorus of alarm, dispatching WMD “experts” to TV talk shows bracing the American people on the need for military action. From Fox News to CNN to MSNBC, there would be a drumbeat about Iran’s perfidy. Then, as hawkish Republicans and Democrats ratcheted up their rhetoric – and as Israeli leaders chortled “we told you so” – the war-with-Iran bandwagon might have begun rolling with such velocity that it would be unstoppable.

Perhaps, only years later – after grave human costs and severe economic repercussions – would the American people learn the truth: that the IAEA under Amano wasn’t the objective source that they had been led to believe, that Amano was something of a U.S.-Israeli puppet who had feigned a pro-Iranian position early on to burnish his credentials for pushing an anti-Iranian line subsequently, that after he was installed, he had even solicited U.S. officials for money and had held secret meetings with Israelis (to coordinate opposition to Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining a polite silence about Israel’s rogue nuclear arsenal).

However, because of the actions of Bradley Manning, the rug was pulled out from under this possible ruse. The U.S. embassy cables revealing the truth about Amano were published by the U.K. Guardian in 2011 (although ignored by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream U.S. news outlets). The cables also drew attention from Web sites, such as Consortiumnews.com.

So, the gambit could not work. If it had been tried, enough people would have known the truth. They wouldn’t be fooled again – and they would have alerted their fellow citizens. Bradley Manning had armed them with the facts.

And this scenario, while admittedly hypothetical, is not at all far-fetched. When the cables were leaked about a year after Amano’s appointment, his IAEA was busy feeding the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear program with reports trumpeted by think tanks, such as the Institute for Science and International Security, and by the Washington Post and other U.S. news media.

Revealing Cables

According to those leaked U.S. embassy cables from Vienna, Austria, the site of IAEA’s headquarters, American diplomats in 2009 were cheering the prospect that Amano would advance U.S. interests in ways that outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei wouldn’t; Amano credited his election to U.S. government support; Amano signaled he would side with the United States in its confrontation with Iran; and he stuck out his hand for more U.S. money.

In a July 9, 2009, cable, American chargé Geoffrey Pyatt said Amano was thankful for U.S. support of his election. “Amano attributed his election to support from the U.S., Australia and France, and cited U.S. intervention with Argentina as particularly decisive,” the cable said.

The appreciative Amano informed Pyatt that as IAEA director general, he would take a different “approach on Iran from that of ElBaradei” and he “saw his primary role as implementing safeguards and UNSC [United Nations Security Council]/Board resolutions,” i.e. U.S.-driven sanctions and demands against Iran.

Amano also discussed how to restructure the senior ranks of the IAEA, including elimination of one top official and the retention of another. “We wholly agree with Amano’s assessment of these two advisors and see these decisions as positive first signs,” Pyatt commented.

In return, Pyatt made clear that Amano could expect strong U.S. financial support, stating that “the United States would do everything possible to support his successful tenure as Director General and, to that end, anticipated that continued U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA would be forthcoming. … Amano offered that a ‘reasonable increase’ in the regular budget would be helpful.”

Pyatt learned, too, that Amano had consulted with Israeli Ambassador Israel Michaeli “immediately after his appointment” and that Michaeli “was fully confident of the priority Amano accords verification issues.” Michaeli added that he discounted some of Amano’s public remarks about there being “no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons capability” as just words that Amano felt he had to say “to persuade those who did not support him about his ‘impartiality.’”

In private, Amano agreed to “consultations” with the head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, Pyatt reported. (It is ironic indeed that Amano would have secret contacts with Israeli officials about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, which has yet to yield a single bomb, when Israel possesses a large and undeclared nuclear arsenal.)

In a subsequent cable dated Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. mission in Vienna said Amano “took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded ambassador [Glyn Davies] on several occasions that … he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

“More candidly, Amano noted the importance of maintaining a certain ‘constructive ambiguity’ about his plans, at least until he took over for DG ElBaradei in December” 2009.

In other words, Amano was a bureaucrat eager to bend in directions favored by the United States and Israel regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Amano’s behavior surely contrasted with how the more independent-minded ElBaradei resisted some of Bush’s key claims about Iraq’s supposed nuclear weapons program, correctly denouncing some documents as forgeries.

Update: It also is significant that Geoffrey Pyatt was rewarded for his work lining up the IAEA behind the anti-Iranian propaganda campaign by being made U.S. ambassador to Ukraine where he helped engineer the Feb. 22 coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Pyatt was on the infamous “fuck the E.U.” call with Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland – weeks before the coup – as Nuland handpicked Ukraine’s new leaders and Pyatt pondered how “to midwife this thing.”

Salvaging Some Hype

Though Manning’s release of the U.S. embassy cables from Vienna apparently scotched any large-scale deployment of the Amano ploy, some elements of the gambit did go forward nonetheless, albeit with less oomph than they might have had.

In February 2013, the front page of the Washington Post offered a taste of what the propaganda campaign might have looked like when investigative reporter Joby Warrick hyped an account about Iran’s nuclear program pushed by David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security who had given support to Bush’s invasion of Iraq a decade ago.

The Albright/Warrick alarm cited Iran’s alleged effort to place an Internet order for 100,000 ring-shaped magnets that would work in some of the country’s older centrifuges.

“Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability,” Warrick wrote in his lede paragraph.

You had to read to the end of the long story to hear a less strident voice, saying that Iran had previously informed IAEA inspectors that it planned to build more of its old and clunkier centrifuges, which use this sort of magnet, and that the enrichment was for civilian energy, not a nuclear bomb.

“Olli Heinonen, who led IAEA nuclear inspections inside Iran before his retirement in 2010, said the type of magnet sought by Iran was highly specific to the IR-1 centrifuge and could not, for example, be used in the advanced IR-2M centrifuges that Iran has recently tested,” according to the final paragraphs of Warrick’s article.

“‘The numbers in the order make sense, because Iran originally told us it wanted to build more than 50,000 of the IR-1s,’ Heinonen said. ‘The failure rate on these machines is 10 percent a year, so you need a surplus.’”

At the bottom of Warrick’s story, you’d also learn that “Iran has avoided what many experts consider Israel’s new ‘red line’: a stockpile of medium-enriched uranium greater than 530 pounds, roughly the amount needed to build a weapon if further purified.”

So there was nothing urgent or particularly provocative about this alleged purchase, though the structure and placement of the Post story suggested otherwise. Many readers likely were expected to simply jump to the conclusion that Iran was on the verge of building an atomic bomb and that it was time for President Barack Obama to join Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in another Middle East war.

The pressure from the Post and other neocon-leaning news outlets on the Obama administration to fall in line with Netanyahu’s belligerence toward Iran has been building for years, often with Warrick channeling anti-Iranian propaganda from Albright and his ISIS, which, in turn, seems to be a pipeline for hardliners at the IAEA.

A decade ago, Albright and the ISIS were key figures in stoking the hysteria for invading Iraq around the false allegations of its WMD program. In recent years, Albright and his institute have adopted a similar role regarding Iran and its purported pursuit of a nuclear weapon, even though U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran terminated that weapons project in 2003.

Nevertheless, Albright has transformed his organization into a sparkplug for a new confrontation with Iran. Though Albright insists that he is an objective professional, ISIS has published hundreds of articles about Iran, which has not produced a single nuclear bomb, while barely mentioning Israel’s rogue nuclear arsenal.

An examination of the ISIS Web site reveals only a few technical articles relating to Israel’s nukes while ISIS has expanded its coverage of Iran’s nuclear program so much that it’s been moved onto a separate Web site. The articles not only hype developments in Iran but also attack U.S. media critics who question the fear-mongering about Iran.

More than a year ago when a non-mainstream journalist confronted Albright about the disparity between ISIS’s concentration on Iran and de minimis coverage of Israel, he angrily responded that he was working on a report about Israel’s nuclear program. But there is still no substantive assessment of Israel’s large nuclear arsenal on the ISIS Web site, which goes back to 1993.

Despite this evidence of bias, the Post and other mainstream U.S. news outlets typically present Albright as a neutral analyst. They also ignore his checkered past, for instance, his prominent role in promoting President Bush’s pre-invasion case that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

Stoking a War

At the end of summer 2002, as Bush was beginning his advertising roll-out for the Iraq invasion and dispatching his top aides to the Sunday talk shows to warn about “smoking guns” and “mushroom clouds,” Albright co-authored a Sept. 10, 2002, article – entitled “Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts? – which declared:

“High-resolution commercial satellite imagery shows an apparently operational facility at the site of Iraq’s al Qaim phosphate plant and uranium extraction facility … This site was where Iraq extracted uranium for its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. … This image raises questions about whether Iraq has rebuilt a uranium extraction facility at the site, possibly even underground. … The uranium could be used in a clandestine nuclear weapons effort.”

Albright’s alarming allegations fit neatly with Bush’s propaganda barrage, although as the months wore on – with Bush’s warnings about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa growing more outlandish – Albright did display more skepticism about the existence of a revived Iraqi nuclear program.

Still, he remained a “go-to” expert on other Iraqi purported WMD, such as chemical and biological weapons. In a typical quote on Oct. 5, 2002, Albright told CNN: “In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now.”

After Bush launched the Iraq invasion in March 2003 and Iraq’s secret WMD caches didn’t materialize, Albright admitted that he had been conned, explaining to the Los Angeles Times: “If there are no weapons of mass destruction, I’ll be mad as hell. I certainly accepted the administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured they were telling the truth. If there is no [unconventional weapons program], I will feel taken, because they asserted these things with such assurance.” [See FAIR’s The Great WMD Hunt,”]

Given the horrendous costs in blood and treasure resulting from the Iraq fiasco, an objective journalist might feel compelled to mention Albright’s track record of bias and error. But the Post’s Warrick didn’t, even though Albright and his ISIS were at the core of the February story, receiving credit for obtaining copies of the magnet purchase order.

So, while we’ll never know if the Amano ploy would have been tried – since Manning’s disclosures made it unfeasible – it surely would not have been unprecedented. The American people experienced similar deceptions during the run-up to war with Iraq when the Bush-43 administration assembled every scrap of suspicion about Iraq’s alleged WMD and fashioned a bogus case for war.

Eventually, Manning was pulled into that war as a young intelligence analyst. He confronted so much evidence of brutality and dishonesty that he felt compelled to do something about it. What he did in leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to WikiLeaks and, thus, to other news outlets was to supply “ground truth” about war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His disclosure of diplomatic cables also gave the American people and the world a glimpse behind the curtain of secrecy that often conceals the dirty dealings of statecraft. Perhaps most significantly, those revelations helped sparked the Arab Spring, giving people of the Middle East a chance to finally take some political control over their own lives.

And, by letting Americans in on the truth about Amano’s IAEA, Bradley Manning may have helped prevent a war with Iran. [Update: In August 2013, Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking classified documents.]

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Did Manning Help Avert War in Iran?

Why won’t Hamas label Islamic State as terrorists?

NOVANEWS
By: Asmaa Al_Ghoul  
Al-Monitor

The first clash between Hamas and Islamic extremist groups occurred in August 2009, before the emergence of the Islamic State (IS). Back then, the security forces affiliated with Hamas stormed into the Ibn Taymiyyah Mosque and killed Abdul Latif Moussa and 16 of his followers, following his declaration of the “Islamic Emirate in Jerusalem.” Hamas fought against extremism, bombed the mosque and killed those espousing the same Islamic ideology.

Summary⎙ Print Hamas officials say the word “terrorism” is a politicized Western term and there is no international consensus, which is why it won’t label the Islamic State a terrorist group.
Author Asmaa al-Ghoul Posted December 19, 2014

TranslatorSahar Ghoussoub

Five years later and the threat of Islamic extremism has emerged in the Gaza Strip once again. It was not long before IS announced its presence in Gaza on Nov. 2. Shortly after, two consecutive blasts rocked the French Cultural Center and the homes of Fatah activists during the past three months. A statement made in the name of IS claimed responsibility for the cultural center’s blasts. However, Hamas has yet to issue a statement condemning the group and has yet to denounce terrorism.

Hamas leader Ahmed Youssef told Al-Monitor, “There is no proof that IS is present in Gaza. Why would we condemn IS and the Salafist movement, when there is nothing to prove their involvement in the explosions? However, should it turn out that IS was actually behind the blasts, we will certainly condemn it.”

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri justified Hamas’ lack of condemnation, saying, “There is no definition of terrorism for us to denounce its acts. It is a term used by many countries for political purposes.”

Abu Zuhri told Al-Monitor that there is no organization operating in the name of IS in Gaza. “A few young people are influenced by this ideology, as many Arabs and Muslims have developed a deep sense of injustice at the hands of international parties,” he said.

Abu Zuhri stressed that Hamas is moderate and does not believe in any extremist ideology, yet it is not hostile toward those that did not offend it. The problem does not lie in espousing different ideologies, but rather in about those who try to take the law into their own hands. “We judge the credibility of any organization by the extent of its effort to face the occupation forces,” he added.

Asked whether Hamas sees IS as an extremist group, Abu Zuhri said, “Hamas is responsible for the Palestinian arena and will not take any stance toward any other non-Palestinian group, as we believe that this ought to be dealt with in the concerned countries.”

The change in Hamas’ stance raises many questions. While a few years ago it fought against terrorism, today it is reluctant to take any stance. In this context, Youssef said, “We fought an insurgency at the time. We did not claim to fight terrorism.”

Al-Monitor managed to reach one of the security officers who participated in the attack on the Ibn Taymiyyah Mosque. The source spoke on condition of anonymity, given it is a matter of great sensitivity. “We didn’t have any problem with them [Salafist jihadists] as a group upholding a certain ideology. However, when they started to go out wearing explosive belts, claiming that the people and the government of Hamas are infidels, it became our duty to stop them,” he said.

“Abu Ibrahim Al-Souri [a Palestinian mujahed from Gaza] was behind the incitement. He influenced a group of young people and convinced Moussa to declare the emirate, although he was well aware that the latter was not involved in politics. We tried to prevent Moussa from declaring the emirate in his speech, but he did not heed our warnings and threatened us with explosive belts, and we all know how it ended,” he added.

The source said that the situation remained tense with the Salafist groups until clerics from Kuwait and Qatar visited the Gaza Strip in May 2013 to mediate on behalf of them, provided that they would not cause any distress in civil society or organize groups based on al-Qaeda’s ideology.

“Should any Salafist group, whether IS or any other organization, declare the caliphate in Gaza, we will strike with an iron fist,” the security officer said. He stressed that during his recent meeting with one Salafist leader, the latter said that Salafists support IS, but they will not declare it in the Gaza Strip as they do not wish to clash with Hamas.

As for Hamas’ decision not to condemn IS — although it claimed responsibility for the bombing that occurred in Gaza — the security officer said, “There is a decision not to take any stance toward IS. We are all Islamists, and it is ideologically difficult for us to condemn them as terrorists. We are accused of the same by the West and some Arab countries,” stressing that they will never join the US alliance, even in the media discourse.

If condemning IS is the current “trend” today, why does Hamas not follow suit and get the blessing of Egypt, which is closing the Rafah crossing under the pretext of extremist groups in Gaza, as 1.8 million citizens are besieged in the Gaza Strip?

“We wish stability for Egypt and we are not involved in what is happening there. We will not allow anyone to drag us into the domestic Egyptian situation. However, we are committed to the stability of all Arab countries and we condemn all crimes against innocent people at the hands of any party,” Abu Zuhri said.

Political analyst Hani Habib told Al-Monitor, “Hamas will not condemn terrorism as there is no clear definition of terrorism agreed upon internationally. Therefore, Hamas as well as other groups, are reluctant to generalize such a concept, which may include forces fighting for just causes.”

Youssef, who spent most of his life in the United States, believes that not everyone who takes up arms to fight for just causes is a terrorist. He said that Hamas does not use these Western terms, “The US used to call the Afghans who fought the Soviet Union mujahedeen, but when they started fighting against America, they became terrorists.”

He also said that if the insurgency in Syria and Iraq is seen as terror, based on the killings taking place there, then the United States and Israel, which have killed thousands of innocent people, ought to be condemned as well. “Nevertheless, we condemn all acts that fall outside the context of the international law and Islamic teachings,” he added.

Only time will have answers to all the questions in the Gaza Strip. The dramatic turn of events have changed the situation in Gaza. Indeed, after being ruled by authorities that upheld security and safety in Gaza for seven years, people are awaiting the results of the investigation committees in more than seven bombings, and wondering if terror has come to the Gaza Strip.

Posted in GazaComments Off on Why won’t Hamas label Islamic State as terrorists?

Gaza writers receive death threats from IS

NOVANEWS
By: Hana Salah 
Al-Monitor

 

Mystery still surrounds the presence of the Islamic State (IS) in Gaza. Statements in the name of the radical group threatening or claiming responsibility for previous bombings in Gaza are not enough to prove the existence of active members in the besieged Gaza Strip, though IS’ extremist ideology is easily spread.

Summary⎙ Print A statement purporting to come from the Islamic State in Gaza listed 18 writers and poets who it says the radical group will kill if they do not cease insulting Islam in their work.
Author Hana Salah Posted December 5, 2014

TranslatorsPascale el-KhourySibel Utku Bila

Many Gazans underestimated the importance of the statement issued in the name of IS Nov. 30 in Gaza City demanding that women show “chastity” and abide by Sharia rules of dress. They have excluded the possibility of a real IS presence in the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the same Interior Ministry-affiliated security personnel that ruled under Hamas’ Islamist government.

IS published another statement on the Internet and social networking sites Dec. 3, further raising suspicions about its presence. In the statement, IS threatened to kill 18 Gaza poets and writers within three days unless they “repent” for having excessively insulted Islam in their writings. The statement also warned that IS, or “Wilayat Gaza,” as it called itself, will punish apostasy with death.

Despite this new threat, Iyad al-Bozom, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry in Gaza, denied in an interview with Al-Monitor that IS has a presence in the Gaza Strip. “There are no extremist organizations, including the so-called IS,” he said, adding that the posts on social networks in the name of IS represent the opinions of a few individuals and not a full-fledged organization. Bozom stressed that his ministry will seriously address the threats issued.

“We do not prevent anyone from adopting the line of thought of any organization, but we do not allow these thoughts to threaten security or affect our social customs and traditions,” he said.

Satirical writer Akram al-Surani, whose name appeared in the IS statement, dismissed the threat as “silly.” He told Al-Monitor, “It is annoying, since it falls within the scope of restriction of freedoms.”

At a protest in front of the public prosecutor’s office in Gaza, Surani said, “We demand official protection and want to know which parties are behind this. Regardless of whether the threat was made by IS or not, we have concerns about what might happen in the future.”

Although a group of writers managed to meet the public prosecutor, Surani reported, “We only got reassurances that the official authorities have already started their own investigations.” He added, “There are talks about security measures, but we are not seeing anything tangible. No one looked into the message I received on my Facebook account. It could be possible to determine the sender’s IP address. The writers who were threatened did not receive any call from the Interior Ministry.”

These are not the first activities carried out by unknown parties in the name of Sharia and IS in the Gaza Strip. IS had claimed responsibility through social media posts — which have yet to be verified — for the bombing of the French Cultural Center on Oct. 6 and a series of explosions targeting the homes of some Fatah leaders on Nov. 7.

Bozom explained that investigations are ongoing in the previous explosion incidents. Early this year, the Church of the Latin Convent was bombed in what the Interior Ministry considered an individual act unrelated to IS.

Decentralized jihadist organizations such as IS can spread their ideology without being restricted by borders. This is especially true in Gaza, the front line with Israel and under Hamas’ control for eight years, during which the Islamist movement was the one to confront radical religious groups and maintain security in the Gaza Strip.

Mukhaimar Abu Saada, a professor of political science at Gaza’s al-Azhar University, told Al-Monitor that he does not rule out the presence of individuals who believe in IS ideology. He said, “Salafist groups with jihadist ideology are present in all the Arab world, but people in Gaza often rule out the presence of IS. Contrary to what they think, this organization is an ideology that does not require the physical spread of persons, and their presence will be not hindered by the Israeli blockade or the tight Egyptian security measures imposed on the Gaza borders.”

Abu Saada asserted that the continuous Palestinian political division has contributed to the presence of such movements, saying, “The ongoing division and the lack of control by the consensus government over the security file enabled these events, which may increasingly recur in the future.”

Abu Saada stated that some writers and intellectuals accuse Hamas of being behind these incidents and of making up IS for two reasons. The first is to draw the attention of people away from internal problems such as poverty, unemploymentdelayed reconstruction and other pressing issues. Also, as many people believe Hamas is an ideological extremist group, acts carried out under the name of IS may be intended to show that there are worse groups than Hamas. They may be an attempt to thwart a revolution against Hamas.

When asked, a Hamas leader refused to comment on these accusations, simply arguing that despite the individual nature of the threatening posts, there is nothing to prevent IS from existing in the Gaza Strip.

The official, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Al-Monitor, “The Palestinian arena is infiltrated by all intelligence services of the world, and these threats are not the result of division.” He accused Israeli parties of orchestrating these activities through their wings in Gaza.

The investigations initiated by Gaza’s Interior Ministry into previous attacks have yet to yield results. Whether these attacks were organized and executed by an organized network or by individuals is unknown, but signs of a possible IS cell in Gaza are increasing.

Posted in GazaComments Off on Gaza writers receive death threats from IS

The “Impending” Russian Maidan?

NOVANEWS

US Sponsored “Regime Change” Initiative in the Russian Federation?

Global Research
Geopolitics and The Russian Elections: Putin Wins...

The coordinated manipulation of global energy prices, a NATO build-up in Eastern Europe, and the rekindling of terrorism in Russia’s southern Caucasus region all appear to be ever-increasing crescendos toward a much larger event – a “Russian Maidan.”

The necessary components of a successful Western bid to overthrow the Russian political order include a political front protesting in Russia’s major cities, as well as a full-spectrum economic war to put pressure on Russia’s population, increasing dissent as well as swelling the ranks of staged protests Wall Street and Washington put in Russian streets. Another necessary component includes armed components to act under cover of “peaceful protesters” to escalate street demonstrations, prevent security forces from restoring order, and to carry out the actual physical overthrow of these security forces.

These elements could all be seen in neighboring Ukraine – a nation in which America and NATO’s incessant meddling is a matter of long-standing public record. The Guardian would admit in its 2004 article, US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” that (emphasis added):

…while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box. 

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze. 

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko. 

That one failed. “There will be no Kostunica in Belarus,” the Belarus president declared, referring to the victory in Belgrade.

But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable in plotting to beat the regime of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev. 

The operation – engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience – is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people’s elections.

Not only has Ukraine suffered because of  this admitted US-backed political destabilization over the years, but as revealed by the Guardian and other sources, all of Eastern Europe has fallen prey to this brand of foreign-backed subversion, manipulation, and regime change. Considering this documented fact, the prospect of Wall Street and Washington trying likewise in Russia itself is not only possible, it has already been tried before, with likely attempts in the future only inevitable.

The Blockade…

Already at work is a coordinated manipulation of world oil prices. Revealed among plunging oil prices is that the entire industry is centrally manipulated not by market forces but by political agendas involving the US and its partners in the Middle East, most notably the enduring dictatorship in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. While any nation possesses the ability to weather such economic measures in the long-term as Iran and Cuba have proven, in the short-term, economic instability is one of the harbingers of political subversion where ranks of street demonstrations can be swelled by those who perceive such economic instability as the fault of the current government, rather than an economic attack from abroad.

The Political Front and Muscle

177465_900

The political front that will take to Russia’s streets has already long been identified. It includes the same brand of extreme “nationalists” and ultra-right groups seen overrunning Ukraine’s political order. This includes literal Neo-Nazis. One of the prevailing figures among Russia’s ultra-right is US-backed Alexey Navalny – billed by the West as an “anti-corruption activist,” who is in all reality a neo-fascist operating openly in the service of Wall Street.

Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:

Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is a US State Department National Endowment for Democracy (NED) fund recipient, implicating Alexey Navalny as an agent of US-funded sedition. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list DA! among many of the “youth movements” they support operating in Russia:

DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.

That this funding is nowhere on NED’s official website indicates that full disclosures are not being made and that NED is engaged in clandestine funding.

Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian “activist” opposition group.

Ilya Yashin leads the Moscow branch of the People’s Freedom Party and is a leading member of the “Strategy 31″ campaign whose ranks are filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED-funded NGOs. Deleted from the official NED.org website was Strategy 31’s US funding:

Moscow Group of Assistance in the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords $50,000

To draw greater attention to the issue of freedom of assembly in Russia and to the “Strategy 31” movement, which seeks to protect this fundamental right. The organization will train a network of regional activists and coordinate their activities through mini-seminars and field visits, and conduct an information cam­paign through press conferences, posters, and educational handouts pertaining to freedom of assembly, to be distributed to the general public by regional partners.

Also deleted was a NED Democracy Digest” article titled “Strategy 31: A sign of civil society’s resilience.” In it, the “Moscow Helsinki Group” is explicitly stated as leading Strategy 31 marches and that the group is a “long-time grantee of the National Endowment of Democracy.”

The multiple deletions across NED’s networks of Russian “activists” it is heavily funding and directing is yet another sign of imminent subversion, in hopes that links cannot be provided fast enough as the unrest unfolds to undermine the legitimacy of the otherwise US-engineered subversion.

Yashin’s People’s Freedom Party is lined not only with NED-funded “youth,” but also lined with career politicians and businessmen collaborating with foreign-interests. Among them is Vladimir Ryzhkov  a member of the NED-funded, Washington-based World Movement for Democracy (whose profile has also been recently deleted). There is also Boris Nemtsov whose adviser, Vladimir Kara-Murza (of Solidarnost) took part in a September 14, 2011 NED-sponsored event titled, Elections in Russia: Polling and Perspectives.”

Revealed is a political front entirely created by the US State Department to pose as the aspirations of the Russian people while in reality a creation and perpetuation of the aspirations of Wall Street and Washington.  Under the unrest this front creates may be a heavily armed front consisting of ultra-right Neo-Nazis as observed in Ukraine, heavily armed sectarian terrorists backed by Saudi Arabia, or both.

A Look At America’s “Sedition” Handbook 

43826

The use of armed elements to assist in US-engineered political subversion is not speculation. Rather, it is a documented policy included in plans laid for the undermining and overthrowing of other governments around the world. In one particular 2009 US policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia?” by the Brookings Institution regarding the overthrow of Iran, it is stated specifically that:

One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.

Here, US policymakers are openly conspiring to covertly provoke a nation through political subversion. The resulting “act of aggression” would be portrayed as “unprovoked,” just as has been done regarding Russia’s involvement in neighboring Ukraine and all moves since Moscow has undertaken as the US and NATO continue to move toward war.

The policy paper also openly talks about the particulars of fomenting political unrest. Under a section called literally, “Finding the Right Proxies” it states:

One of the hardest tasks in fomenting a revolution, or even just unrest, is finding the right local partners.

After openly admitting the goal of “fomenting a revolution” or “unrest,” it then details what support to provide these proxies:

 …students and other groups need covert backing for their demonstrations.  They need fax machines. They need internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.  Beyond this, U.S.-backed media  outlets  could  highlight  regime  shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian-language satellite television (Voice of america Persian) and radio (radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.

The report finally mentions armed groups supporting US-engineered sedition:

 Some who favor fomenting regime change in Iran argue that it is utopian to hold out hope for a velvet revolution; instead, they contend that the United States should  turn  to  Iranian  opposition  groups  that already exist, that already have demonstrated a desire to fight the regime, and who appear willing  to  accept  U.S.  assistance.  The  hope  behind this course of action is that these various opposition  groups  could  transform  themselves  into more  potent  movements  that  might  be  able  to overturn the regime.

What is troubling about this 2009 report is that each and every conspiracy contained within is not only confirmed by the authors to already be well underway against Iran, it is now clear that similar tactics have been used against Syria, China, and Russia itself.  The “Arab Spring” was little more than these tactics used on a regional scale, and what was done in Syria and even Ukraine are almost verbatim pages torn from this playbook.

For a campaign aimed at Moscow itself, it is likely the same playbook will once again be employed. Exposing the insidious, malicious criminality of US policymakers who openly conspire to provoke other nations into conflict and manipulate public perception to maintain moral primacy is the first step to undoing attempts to destabilize and undermine Russia, and all other nations caught in the crosshairs of Wall Street and Washington.

While the West continues to portray Russia as the “aggressor,” throughout America’s own policy papers it can be seen that such accusations are just one part of an immensely insidious and deceitful plan. Portraying Russia as the “aggressors” helps justify further measures to set the board for widespread political subversion within Russia itself. It seeks to justify not only direct ties to opposition groups when they are finally revealed, but also increasingly aggressive interventions both by armed proxies and NATO forces themselves to continue propping up these opposition groups.

The spectacular nature of “invasions” as we imagine them, such as the Nazi blitzkrieg into Western Europe are behind us. Invasions within fourth generation warfare utilize faux opposition groups, covert military support, and full-spectrum economic, political, and information warfare. Russia has built defenses against this form of warfare, confounding the West , but ultimately the moral high ground and all of its advantages is a position only one can hold. Either by truth through exposing the West’s means and agenda will Russia climb to the top, or through the West’s continued successful deception, will Russia be pelted below.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on The “Impending” Russian Maidan?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING