Archive | March 19th, 2015

SYRIAN OBSERVATORY EXPOSED AGAIN AS SHAM AND FRAUD

NOVANEWS

image: http://cdn1.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/liar.jpg

This article was sent by Canthama and basically repeats what SyrPer wrote 2 years ago about the lie-machine invented by the corrupt Zionist Cameron Regime in London. Enjoy this article from ZEROHEDGE

Here We Go Again: YouTube Clips Of Syrian “Chemical Attacks” Are Back – Meet The Man Behind The Propaganda

US foreign policy is becoming so easy and predictable, even Derek Zoolander can do it.Submitted

by Tyler Durden

Two weeks ago, when discussing the relentless attempts to provoke, or at least green light another quasi war with Syria’s president Assad, we wrote “one can be confident that the ISIS “campaign” will continue and get ever closer to Damascus until yet another appropriately-framed YouTube clip appears and leads to another war with Assad.”

Fast forward to today, when precisely this script which by now everyone could predict, is being rerun.

According to Reuters, “a group monitoring the Syrian civil war said on Tuesday government forces carried out a poison gas attack that killed six people in the northwest, and medics posted videos of children suffering what they said was suffocation.” Of course it could be just a bunch of actors like in the summer of 2013, but that’s irrelevant – there is a YouTube clip out there and it is only a matter of time before John Kerry latches on to it as this year’s pretext to declare war on Syria.

Syria would laugh if it could, however it can’t: “a Syrian military source described the report of an attack in the village of Sarmin in Idlib province as propaganda. “We confirm that we would not use this type of weapon, and we don’t need to use it,” the source said.”

Too late: the “facts” are out there: “The Britain-based Syrian Zionist Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the conflict through a network of sources, said the six dead included a man, his wife and their three children. It cited medical sources as saying they died as a result of gas from barrel bombs dropped late on Monday and that the chemical used was likely chlorine. Dozens more were wounded in the attack, the Observatory said. Reuters could not independently verify the report.”

The propaganda is coming hot and heavy:

The Idlib branch of the Syrian Civil Defense rescue organization, which operates in insurgent-held areas, posted seven videos on YouTube, some at nighttime and some in a medical center.

One video showed three children and a woman, all apparently unconscious, in a medical center. A voice off camera said the name of the village, Sarmin, and Monday’s date.

“One of the infants, only a few months old,” a male voice says, shaking, as he films a baby on a gurney with liquid around its mouth. Two more infants with limp bodies are brought in, one by a man wearing a gas mask and another carrying a young girl.

“She’s still alive doctor,” a man checking the girl says. “Doctor, doctor, she is still breathing.”

The Syrian Civil Defense includes more than 2,000 humanitarian volunteers, known as the “White Helmets” for the hard hats they wear, who work as first responders in a country where the medical infrastructure has broken down.

Another video posted by the group and shot at night showed a very young girl, naked except for underwear and pink shoes, being doused in liquid by people wearing white helmets, her horrified expression illuminated by their headlamps shining on her face.

This is a good time for a look at just who this Syrian Zionist Observatory for Human Rights is, aside from an organization with some pretty impressive video editing skills. Here is a report from April 2013 written before the release of the infamous summer of 2013 YouTube clip which almost provoked world war over Syria, and should provide sufficient doubt about the veracity of any YouTube-based clips.

* * *

Pro-Democracy Terrorism”: The Syrian Zionist Observatory for Human Rights is a Propaganda Front funded by MI 6 and EU

The NYT admits fraudulent Syrian human rights group is UK-based “one-man band” funded by EU and one other “European country.”

In reality, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has long ago been exposed as an absurd propaganda front operated by MI 6 agent Rami Abdul Rahman out of his house in England’s countryside. According to a December 2011 Reuters article titled, Coventry – an unlikely home to prominent Syria activist,” MI6 agent Abdul Rahman admits he is a member of the so-called “Syrian opposition” and seeks the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad:

After three short spells in prison in Syria for ”pro-democracy” activism, Abdulrahman came to Britain in 2000 fearing a longer, fourth jail term.

“I came to Britain the day Hafez al-Assad died, and I’ll return when Bashar al-Assad goes,” Abdulrahman said, referring to Bashar’s father and predecessor Hafez, also an autocrat.

One could not fathom a more unreliable, compromised, biased source of information, yet for the past two years, his “Observatory” has served as the sole source of information for the endless torrent of propaganda emanating from the Western media. Perhaps worst of all, is that the United Nations uses this compromised, absurdly overt source of propaganda as the basis for its various reports – at least, that is what the New York Times now claims in their recent article,A Very Busy Man Behind the Syrian Civil War’s Casualty Count.”

The NYT piece admits:

Military analysts in Washington follow its body counts of Syrian and rebel soldiers to gauge the course of the war. The United Nations and human rights organizations scour its descriptions of civilian killings for evidence in possible war crimes trials. Major news organizations, including this one, cite its casualty figures.

Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. Its founder, Rami Abdul Rahman, 42, who fled Syria 13 years ago, operates out of a semidetached red-brick house on an ordinary residential street in this drab industrial city [Coventry, England].

The New York Times also for the first time reveals that Abdul Rahman’s operation is indeed funded by the European Union and a “European country” he refuses to identify:

Money from two dress shops covers his minimal needs for reporting on the conflict, along with small subsidies from the European Union and one European country that he declines to identify.

image: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/03/Rami%20Rahman.jpg

MI6 Agent “Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian 
Observatory for Human Rights (Reuters)

Abdelrahman is not the “head” of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, he is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, run out of his UK-based house as a one-man operation.

And while Abdul Rahman refuses to identify that “European country,” it is beyond doubt that it is the United Kingdom itself – as Abdul Rahman has direct access to the Foreign Secretary Zionist William Hague, who he has been documented meeting in person on multiple occasions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. The NYT in fact reveals that it was the British government that first relocated Abdul Rahman to Coventry, England after he fled Syria over a decade ago because of his anti-government activities:

When two associates were arrested in 2000, he fled the country, paying a human trafficker to smuggle him into England. The government resettled him in Coventry, where he decided he liked the slow pace.

MI6 agent Abdul Rahman is not a “human rights activist.” He is a paid propagandist.
He is no different than the troupe of unsavory, willful liars and traitors provided
refuge in Washington and London during the Iraq war and the West’s more recent deba- uchery in Libya,for the sole purpose of supplying Western governments with a constantdin of propaganda and intentionally falsified intelligence reports designed specific-ally to justify the West’s hegemonic designs.

Abdul Rahman’s contemporaries include the notorious Iraqi defector Rafid al-Janabi, codename “Curveball,” who now gloats publicly that he invented accusations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the West’s casus belli for a 10 year war that ultimately cost over a million lives, including thousands of Western troops, and has left Iraq still to this day in shambles. There’s also the lesser known Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir of Libya, who formed the foundation of the pro-West human rights racket in Benghazi and now openly brags in retrospect that tales of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s atrocities against the Libyan people were likewise invented to give NATO its sought-after impetus to intervene militarily.

Unlike in Iraq and Libya, the West has failed categorically to sell military intervention in Syria, and even its covert war has begun to unravel as the public becomes increasingly aware that the so-called “pro-democracy rebels” the West has been arming for years are in fact sectarian extremists fighting under the banner of Al Qaeda. The charade that is the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” is also unraveling. It is unlikely that the New York Times’ limited hangout will convince readers that Rami Abdul Rahman is anything other than another “Curveball” helping the corporate-financier elite of Wall Street and London sell another unnecessary war to the public.

* * *

This was written in April 2013, before the person above with the wilful assistance of his UK and EU funders, released the first YouTube clip meant to unleash war in Syria, and permit the passage of a Qatari gas pipeline under the nation, ending Gazprom’s energy monopoly over Europe.  The first time failed, and now the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” is back and eager to succeed where its warmongering propaganda failed the first time around.

[Bryan] “…I think the central powers are finally catching on…”

Finally? They were gearing up the Syrian rebel propaganda machine months before the fake Sarin attack in East Ghouta. Didn’t it strike you as a bit odd that East Ghouta neighborhoods had no running water or electricity or cell phone service, but ‘local activists’ were able to upload pre-edited dramatic video on some kind of high-speed internet connections? Internet connections which, presumably, were monitored and controlled by the Syrian government? Same thing applies if they were using their cell phones to upload the videos – the Syrian government controlls the cell phone networks.

The local ‘rebel activists’ had some kind of pre-arranged methods of uploading their videos that the Syrian government couldn’t disable or intercept. U.S. provided satellite-intenet access comes to mind. Now why would the U.S. gov provide computers and satellite internet access to these activists before the supposed Sarin attack?

“…Behind the curtain, pushing and pulling the buttions and levers is….. Bibi…”

He’s a large part of it, y3maxx. But the U.S. and the ME oil mafia have just as much incentive. Israel would have benefitted most from a U.S. cruise missile attack on Syria. Bibi was absolutely furious with Obama for backing down. But the U.S. and the ME oil mafia ‘made it up to Israel’ by establishing a huge Syrian rebel (mostly al Nusra) JSOC training camp in Jordan. The rebels of that so-called ‘Southern Army’ were the first to get the U.S. TOW missiles. Their military operations were confined almost exclusively to taking out Syrian anti-aircraft and electronic surveilance sites on the hills bordering the Golan. Israel and the U.S. wanted unhindered drone and bomber access to Damascus and got it. The same thing happened in North West Syria on the coastal hills – again, benefitting Israel and the U.S. by opening an air corridor for attacking North Syrian cities.

Israel and the GCC still have some conflicting goals – namely natural gas pipelines. Qatari gas piped across Syria would ultimately compete with the Leviathan Field gas of Israel, so it seems odd that they would cooperate. I could see Israel eventually back-stabbing Qatar by constantly blowing up their pipeline while Israeli gas pipelines kept flowing. Those attacks would, of course, be blamed on ISIS. Not sure how that’s going to play out, but all these powers are cooperating (however reluctantly) to get rid of Assad first. Al Nusra has every incentive to attack Israel, so they are obviously being paid not to attack it. Israel is even providing medical support for them in the Golan and Jordan. It ‘seems’ their plans have gone off the rails, but there’s too much at stake. You know they’re all scheming behind the scenes. As long as Israel/U.S./GCC can act before Russia does, they’ll get what they want.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on SYRIAN OBSERVATORY EXPOSED AGAIN AS SHAM AND FRAUD

HANDARAAT LIBERATED IN ALEPPO!

NOVANEWS

IDLIB: ALQAEDA SUFFERING HUGE LOSSES AS SYRIAN ARMY BLASTS ITS WAY TO TURKISH BORDER

image: http://sana.sy/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sana.sy-army3-620×330.jpg

sana.sy armyALEPPO:  It’s official: Handaraat is under the complete control of the Syrian Army after the last remnant rodents of Erdoghan’s terrorist force were exterminated by our unconquerable heroes.  This critically important venue was the conduit for much of Erdoghan’s terrorism by acting as a supply depot for Saudi-purchased arms.  No longer.  And the rats cannot return.  British reports of a terrorist resurgence are just British folderol.   

image: http://www.sana.sy/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sana.sy-126-620×330.jpg

sana.sy 12IDLIB PROVINCE:  The handwriting is on the wall.  It does not bode well for the Jihadists at all.  While the numbers joining the ranks of the Syrian Amy are swelling, the terrorists are experiencing no such infusions of manpower.  That is unless you consider the number of adolescent and teenage Muslim girls from the west who are becoming the rage in this war – being passed around like soccer balls to please the hirsute, oily and malodorous simian refuse who populate all areas left to them by the Syrian Army.  The girls are reportedly taken by these Morlocks in something called “mut’ah”, or temporary marriage, and then divorced only to be re-married to another barbarian.  The temporary marriage is something rejected by Sunni Mulims.  Go figure.

Al-Husayniyya Village:  A pickup with a 23mm machine gun cannon was disabled by gunfire with 3 confirmed dead rodents.

Al-Baali’ah Village:  Another pickup was destroyed.  No other details.

Ma’rrat-Misraa Village:  Under artillery control of Syrian Army.

Al-Tamaani’ah:  A nest of vultures belonging to Nusra was destroyed.

Al-Baasil Forest:  After some days of surveillance on Haarim Road, the SAA acted quickly to destroy a group of terrorist rodents from Nusra.  All were foreigners:

“Abu Khadeeja Al-Shar’iy” (SAUDI ARABIAN ONCOGENE AND CHILD MOLESTER. Id pending)

Yusuf Al-Dhaki (UZBEKI DEGENERATE AND CATAMITE FOR SAUDIS)

A heavy machine gun was destroyed also.

Al-Rouj Plain:  All foreigners were killed here:

“Abu Bakr Al-Urduni” (JORDANIAN FRUITFLY VOMIT. Id pending.)

“Haddaar Al-Urduni” (Ditto. Jordanian pest. Id pending)

2 pickups with 23mm cannons were destroyed and 11 carcasses counted.

Kafr Rooheen:  A bulldozer used to build fortifications was seized after the driver was shot to death by PDC militiamen along with a pickup truck armed with a 23mm cannon. 7 rats killed:

‘Imaad “Al-Haneef”  (Id pending. LEBANESE RODENT MONGREL)

‘Abdul-Lateef Al-Qalyoobi (EGYPTIAN RAT URINE EXTRACT)

Muhammad Ghandoor

Mahmoud Al-Zaahid

Sidqi Ahmad Al-Khishin

‘Abduh Nu’maan

Safwaan Al-Halabi

Idlib – Haarim Road:  20 foreign terrorist hyenas were killed after the SAA destroyed their 3 trucks and their Chevy pickup with a 23mm heavy cannon aboard.  I have no names.

Hafsarja Town:  10 confirmed rat deaths with no details.

Idlib – Binnish Road:  An armored truck was shot at by a Kornet operator and the last evidence is that it was disabled.

Heavy fighting now going on at these locations:  Binnish, Taftanaaz, Qumaynaas, Tal Deeneet, Hallooz, Tal Salmu, Umm Jareen, Biroomaa Farms, Al-Shughur, Al-Raami, Ma’arbeleet, Kafr Jaalis    

Posted in SyriaComments Off on HANDARAAT LIBERATED IN ALEPPO!

Serbian-Croatian Relations Are Good … for Now

NOVANEWS
Adelina Marini

In the past almost three years, the relations between Serbia and Croatia are in constant tides and ebbs. At times, there is an improvement and perspectives emerge for resolution of the myriad of open issues between them, at others a new ghost from the past appears that immediately puts the good neighbourly relations to the test. Starting with the election of Tomislav Nikolic as president, who is a former comrade of Vojislav Seselj, a Serbian radical indicted of war crimes by the Hague tribunal, said a little before the elections in 2012 that Vukovar, which is the most painful place in Croatia’s newest history, is a Serbian city. Pass through the acquittals of the generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac and come to the release of Seselj and the refusal of the Serbian authorities to distance themselves from his statements that are scandalising the Croatian public domain.

In the pauses between the appearances of historical ghosts, the Croatian left-liberal ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic, has been trying to play the role of a mature member of the EU who does not want to be a mentor of its former partners in ex-Yugoslavia but to share experience and to provide them actively with assistance to join the Union. Moreover, as a country whose membership several times hanged by a thread because of Slovenia’s pressure to resolve old bilateral issues, Croatia decided that it would never behave like its north-western neighbour and voted in the Sabor (parliament) a declaration committing bilateral issues to never stand on the way toward the EU of any of the other countries from the Western Balkans.

On the other side of the border, in Belgrade, the right-left coalition led by Prime Minister Alexander Vucic, he himself with dark professional past, is putting enormous effort to create for the world and the region an image of a reformer and a person who looks ahead and not behind, of a pragmatist. So far, the interaction between the two governments, despite the drops, has scored progress. Two years ago, they have opened regular discussions on three groups of unresolved bilateral issues, working groups have been formed and high-level visits have become frequent. Visible is the will of both governments to circumvent the hampers for the sake of their common goal – Serbia to join the EU thus ensuring the security of the region. However, this is possible to change after the parliamentary elections in Croatia later this year if won by the right-wing opposition party Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), led by the former chief of the Croatian counter-intelligence service, Tomislav Karamarko.

Since he took over the leadership of the party three years ago HDZ has begun to slowly move toward the far right. The nationalist rhetoric has increased, the war veterans have permanently taken the public attention having protested for more than 100 days now in front of the Ministry of Veterans, the name of the first president of independent Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, is frequently mentioned in a way that recalls of a personality cult. Last but not least, the Christian conservatism has grown stronger. All this was quite evident during the campaign for the presidential elections in the beginning of the year won by the HDZ candidate, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, who, although supporting Serbia’s EU accession, seems will be much more demanding that her predecessor Ivo Josipovic.

And as, practically, the election campaign for the parliamentary elections has already started, the battle is between the two largest parties – Zoran Milanovic’s Social Democrats and Tomislav Karamarko’s Democrats. This battle is being led not only on the domestic political stage but it has a significant impact on the country’s foreign policy as well. At times, it can be said that Croatia has two command centres of the foreign policy – one is through Zoran Milanovic’s government where for the foreign policy and the European affairs is responsible the first deputy Prime Minister Vesna Pusic, leader of the junior coalition partner the liberal Croatian People’s Party (HNS), and the other centre is of HDZ which conducts its foreign policy through the president and its representatives in the European Parliament who have a solid presence in the foreign affairs committee and are remarkably active. Moreover, a deputy of theirs holds a key post in the foreign affairs committee – Andrej Plenkovic is a deputy chairman of the second most influential committee in the European Parliament and is a leader of the delegation for the relations with Ukraine.

The complicated case of Veljko Maric

About how powerful the influence of an opposition party can be over a national policy speaks the raising of the issue of the war veteran Veljko Maric by the HDZ MEPs during the debate on the progress report on Serbia. This issue has been present in Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic’s election campaign as well. From the very beginning of the discussions in the European Parliament after the Commission published its progress report, they have tried to impose a blockade on Serbia’s EU accession because of this complicated case. Veljko Maric was sentenced in 2011 in Belgrade to 12 years in prison for war crimes. The problem is, according to the Croatian MEPs, that he was sentenced under a controversial law that imposes a regional jurisdiction and so far only national or universal jurisdiction is known. The debate late in the evening on Tuesday on the resolution passed almost entirely under the sign of the Veljko Maric case which created tensions in the hall.

The criticism against the Croatian MEPs joined even the enlargement negotiations commissioner, Johannes Hahn, who urged, without explicitly mentioning the case, not to put requirements that do not exist in the European acquis or in the negotiations framework. “It’s important bilateral disputes do not hamper the overall negotiations”, he said. The Slovenian MEP Tanja Fajon from the Socialists and Democrats group directly attacked her Croatian colleagues, but, again, without mentioning the Veljko Maric case namely. “I’m rather concerned when I see general trends and pressure which have to do with issues which go beyond bilateral relations. The demand Serbia to review its law on war crimes is not part of the negotiations. Some European countries do have legislation of this kind. The Commission agrees with this. I would therefore suggest that you vote against this amendment. We should not use this theatre to try to gain national points”, the Slovenian MEP concluded thus provoking a series of blue cards by the Croatian members.

Their main defence is that it is not the very law on war crimes they are against but the fact that it creates a precedent with the introduction of a regional jurisdiction. This could be a threat to Slovenian citizens as well, warned Marijana Petir (EPP). She is known in Croatia as a very conservative politician. With the Croatian MEPs sided their Bulgarian colleague Angel Dzhambazki from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, who used the case to remind about the situation of the Bulgarian minority in Serbia. Despite the disputes, however, the voted on Thursday resolution urges Serbia to review its law on the competence of the court that views war crime cases in a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation with its neighbours and the Commission. Commissioner Hahn, too, committed to have this issue in mind. “I fully understand the sensitivity of this matter and Serbia and its neighbours need to look into the future in spirit of regional cooperation and reconciliation”, he said in the end of the debate which continued a little over than an hour.

A new life for the Serbian-Croatian relations

The issue was central also for the meeting between the first deputy prime ministers of Croatia and Serbia – Ms Vesna Pusic and Mr Ivica Dacic in Zagreb last week (11 March) . They met almost at the same time when the resolution was put to voting in Strasbourg. This was their first meeting after a pause, provoked by the release of Vojislav Seselj by the Hague tribunal. According to euinsidesources, the meeting was supposed to take place in the autumn but was postponed precisely because of the tensions between Zagreb and Belgrade provoked by Seselj. According to Ivica Dacic himself, this was a regular meeting, “so, you shouldn’t think that there are extraordinary reasons for our meeting”.

Later in an interview with the Croatian television RTL he said that there was an agreement the meeting to be postponed to await the presidential elections in Croatia.

Vesna Pusic announced in the beginning of their joint press conference, to which there was huge media interest in Zagreb, that “we have updated or drew a new life into our cooperation”. “Our assessment is that the relations between Serbia and Croatia are very good despite the different views and issues, there is always an open channel for communication. This is a precondition for resolving the outstanding problems”, she added and immediately went on to the Veljko Maric case. Ms Pusic recalled that Mr Maric was serving a sentence on the basis of the regional jurisdiction which is not known in the legal world and is not in line with the European standards. She insisted that Veljko Maric be transferred to serve his sentence in Croatia or his entire case to be transferred to the Croatian justice.

Ivica Dacic, in verbiage as usual, made it clear that Serbia is ready to show good will on this case. He recalled that Prime Minister Alexander Vucic personally committed with the resolution of this case by after a meeting with the newly elected president Grabar-Kitarovic, most probably, on the basis of humanitarian reasons. Mr Dacic, however, was surprised that the issue is фесхж raised now. No one ever criticised it before. “This law received the highest possible evaluations by those who studied war crimes. This law made it possible to indict 170 people for crimes committed on the territory of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only two of them are Croats. The rest are Serbs. If it was not for this jurisdiction they would have not been indicted, but as you said it yourselves, all these issues can be subject of discussions and a search of the best possible solution”, the Serbian foreign minister added.

Responding to a journalistic question, he assured that if proved that this law is not in line with the European standards it will be amended. In this sense, his counterpart Vesna Pusic urged for the quick opening of chapter 23 of the accession negotiations under which all such issues can be resolved. In the beginning of the debate on the resolution on Serbia in Strasbourg, however, Commissioner Hahn said that these chapters could be opened in the end of the year, although the screening of the Serbian legislation will finish in the end of March. Ivica Dacic reminded in Zagreb that Croatia had voted a declaration with which it promises that bilateral issues will never be an obstacle for Serbia and Vesna Pusic confirmed that this has not changed. Will this remain the same after the elections in Croatia, however, remains an open issue, especially bearing in mind that Veljko Maric is just one of a myriad of unresolved postwar issues between Croatia and Serbia.

These problems are divided in three groups. Two of them are related to the past and the war and the third one is related to the EU and Serbia’s future membership. According to Vesna Pusic, work is ongoing on all the three groups of problems and Ivica Dacic assured that those are specific issues and that it is not about theories and philosophies. “Serbia’s position is that the progress in the relations and the cooperation with Croatia is a priority. This is especially important for the stability of the whole region. Serbia wants to build good relations with Croatia. We are ready for a constructive political dialogue, for the creation of conditions to resolve all open issues. In this sense, we expect to accelerate the resolution of the open issues from the past”. This is obviously offering a hand but also a very long and bumpy road. In order to walk it successfully it will be crucial the political will of the two countries to remain intact. It is also important the EU not to be a neutral observer because this has a lot to do with its common stability and security. A curious detail in this sense is that while, during the discussion of the Maric case in the debate on Serbia there was criticism against Croatia for using bilateral issues to block Serbia’s EU path, whereas such criticism was spared against the Bulgarian or Greek MEPs during the debate on Macedonia.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Serbian-Croatian Relations Are Good … for Now

Writer’s Misperceptions About Pakistan’s Nuclear Safety

NOVANEWS

Image result for Pakistan’s Nuclear PHOTO

By Sajjad Shaukat

While showing their double standard, the US, India and some western countries use one pretext

or the other in targeting the nuclear programme of the unfavorable small countries in order to

obtain their selfish interests. As Pakistan is the only declared nuclear country in the Islamic

World, hence, it has become special target of some western top officials and media persons who

continue their propaganda against Pakistan’s nuclear programme. They have especially hired the

services of media anchors and writers who work on their payroll and have been creating doubts

about the safety and security of Pakistan’s atomic weapons and nuclear plants.

In this respect, in his article, “Let’s go nuclear—safely”, published in the daily Dawn on March

14, 2015, Pervez Hoodbhoy has tacitly shown his misperceptions about Pakistan’s nuclear safety

by following the propaganda of external enemies, as his contradictions, baseless arguments and

Enumerating the benefits of solar energy for Pakistan over nuclear energy, Pervez ill-conceived

that solar energy is being preferred “by majorities in the US, Europe, and Japan including

Denmark and India who think nuclear reactors are unsafe even with additional safety features.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster, more than the Chernobyl one, has left people deeply wary of

official promises…the complexity of reactors has sharply increased capital and running

costs…solar energy is cheapest than the power generated by reactors.”

Under the cover of solar energy, Pervez Hoodbhoy has not only challenged the well-protected

nuclear installations of Pakistan, but also implicitly target Pak-China strategic relationship, while

trying to incite the people of Karachi against the federation. In this context, he writes, “How

would Pakistan deal with massive radioactive release after deliberate sabotage, a terrorist attack

or operator error? The 120,000 of Fukushima could flee, the 20 million of Karachi cannot…the

construction of two additional 1,100 MW nuclear power plants is under way. Of untested design,

they are China’s first export of reactors…a loan offer of $6.8 billion…the nuclear plants are slyly

linked with national security.”

However, it is brought to the notice of Pervez that despite the use of solar energy, the US and

Japan including many western countries like Denmark prefer to generate electricity through

nuclear plants, which is the safest form of energy today, and also with sufficient safeguards built-

in and the most advanced nuclear reactor technology—Pakistan government has assured that no

threat to human life or ecology will take place.

Although India is heavily investing in solar power projects, yet there are also giant nuclear power

plants like Jaitapur with electricity capacity of 9600 MW.

Besides, the nuclear energy produces electricity without enhancing global warming, while solar

energy is intercepted by Earth from the sun—it includes all those fuels which have already been

used and their pollution is rapidly making the Earth warmer. In this connection, US-led most

developed countries are worried about the warming of Earth, and have held various conferences

to resolve this problem.

Moreover, solar power requires large area of land and in case of Pakistan; it can be used for

agriculture and forests. In future, Pakistan will have to depend on coal, hydro and nuclear power

to meet its energy needs. Comparatively, nuclear energy has more advantages, as it is cheaper

than coal or hydropower. Furthermore, taking lesson from the nuclear incident of Chernobyl, the

sites of nuclear power plants are selected after a careful process which engages International

Atomic Agency (IAEA) for maintaining best safety and security practices. The sites of

Pakistan’s upcoming power plants have been approved after consideration of huge data which

includes seismic, tsunami-related, meteorological, and deep underground features. Like the

earlier plants in Pakistan, this data has been incorporated into the designs of the power plants.

It is surprising that the writer who is a doctorate in physics has distorted facts. For example,

Fukushima incident did not kill or affected any person with radiations in Japan, because people

were evacuated from the concerned areas.

It is mentionable that Pakistan does not have enough money for wind and solar energy, and we

need a quick solution of power crisis, otherwise, we will be far more behind in race of prosperity.

For this purpose, Pak China joint ventures particularly nuclear reactors are well-thought projects

and should not be maligned.

Pervez Hoodbhoy’s attention is also invited toward rumors and ground realties. In 2009 when the

heavily-armed Taliban entered Swat, Dir and Buner, US high officials and their media had

exaggerated the ‘Talibinisation’ of whole Pakistan, while showing concerns about Pakistan’s

atomic arms. In that regard, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned that

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. But, Pakistan’s armed forces

ejected the Taliban insurgents out of these areas by breaking their backbone.

When insurgents had attacked on Pakistan’s Naval Airbase in Karachi on May 23, 2011, US-led

some western countries including India and Israel exploited the situation through disinformation

about the security of Pak nukes. Similarly, terrorists’ assault on Kamra Base was successfully

foiled by the personnel of Pakistan Air Force, but, a baseless report, published in the New York

Times on the same day indicated that suspected militants attacked a major Pakistani Air Force

base where some of the country’s nuclear weapons were considered to be stored in the early

hours of the militants’ attack. The ex-US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also stated on the same

day, “There is a danger of nuclear weapons of Pakistan, falling into hands of terrorists.”

During American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, this year, the US and

India announced a breakthrough on a pact which would allow American companies to supply

New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology. In this respect, both the countries had signed a deal

in 2008, but, Indian access to civilian nuclear technology was held up for six years amid

concerns over the liability for any nuclear accident or Indian poor nuclear safety.

India’s eagerness for entry into Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) and other regimes is aimed at

enhancing Defence-related capacities rather than meeting its energy requirements. With

American support, New Delhi which has obtained the NSG waiver has signed nuclear

cooperation agreements with France, Russia, United Kingdom etc.

Indian past record proves various kinds of security and safety lapses regarding various nuclear

plants and the related sensitive materials including events of leakage, nuclear theft, smuggling

In this context, in November, 2009, more than 90 Indian workers suffered radiation due to

contamination of drinking water at the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka. On July 27,

1991, a similar event occurred at the heavy water plant run by the Department of Atomic Energy

at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. Nuclear radiation had affected and injured many laborers there.

In July 1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized eight Kg. of nuclear material

from three engineers in Chennai, which was stolen from an atomic research center.

On November 7, 2000, IAEA disclosed that Indian police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and

arrested two men for illicit trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA had revealed that Indian

civil nuclear facilities were vulnerable to thefts.

On January 26, 2003, CNN pointed out that Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd.

shipped 10 consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive equipments entailing titanium

vessels and centrifugal pumps.

In December 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian

fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

In June 2009, India’s nuclear scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam missed from the scenario and

after a couple of days; his dead body was recovered from the Kali River. Indian police concocted

a story that Mahalingam had committed suicide by jumping into the river. It is a big joke to hide

some real facts behind his death because wisdom proves that if an educated person decides to

commit suicide, he will definitely adopt a soft way to eliminate his life. Afterwards, Dr. Haleema

Saadia said that death of the scientist was a conspiracy.

Nevertheless, by setting aside the Indian irresponsible record of security lapses and poor safety,

especially, US is likely to supply India civil nuclear technology. In fact, instead of Pakistan

which depends upon minimum deterrence in wake of Indian aggressive designs, US-led hostile

countries must better have concerns about the safety of India’s nuclear weapons and plants.

Despite the repeated assurances of Islamabad that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and various plants

are well-protected and are under tight security arrangements, a deliberate propaganda campaign

against their safety keeps on going by the external enemies.

In these terms, Pervez Hoodbhoy who has tacitly supported the agenda of some foreign powers

has only misguided the readers through his misperceptions about Pakistan’s nuclear safety.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Writer’s Misperceptions About Pakistan’s Nuclear Safety

IS Group Claims Responsibility for Attack on Tunisian Museum

NOVANEWS

Police officers and a journalist run outside the Parliament in Tunis March 18, 2015.

IS Group Claims Responsibility for Attack on Tunisian Museum Police officers and a journalist run outside the Parliament in Tunis March 18, 2015.

This was the deadliest attack in Tunisia in 13 years. At least 23 people were killed, 20 of whom were foreign tourists.

The Islamic State extremist group releases a recording Thursday claiming responsibility for the attack at the Bardo Museum in the Tunisian capital Wednesday, during which 23 people were killed, including 20 foreign tourists, a local and two of the gunmen, according to Reuters. Over 45 people were also injured in the attack.

The extremists, who have declared a caliphate in large swathes of Iraq and Syria and is active in chaotic Libya, praised the two attackers in an audio recording in Arabic, calling them “knights of the Islamic State” armed with machineguns and bombs.

Tunisians, according to Reuters, make up the one of the largest groups of foreign fighters in Syria, Iraq and Libya, and their country’s young democracy, which has cracked down on militancy at home, was a clear potential target.

“We tell the apostates who sit on the chest of Muslim Tunisia: Wait for the glad tidings of what will harm you, o impure ones, for what you have seen today is the first drop of the rain,” the Islamic State group said in the recording.

Earlier in the day, Tunisian President Beji Caid Essebsi announced nine people have been arrested in connection with the attack on the iconic Tunisian museum.

Four of the detainees, according to authorities, are directly involved in the attack and the other five have alleged ties to a terrorist cell. Tunisian security forces Wednesday killed two of the gunmen, who have now been identified as Yassine Laabidi and Hatem Khachnaoui. There is currently a manhunt for the two or three other gunmen who escaped the security forces.

“I want the people of Tunisia to understand firstly and lastly that we are in a war with terror, and these savage minority groups will not frighten us,” said President Essebsi. “The fight against them will continue until they are exterminated.”

The majority of the people killed in the attack were foreign tourists from Japan, Italy, Colombia, Spain, Australia, Poland and France. Two Tunisian citizens were also killed by the attackers.

This was the deadliest attack on civilians in Tunisia in the past 13 years and has been considered a major blow to tourism, which is one of the main sources of income in the country.

In early 2011, Tunisians overthrew their leader and began a rocky road toward democracy. Last December, even though other Arab Spring nations have devolved into civil war, Tunisia successfully had a peaceful democratic transition of leadership.

The Islamic State group on Twitter were gleeful over the attack and urged Tunisians to “follow their brothers.” There is no evidence that the attackers of the museum were connected with the Islamic State group.

Posted in TunisiaComments Off on IS Group Claims Responsibility for Attack on Tunisian Museum

Indigenous People, Workers Reject Ecuador Opposition Rally

NOVANEWS

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa meets with grassroots indigenous leaders in the presidential palace in Quito, March 16, 2015.

Opposition groups in Ecuador have called for a rally that the president’s supporters allege is seeking to destabilize the government.

A wide array of social movements, workers’ organizations, and groups representing indigenous peoples in Ecuador have publicly come out against an opposition march planned for Thursday in the capital Quito.

“We are working people who know that these call-outs are misleading efforts to destabilize the government,” said Teresa Urcuango, a grassroots leader from the town of Cayambe who participated in a face-to-face meeting with President Rafael Correa alongside other indigenous leaders. Those attending the meeting said they support Correa’s government and said they will not participate in the opposition rally on Thursday.

Urcuango questioned why leaders who purport to represent the people’s needs would ally themselves with conservative political forces in the country. Right-wing politician Guillermo Lasso, who lost to Correa in the 2013 presidential election, announced he would be participating in the opposition rally.

Rodrigo Collaguazao, spokesperson for the Social Movements Coordinating Body, said Wednesday that those organizing the rally are looking only to promote conflict and generate chaos in the country.

The Social Movements Coordinating Body also formally rejected the opposition-led rally on the grounds that they feel it seeks to destabilize the country.

Collaguazao accused the leadership of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) of deliberately misleading the public and called on the membership of that movement to analyze the accomplishments of the government of Rafael Correa. Recently, a rift between the leadership of the CONAIE and its bases has emerged publicly, with some grassroots leaders rejecting the confrontational style of the group’s leadership.

Social movements and indigenous peoples were joined by the United Workers Trade Union Federation (CUT) in their rejection of the opposition rally. The CUT, which unites 720 workers’ organizations, said in a statement, “The actions planned for March 19 by certain groups do not represent the peaceful and democratic will of the Ecuadorean people, nor the majority of the workers of the country.”

An opposition rally on September 17, 2014, resulted in violent clashes between protestors and security forces.

The CUT also questioned how organizations that consider themselves left-wing could play into the strategy of the right wing.

The groups organizing the rally on Thursday have a long list of demands representing both conservative and left-wing issues. The CONAIE has said they want to see changes to the proposed Land Law, though they have refused to participate in meetings with the National Assembly. Meanwhile, some opposition groups have said they are marching to express their displeasure with government’s recent decision to implement “safeguard” tariffs on imported luxury goods.

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on Indigenous People, Workers Reject Ecuador Opposition Rally

Venezuela: ‘Historical Precedent’ Shows US Wants to Intervene

NOVANEWS

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said the latest round of U.S. sanctions pose a threat to all Venezuelans.

 

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said the latest round of U.S. sanctions pose a threat to all Venezuelans.

Venezuela’s foreign minister told the OAS there is a “real threat” of the United States trying to militarily attack the country. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez accused the United States of aggression Thursday, during an extraordinary session of the Organization of American States (OAS).

During a fiery speech to the regional body, Rodriguez slammed President Barack Obama for declaring Venezuela a “threat” to the United States, and imposing sanctions on several high-level officials in Caracas.

“History has shown that declarations like this tend to precede military inventions,” she said. Rodriguez also warned the sanctions could be the prelude to an aggressive “economic blockade … as our brother people Cuba have suffered for over 50 years.”

“I emphasize that we are talking about historic facts, we aren’t imagining this, and we’re saying that history has repeatedly shown this, and this is a real threat, its not just about (sanctioning) certain officials,” she said.

She continued by arguing the individuals singled out for sanctions were targeted “not for being in a particular situation, but rather because they defended democracy and stability in Venezuela … because they defended the peace in Venezuela.”

The United States government has previously responded to criticism of its sanctions against Venezuela by arguing they are intended to punish individuals for engaging in human rights abuses. U.S. officials have cited the imprisonment of political opposition leaders such as Leopoldo Lopez, claiming the Venezuelan government is cracking down on dissent. Lopez is accused of masterminding a wave of violence in 2014, which left over 40 people dead – mostly government supporters, state security personnel and innocent bystanders. Many were killed when armed anti-government groups took to the streets to torch government buildings, block roads with barricades and attack perceived government supporters.

Related: Dangerous Diplomacy: US Praises Mexico and Honduras, Targets Venezuela Rodriguez argued opposition figures accused of supporting the violence should face justice.

“As in any country, when there are acts of violence, there are legal responsibilities to investigate and punish those acts,” she said. “Our task is to preserve our sovereignty.”

The foreign minister also questioned Obama’s claim that Venezuela poses a threat to U.S. national security.

“How can they consider Venezuela a threat, how can we be a threat to a powerful country (like the U.S);when we go to other countries, its to cooperate, in solidarity… our army has never left our borders to conquer other territories … our diplomacy has always been peaceful,” she said.

Despite the sanctions leading to relations between Washington and Caracas slipping to their lowest ebb since President Nicolas Maduro was elected to office in 2013, Rodriguez said Venezuela remains open to dialogue with the Obama administration.

Earlier on Thursday, Ecuador offered to mediate talks between the two countries.

Rodriguez explained, “Last year, President Maduro gave his hand to the U.S. government, we talked … the only condition Maduro has is that dialogue be with respect, on an equal footing … on equal terms.”

“We believe in a peaceful solution to any conflicts between states.. that has been, and will (continue to) be our position,” she added.

U.S. Response

U.S. Deputy Representative to the OAS Michael Fitzpatrick responded to Rodriguez by defending the sanctions, arguing the designation of Venezuela as a national security threat had been “taken out of context.”

“The US did not create the problems Venezuela faces,” he claimed.

Related: Fact Checking the US Senate Subcommittee on Venezuela

Stating the sanctions aren’t part of a broader plan of aggression, he said, “My government does not wish to see a Venezuela that is unstable or in poverty … we want to see Venezuela thrive and return to a state of prosperity.”

He also claimed “many countries in the region” share Washington’s concern over human rights in Venezuela, but didn’t name any particular nation. Regional bodies including UNASUR, CELAC and ALBA – which collectively represent almost all of Latin America – have condemned the U.S. sanctions.

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela: ‘Historical Precedent’ Shows US Wants to Intervene

Ecuador Offers to Mediate US-Venezuela Talks

NOVANEWS

Foreign Minister Ricado Patiño says Ecuador can offer “brotherly” support to the United States and Venezuela.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño said both Venezuela and the United States have shown “interest” in resolving the conflict.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño said both Venezuela and the United States have shown “interest” in resolving the conflict.

Ecuador announced Wednesday that it could act as an intermediary to resolve a diplomatic crisis between Venezuela and the United States.

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño explained that he hoped both countries could “reduce tensions” through mediated dialogue.

“Despite public differences, I think both countries are interested in dialogue. Maybe they need a little support, the help of brotherly countries; and if we can do that, we’re delighted,” he said.

The option of international mediation was first floated by the Venezuelan government earlier this week. Foreign ministers that form part of the Boliviarian Alliance for the People of Our America (ALBA) will also participate in the mediating commission.

Diplomatic relations between Caracas and Washington have ebbed to their lowest level in years after the United States imposed new sanctions on Venezuela in late 2014.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a “threat” to national security and imposed yet another round of sanctions under a controversial executive order. The U.S. measures have been condemned by most of Latin America, including Ecuador.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa described Obama’s executive order as “embarrassing.”

“How can the United States possibly claim that Venezuela is a threat to their national security?” President Correa asked during his weekly address to the nation on Saturday.

“It’s the same story as always … what the United States is trying to do is destabilize the progressive governments in the region,” Correa stated.

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on Ecuador Offers to Mediate US-Venezuela Talks

“Hollywood-Style” Foreign Policy: Remembering the 1983 US Military Intervention in Grenada

NOVANEWS
Global Research
grenada_invasion

Grenada is an independent state, a member of the U.N., located in the southern portion of the Caribbean Sea very close to the mainland of the South America (Venezuela). The state is composed by southernmost of the Windward Islands combined with several small islands which belong to the Grenadines Archipelago, populated by almost 110,000 people of whom 82% are the blacks (2012 estimations). The state of Grenada is physically mostly forested mountains’ area (of volcanic origin) with some crater lakes and springs. In the valleys are bananas, spices and sugar cane grown. The country is out of any natural wealth significance but has relatively high geostrategic importance. Economy was and is primarily agricultural with some very limited small-scale industry of the food production nature with developing tourism sector as growing source of the national G.D.P. The state budget is constantly under a high level of foreign debt (a “debt slavery” phenomenon).

As the island, Grenada was discovered by the Europeans (Ch. Columbus) in 1498 and colonized by the French in 1650 becoming a possession of the French royal crown in 1674. During the Seven Years War (1756−1763) between all major European states, Grenada was occupied by the British and according to the Peace Treaty of Paris in 1763 was given to the United Kingdom being a British possession for almost two hundred years with preservation of slavery. The process of democratization of the island started in 1950 when the universal adult suffrage is granted by the United Labor Party. Being shortly a member of the West Indian Federation (1958−1962) and seeking internationally recognized independence, Grenada was granted such separate independence only in 1974 with Matthew Gairy (a leader of the United Labor Party) as the first Grenada’s PM. However, only three years later in 1979 Gairy was deposed from the post in a coup d’état lead by Maurice Bishop (1944−1983) as a leader of a Marxist political group under the official title of the New Jewel Movement. M. Bishop proclaimed a new Government under the name of the People’s Revolutionary Government that became not welcomed by the U.S. administration like the Socialist (Marxist-democrat) Government in Chile after the 1970 elections formed by Salvador Allende (1908−1973).

The issue is in this case that Allende was the first Marxist in the world’s history who became elected by the popular vote as the President of one sovereign and independent state. A new President of Chile was a head of the Unidad Popular that was a coalition of the Marxists (Communists) and the Socialists and therefore faced by hostility of the U.S.A. whose administration supported Chili Congress against Allende. The Congress backed by the U.S.A. heavily opposed Allende’s radical program of nationalization and agrarian reform – a program voted by the electorate in 1970. Due to such obstruction, there were inflation, capital flight and balance-payments deficit which heavily contributed to an economic crisis in Chile in 1973: exactly what the U.S. administrated wanted and needed. The crisis became the main excuse for the military coup organized and accomplished by the Chili army Commander-in-Chief general Augusto Pinochet (born in 1915) – a typical local exponent of the US global politics. As a consequence, there were around 15,000 killed people together with President Allende and about 10% of the Chileans who left the country during the new military dictatorship (1973−1990) which replaced Chili democracy elected by the people and brutally abolished all labor unions and any opposition organizations and groups. The capitalism was fully restored with the economy and social order very depended on the U.S. financial support as a price for transformation of the country into classic (U.S.) colony. Nevertheless, the 1973 military suppression of democracy in Chile was a clear message to the whole Latin America that the Monroe Doctrine of “America to the Americans” (read in fact as “Americas to the U.S.”) is still leading framework of the U.S. foreign policy in this part of the globe. For the matter of illustration, for instance, there was the U.S. direct military invasion of Panama followed by the fall of General Noriega in December 1989: “Operation Just Cause”.

Similarly to the case of Allende Case in Chile, Grenada governed by the President M. Bishop turned to the left in both inner and external policy of the state. Therefore, he encouraged very closer relations with F. Castro’s Cuba and potentially to the USSR. As a result, at the island there were some Cuban military presence composed by the engineers who were repairing and expanding the local airport. This fact became the main reason that political situation in Grenada became of interest of the U.S. administration. However, due to the internal quarrel within the People’s Revolutionary Government, Bishop was overthrown from the post and murdered by another Marxist, Bernard Coard, in 1983 who took control over the Government. There were the clashes of protesters with the governmental troops and soon violence escalated. However, the army troops under the command of General Hudson Austin soon took power and established a new military regime. This new Grenada coup was immediately followed by direct US military intervention in the island on October 23rd, under the order by the U.S. President Ronald Reagan (the “Operation Urgent Fury”), for the very real reason to prevent a Marxist revolutionary council to take power. The U.S. military troops left Grenada in December 1983 after the re-establishment of “democratic” (pre-revolutionary) regime and of course pro-American one transforming Grenada into one more Washington’s client state.

It is of very concern to see what was de jure explanation by the U.S. President Reagan for such military intervention and de facto the U.S. military occupation of one sovereign and independent state. The President, based on the C.I.A. reports on the threat posed to the U.S. citizens in Grenada (the students) by the Communist regime, issued the order to the U.S. Marines to invade the island in order to secure their lives. Here we have to remember a very fact of issue how much the C.I.A. reports have been (and are) really accurate and reliable by only two fresh examples:

In 1999 Serbia and Montenegro were bombed by the N.A.T.O.’s troops (the “Operation Merciful Angel”) exactly based on the C.I.A. information about the organized (the “Operation Horse Shoe”) and well done massive ethnic cleansing of the local Kosovo Albanians (100,000 killed) committed by the Serbian regular army and police forces.

In 2003 the U.S. and the U.K. troops invaded Iraq based also on the C.I.A. reports about possession of the A.B.C. weapons for mass destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein (1937−2006) (the “Operation Desert Storm 2”).

However, in both mentioned cases the reports are “proved to be unproved”, i.e. very false.

The fact was that in the 1983 Grenada Case, there were really about 1,000 U.S. citizens in the island, majority of them studying at the local medical school. Citing the alleged danger to the U.S. citizens in Grenada, the President ordered around 2,000 U.S. troops, combined by some international forces from the Regional Security System based in Barbados. The White House claimed that it received a formal request for military intervention by the PM’s of Barbados and Dominica. If it is true, and probably it is, then any state receiving such invitation by the foreign Governments (second states) has right to invade other state (third state) in order to restore the “democratic” order (in the sense of bringing justice) or at least to protect its own citizens. Nonetheless, the fact was that during the intervention in Grenada, the U.S. troops faced military opposition by the Grenadian army relying on minimal intelligence about the situation in the country. For example, the U.S. military used in this case old tourist maps of the island. Similar “mistake” the N.A.T.O. did in the 1999 Kosovo Case by bombing the Chinese embassy in the wide center of Belgrade using also outdated tourist map on which a new Chinese embassy did not exist. In order to break the Grenadian resistance the “Hollywood” President R. Reagan sent additional 4,000 troops to the island. Finally, an “international coalition” lead by the U.S. troops succeeded to replace the Government of Grenada by one acceptable to the U.S.A.

Regardless to the fact that a great part of the Americans did not support the 1983 Grenada Case that it took place only several days after a very disastrous terror act on the U.S. military post in Lebanon when over 240 U.S. troops were killed, calling into very question the use of the U.S. military force in order to achieve the political goals, Reagan’s administration officially proclaimed the case to be the first “rollback” of the Communist influence since the beginning of the Cold War in 1949 (as the U.S. military interventions against the “Communist infection” in Korea and Vietnam have been unsuccessful). A justification of the military invasion was mainly framed within the idea that the U.S. citizens (students) in Grenada could be taken as the hostages similar to the 1979 Teheran Hostage Crisis. However, several U.S. Congressmen, like Louis Stoks (Ohio), denied any real danger for any American in Grenada prior to the invasion (that was confirmed and by the students themselves) followed by unsuccessful attempt by seven Democrats in the Congress, led by Ted Weiss, to introduce a resolution to impeach R. Reagan. Finally, the U.N. General Assembly with majority votes (108, with only 9 against and 27 abstentions) adopted Resolution 38/7 on October 28th, 1983 which clearly accused the U.S.A. for violation of international law (“deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State”).

The 1983 Grenada Case is not for sure either the first or the last “Hollywood-style” violation of the international law and territorial sovereignty of some independent state by the U.S. (or other) administration. But it is sure that it was done by the order of up today the only “Hollywood” cowboy-actor star in the office of White House in Washington.

Posted in USAComments Off on “Hollywood-Style” Foreign Policy: Remembering the 1983 US Military Intervention in Grenada

Obama’s Double-Standard on Russia

He Attacks Russia, then Condemn’s Putin for Defending Russia from His Attack

Global Research
crisis in ukraine3

Ukraine is considered by geostrategists (both Republican and Democratic) to be militarily the most important adjoining nation to Russia, serving as the chief buffer to attacks against Russia from the west. Since 1783, Russia has had its key Black Sea naval base located in Crimea, which used to be part of Russia 1783-1954; the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev blithely donated Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, though the residents in Crimea didn’t want that — and no referendum was taken on it. After the Soviet Union broke up in 1992, this naval base continued but instead on a long-term lease from Ukraine. 

For Ukraine to become anti-Russian would be like for Mexico to become anti-American: even worse than when Cuba became anti-American in 1959. Mexico, of course, isn’t anti-American, but, during Barack Obama’s second term, Ukraine did, indeed, become anti-Russian. It happened not via any democratic revolution (such as American propaganda pretended), but via a bloody coup. Here is how it transpired:

After Mr. Obama (who had been raised surrounded by CIA operatives) finally became elected to a second term, he switched his key official controlling Ukrainian policy from the benign internationalist Philip Gordon, who considered America’s chief enemy to be global jihadism, to the hard-right America-supremacist Victoria Nuland, who considers America’s chief enemy to be instead the nation of Russia.

Nuland had originally been brought into Bill Clinton’s Administration when the nationalistic Russia-hater Strobe Talbott in Clinton’s State Department made her his Chief of Staff; she then became Vice President Dick Cheney’s foreign-affairs advisor, and was brought back again into the State Department by Hillary Clinton in 2011. In September 2013, Nuland was promoted to become Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, working under John Kerry, and she promptly set herself to the task of overthrowing the democratically elected pro-Russian Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych — to turn Ukraine from pro-Russian to anti-Russian.

Here is Nuland, speaking by phone with Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine, on 4 February 2014, telling him whom to get to be appointed as the leader of Ukraine after the democratically elected pro-Russian President of Ukraine will be overthrown on 22 February 2014, which happened just 18 days later in a very bloody coup. The man she chose, “Yats,” got the appointment. The founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor has said that this was “the most blatant coup in history.” The Czech President has said that “only poorly informed people” don’t know that it was a coup and equate it with Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic 1968 “Velvent Revolution” against the Soviet Union. Instead of the tactful “poorly informed,” the simple reality is: deceived. The American public are deceived.

Here is a member of Ukraine’s parliament, or Rada, speaking on 20 November 2013, prior to the start of “Maidan” demonstrations against Yanukovych, and even before Yanukovych had announced that he would turn down the EU’s offer to Ukraine, in which this parliamentarian is describing in remarkable detail the preparations that the U.S. Embassy already had underway to produce a coup which would bring down Yanukovych and replace him with a leader who would be controlled from Washington. Hackers had gotten into the American Embassy’s emails, and this parliamentarian reported what they had discovered. He says:

“American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine — radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. ‘Tech Camp’ representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far.”

This plan was built upon something that the previous Ambassador (whom Obama had appointed in 2009) had actually started even before Nuland was appointed. Here is an announcement from the Embassy in Ukraine, on 1 March 2013, titled, “U.S. Embassy Hosted TechCamp Kyiv 2.0 to Build Technological Capacity of Civil Society.” (That Ambassador is now our Ambassador to Russia.)

Steve Weissman at Reader Supported News provided, a year ago, on 25 March 2014, the best backgrounder on the man whom Obama chose in 2013 to serve as America’s new Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, the person who worked with Nuland, and it is clear from his background that he was the perfect person on the ground in Kiev to carry out the instructions from an extreme nationalist and imperialist such as Nuland.

So: this was a coup, arranged in the White House. It was Obama to Kerry to Nuland to Pyatt.

Here is the phone-conversation right after the coup, in which the Foreign Affairs chief of the EU receives from her investigator in Kiev, his finding as to what had happened — that it was a coup and not a democratic overthrow, not a democratic revolution at all.

Vladimir Putin knew about all of these things while they were happening. He knew that Obama was clearly set upon attacking Russia and on using Ukraine as the proxy-state to get the conflict going. He acted promptly on this knowledge: For example, he sent an advanced ABM missile system to Crimea — suitable to shoot down planes or anything — to prevent the Ukrainian Air Force from attacking Crimea in the lead-up to the 16 Marcch 2014 referendum.

As I have pointed out previously, the population of Crimea, both before and after the coup, wanted very much to return to Russia. The 96% vote for that in the 16 March 2014 Crimean referendum turns out to be exactly concordant with the Gallup polls that the U.S. Government commissioned and that were taken both before and after the referendum. Gallup found overwhelming public support in Crimea for returning to Russia, and found that overwhelmingly the 500 Crimeans who were sampled after the referendum thought that the 96% vote for returning to Russia was authentically reflecting Crimean opinion on the matter.

Now, with that as the actual history of America’s aggression against Russia during President Obama’s second term, consider that, on 16 March 2015, which was the first anniversary of the referendum in Crimea, Jen Psaki, at the U.S. State Department headlined, “One Year Later — Russia’s Occupation of Crimea,” and she said:

“On this one year anniversary of the sham ‘referendum’ in Crimea, held in clear violation of Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution, the United States reiterates its condemnation of a vote that was not voluntary, transparent, or democratic. We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.”

This is the way that the U.S., which is occupying Ukraine (by coup), talks about Russia, which protected the Crimeans from being subjected to the hell that the people in Donbass are now experiencing from the Ukrainian Occupying Regime, no legal Government at all. And, for that — the sheer illegality of what Obama did — just read this. Then consider that Obama is demanding that the entirely undemocratic and forced transfer of Crimea by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954 must stand as being legal, while this entirely democratic plebiscite on the issue in 2014 must be called “not voluntary, transparent, or democratic.” That takes some nerve (and a deceived public).

Ms. Psaki continues with her string of lies, including:

“Over the last year, the human rights situation in Crimea has deteriorated dramatically, with mounting repression of minority communities and faiths, in particular Crimean Tatars, and systematic denial of fundamental freedoms. Local residents have been detained, interrogated, and disappeared and NGOs and independent media have been driven out of the peninsula. These brutalities are unacceptable and we call on Russia to stop further abuses.”

She describes the situation in Crimea as if it were instead the actual situation in Donbass, with all of the U.S. Government’s stooge-regime bombing and even firebombing the residents there in order to, simply, get rid of them.

Adolf Hitler could learn a thing or two from this man O’Bomba.

Obama is the aggressor here, just as Hitler was the aggressor in Poland in 1939. And O’Bomba blames Russia as the aggressor, just as Hitler blamed Poland.

Obama overthrew the legal Government, and replaced it by this illegal one. But now he criticizes Putin as if he were the aggressor instead of the defender here. And Obama demands that the Soviet dictator’s forced transfer of Crimea to Ukraine be legal and that Putin’s defense of Crimeans’ democratic self-determination in response to that coup be considered illegal.

It’s the Big Lie, all over again, but this time backed by, and yet also up against, nuclear weapons, and thus far more dangerous than before.

How did America manage to be headed by such a monster? We Americans need to ponder that. This isn’t a partisan issue. I voted for Obama both times, as the lesser of two evils. But now both Parties are outright rotten. This is not a democracy any longer. Illusions to the contrary must end — and soon. Before we get to World War III.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Obama’s Double-Standard on Russia

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING