Monday, August 6, 2012

Why is all this happening in Syria?

This article is a follow-on from What on earth is happening with Syria?, which I wrote and posted on Friday, August 3, 2012. It is the second in an intended series comprising:
  1. What on earth is happening with Syria?
  2. Why is all this happening?
  3. What will take place next?
  4. Where will it all lead?
It sis very easy for our thoughts to be captured and shaped by the mass media. There is such a continuous assault on us that it is difficult to know what;'s right or wrong. There is so much disinformation, and it comes in varied shapes and dispositions, that finding the truth is like finding a needle in a hay stack!

Understanding Syria requires understanding the region, and its recent history.

Ummm, found it!

Syria is in the Middle-East, embedded right next to Israel. Being next to Israel, Lebanon and Iraq mean it is in a very volatile area, and that volatility has been there for some time; certainly since the modern state of Israel was founded post WWII.

Specifically, Syria is on the Mediterranean Sea, with Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan to the south, Lebanon to the south-west and Israel to the wouth-south-west.

The World Island

Sir Halford John Mackinder was a British geographer who wrote a paper in 1904 called "The Geographical Pivot of History." Mackinder's paper suggested that the control of Eastern Europe was vital to control of the world. He formulated his hypothesis as:

    Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland
    Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island
    Who rules the World-Island commands the world

Mackinder's Heartland (also known as the Pivot Area) is the core area of Eurasia, and the World-Island is all of Eurasia (both Europe and Asia).

The 20th century was dominated by three visions of Eurasian geopolitics: "The World Island," "Containment," and "Prometheism." 
(The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of the West (Praeger Security International)

Economy & Resources

Socialism became the official economic policy in 1963. Since then the trend has been toward socialist transformation and industrialization. In commerce, state control is mainly restricted to foreign-exchange operations. Small private businesses and cooperatives are still in operation, and the retail trade is still part of the private sector, despite competition from consumer cooperatives in the large cities. The government controls the most vital sectors of the country’s economy and regulates private business. The state operates the oil refineries, the large electricity plants, the railways, and various manufacturing plants.

More Reading


Ac cording to the CIA Factbook, religions are comprised of:
  • Sunni Muslim (Islam - official) 74%
  • other Muslim (includes Alawite, Druze) 16%
  • Christian (various denominations) 10%
  • Jewish (tiny communities in Damascus, Al Qamishli, and Aleppo)

And then, there's the Israel factor!

Syria has also threatened Israel with annihilation; or at the very least dismantling of the Israel state. Here's a brief overview of conflicts between these states:

Israeli War of Independence/ "al-Nakba" (The Disaster) (1948-1949)
Israeli-Syrian Border and Air Battle (Nov. 13, 1964)
Israeli-Syrian Border Battles (Summer, 1966)
Israeli-Syrian Air Battle (July 7, 1966)
Israeli-Syrian Air/Sea Battle (Aug. 15, 1966)
The Yom Kippur (Ramadan) War (1973)
The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1982-1984)
Israeli Air Strike on Syria (October, 2003)
Israeli Air Strike on Syria (Sept. 6, 2007)
Nakba Day Border Incidents-on May 15 and June 5, 2011

more reading:


Assad Threatens Israel With Missiles if Syria is Attacked

Syrian President Bashar Assad has ordered the heads of his military to hit Israel with a barrage of missiles should there be any foreign intervention in Syria, a Jordanian news website reported on Saturday.

According to the site, Our Country’s News, Assad gave the order in a secret meeting with the heads of the Syrian army last Thursday, in light of his fear of a U.S. military strike in Syria.

First Publish: 3/4/2012, source:

So, again we ask WHY is all this happening?

OK, let's put a few cars in order then:
  • USA/NATO is the largest military empire on the planet
  • Eurasia is geo-politically sensitive
  • Eurasia is unstable, and threatens supply of oil and other resources to USA, Europe and other western nations
  • China is growing, and has designs on the region; possibly more equitable than those of the USA!
  • Russia and China both have tis with Syria
  • Syria has close ties with Iran, which the USA has well and truely in its sight for regime change

The White House is now "redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Assad al-Assad," The New York Times reported July 21. "Administration officials have been in talks with officials in Turkey and Israel over how to manage a Syrian government collapse."


How long has the USA genuinely had designs on Syria?

I've mentioned this before, but it's well worth repeating. This time, from a different source...

Political blogger Glenn Greenwald recently wrote about retired General Wesley Clark’s recollection of an officer telling him in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that the then-U.S. Secretary of Defense had issued a memo outlining a plan for regime change within five years in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. We play an excerpt of Clark’s comments and ask Greenwald to respond. "What struck me in listening to that video just a couple of days ago is that if you go down that list of seven countries that he said the neocons had planned to basically change the governments of, you pretty much see that that vision, despite the perception that we have a Democratic president and therefore the neoconservative movement is powerless, is pretty much being fulfilled," Greenwald says.

A full transcript is in another article in this BLOG at


Syria is one piece in the puzzle of extended regime change designed to topple governments that are non-cooperative with the globalist New World Order, which (if the NWO has its way) will see many Middle-Eastern and former USSR countries assimilated into the globalist system, milked for all they are worth, have their cultures destroyed and their people treated as commodities.

Glenn Greenwald: Is Obama Fulfilling the Neocon Dream of Mass Regime Change in Muslim World?

Political blogger Glenn Greenwald recently wrote about retired General Wesley Clark’s recollection of an officer telling him in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that the then-U.S. Secretary of Defense had issued a memo outlining a plan for regime change within five years in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. We play an excerpt of Clark’s comments and ask Greenwald to respond. "What struck me in listening to that video just a couple of days ago is that if you go down that list of seven countries that he said the neocons had planned to basically change the governments of, you pretty much see that that vision, despite the perception that we have a Democratic president and therefore the neoconservative movement is powerless, is pretty much being fulfilled," Greenwald says.


AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, in your latest piece, you wrote about the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, and started talking about neocon, neoconservative, foreign policy as it relates to the Obama administration. Explain.

GLENN GREENWALD: There was a speech that General Wesley Clark gave in 2007 to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, in which he recounted meetings that he had at the Pentagon with people with whom he had close relationships in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and he talked about how, as he had done before, that he was told within a week or two after 9/11 that the Pentagon intended to attack Iraq, even though no one thought that they were involved in the 9/11 attack. And he described an incident where he went back to the Pentagon a few weeks after he was told this, in October or November of 2001, and he asked his source, "Well, it looks like we’re going to attack Afghanistan. You told me we were going to attack Iraq. Are we still going to attack Iraq?" And the source told him, "Oh, General, it’s actually much worse than this." The—



AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, we’re actually going to play the clip of Wesley Clark.

GLENN GREENWALD: OK, yeah, good. OK, good.

    GEN. WESLEY CLARK: What happened in 9/11 is we didn’t have a strategy, we didn’t have bipartisan agreement, we didn’t have American understanding of it. And we had, instead, a policy coup in this country. A coup, a policy coup. Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy, and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.

    I went through the Pentagon 10 days after 9/11. I couldn’t stay away from Mother Army. I went back there to see Don Rumsfeld. I had worked for him as a White House fellow in the 1970s. All this is in the book. And I said, "Am I doing OK on CNN?" He said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, fine." He said, "I’m thinking about" — he says, "I read your book." And he said—this is a book that talks about the Kosovo campaign. And he said, "I just want to tell you," he said, "nobody’s going to tell us where or when we can bomb. Nobody." He said, "I’m thinking of calling this a floating coalition. What do you think about that?" I said, "Well, sir, thanks for reading my book. And, well" — he said, "Thanks, that’s all the time I’ve got." Really.

    And I went downstairs. I was leaving the Pentagon, and an officer from the joint staff called me into his office and said, "I want you to know," he said. "Sir, we’re going to attack Iraq." And I said, "Why?" He said, "We don’t know." He said—I said, "Well, did they tie Saddam to 9/11?" He said, "No." He said, "But I guess it’s they don’t know what to do about terrorism, and so they think—but they can attack states, and they want to look strong. And so, I guess they think if they take down a state, it will intimidate the terrorists. And, you know, it’s like that old saying," he said, "if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to be a nail." Well, I walked out of there pretty upset.

    And then we attacked Afghanistan. I was pretty happy about that. We should have. And then I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later. I saw the same officer. I said, "Why—why haven’t we attacked Iraq? We still going to attack Iraq?" He said, "Oh, sir," he says, "it’s worse than that." He said—he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk. He said, "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."

AMY GOODMAN: That was General Wesley Clark. Glenn Greenwald, the significance of what he said?

GLENN GREENWALD: So that seems like a fairly radical plan. And he’s talking about what he calls this neocon cabal that had implemented this extremist, militaristic vision, justified on the basis of 9/11. He actually goes on to describe how Paul Wolfowitz, 10 years earlier, was talking about these things well before 9/11.

But what struck me in listening to that video just a couple of days ago is that if you go down that list of seven countries that he said the neocons had planned to basically change the governments of, you pretty much see that that vision, despite the perception that we have a Democratic president and therefore the neoconservative movement is powerless, is pretty much being fulfilled. I mean, the governments of Iraq and Libya and Lebanon, three of those countries, have been changed, including Libya this year by military force. You then look at Somalia and Sudan, where the Obama administration in Somalia has, according to the Washington Post, just this weekend massively escalated its proxy fighting and drone attacks. We’re involved in trying to subvert and control Somalia in all sorts of ways. We have a modest deployment to the south part of Sudan. But that’s another country where we’re now militarily active and trying to control. And then the most important countries on that list, Iran and Syria, are clearly the target of all sorts of covert regime change efforts on the part of the United States and Israel. That is clearly the goal that the United States government has adopted for itself, is to get rid of the Iranian mullahs and the Assad regime in Syria. And so, if you look at what Clark described in a way that he intended to be very frightening and extremist that the neocons wanted to do in these seven countries, it seems pretty clear to me that although we may not be doing it with as much of an overt war as the neocons would like, it’s just a slightly subtle, more subtle and different means of achieving the same end.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the drone strikes and fitting it in with the Project for a New American Century, this—what’s happened in Pakistan now, Pakistan saying the U.S. has to clear out of a base that is believed to be being used by the United States to launch drone strikes, but drone strikes not only in Pakistan?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, this is—this is what’s so amazing to me, is if you go and look back at what the Congress did in the wake of 9/11, when it enacted the authorization to use military force, if you look at that authorization, it’s incredibly narrow, as it turns out. If you go and actually read it, it says the president is authorized to use military force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and those countries who harbor those individuals. That’s it. That’s the only authorized use of military force.

Well, here we are, more than a decade later, and there was an article in the Washington Post from a week ago where U.S. officials anonymously are saying that, in essence, al-Qaeda, the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attack, according to the government, is now dead. There’s only two leaders left, they say, in that entire region. It’s already rendered, quote, "effectively inoperable." There is no more al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan or Pakistan, according to the U.S. government. The group that perpetrated 9/11, according to it, is no longer even existing. And yet, here we are engaged in extraordinarily broad military efforts constantly escalating in numerous parts of the world. There are six different countries in which the U.S. is actively using drones—in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen—against groups that didn’t even exist at the time that 9/11 was perpetrated.

And constantly, what you find is we are killing all sorts of civilians. There was just a story, a horrible story from four days ago, where a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan slaughtered an entire family of children, six children between the ages of four and 12. And what we’re doing, in essence, is not only going way beyond what we were supposed to be doing when the Congress authorized military forces, what we’re really doing is we’re constantly manufacturing the causes of our war. Everywhere we go, every time we kill Pakistani troops or kill children in Yemen or in Afghanistan, we’re generating more and more anti-American sentiment and violence, and therefore guaranteeing that we will always have more and more people to fight.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney, a political, legal blogger for When we come back, Glenn, we want to ask you about WikiLeaks winning the equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. This is in Australia. Stay with us.


Breaking NEWS: Syria CIVIL WAR Obama supports REBELS, Al-Qaeda take down...

Obama Using Free Syrian Army in Proxy War to Justify Future Attack

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
August 4, 2012

Kofi Annan, UN envoy to Syria, has quit his mission by stepping down from his attempts to facilitate peace through his 6 point peace plan.

Mainstream media is blaming Annan for failing to bring peace in an obvious redirection of attention to the actuality of the situation in Syria. While Annan’s stepping down was strategic, this is but a segway to the purpose of the plan to invade Syria as a fake “last resort”. Assad is perfectly aware of this.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, spending months supposedly pushing peace, while truly threatening all surrounding nations that the US and Israel are gaining ground to have full international backing of their strong desire to strike Syria and remove Assad.

Obama has signed an order giving financial and military support to the FSA. A crafty directive was written, giving the US greater covert “non-lethal” assistance and the State Department “set aside” $25 million for the fake revolutionaries.

The US Treasury has granted release of funds to the FSA through the Syrian Support Group (SSG), a Washington representative of the FSA to conduct financial transactions. The SSG’s “vision” is to “promote the establishment of a free, independent and democratic Syria.” Whenever the ideals of democracy are brought to a foreign nation, through the assistance of the US government, American interests in the resources of that nation are evident.

Under the cover of humanitarian aid, and feigning participation with the UN Security Council on a four-pronged strategy to impose stricter sanctions; these efforts of “non-lethal aid” are designed to squeeze Syria and force them to acquiesce to the US.

The “ showdown in Aleppo ”, where the full extent of the arming of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) can be exposed, this is simply a pre-cursor to war.

Through this proxy war, the US have sent in their go-to terrorist organization, al-Qaeda to provide recruitment and training to the FSA for the most effective attacks while the US works on the international community.

Members of FSA openly admit they are fighting for al-Qaeda. Abu Khuder, militant in the FSA explains : “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaeda] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.”

Abu Thuha (a pseudonym) is an al-Qaeda operative who claims that “we have experience now fighting the Americans, and more experience now with the Syrian revolution. Our big hope is to form a Syrian-Iraqi Islamic state for all Muslims, and then announce our war against Iran and Israel, and free Palestine.”

To keep information from getting out, cell phone and internet signals have been blocked. The FSA is being trained by the CIA in Turkey and unleashed with US grade weapons onto Syrian governmental forces. NATO forces have joined the covert mission of the US government to effect as must devastation as possible before the real battle officially begins.

There have been reports that insurgents are showing up in Turkey, attacking the CIA bases; perhaps in a tactical war effort.

Gerard Araud, President of the UN Security Council admits that NATO forces are focusing on appearing to be assisting with humanitarian efforts while their covert mission is to help the CIA funded fake revolutionaries.

The globalist rhetoric coming from the UN Security Council is a non-binding resolution that condemns Syria for using “heavy weapons in the fight against rebel forces”. Essentially, the UN is punishing Syria for defending itself from being taken over by foreign invaders.

Russian and China, recognizing the speedy framing of Syria in an obvious stunt to encourage international support, have vetoed previous resolutions against the Middle Eastern nation.
Tags: CIA, fake revolutions, false flag, free syrian army, new world order, syria


WHO WAS OSAMA? WHO IS OBAMA? Go back to roots :)

While the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama "celebrates" the first anniversary of the alleged death of bin Laden, the substantive issue as to WHO WAS OSAMA BIN LADEN remains unheralded. (Remarks by President Obama in Address to the Nation from Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, see video at foot of article)

Through lies and fabrications --which he intends to use in his election campaign-- president Obama`s carefully scripted speech upholds a world of total fantasy, in which "bad guys" are lurking and "plotting acts of terror". Meanwhile, Islamic "jihadists" are said to be threatening Western civilization.

Each and every statement in Obama's May 1st speech at Bagram Air Force base regarding the role of Al Qaeda is a fabrication: (below are excerpts from Obama's Remarks in italics, author's comments are indicated inside square brackets [ ] ):

It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe haven for his terrorist organization

[Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA, Al Qaeda was set up with the support of the CIA. Osama's safe haven was protected by US intelligence] .

It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror.

[The Mujahideen were recruited and trained by the CIA. America's ally Saudi Arabia financed the Wahabbi koranic schools, Ronald Reagan praised the Mujahideen as "Freedom Fighters". Unknown to the American public, the US spread the teachings of the "Islamic jihad" in textbooks "Made in America", developed at the University of Nebraska]

It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

[Obama is referring to the tragic events of September 11 2001. To this date there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, confirmed by CBS News, on September 10, 2001 Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America's ally Pakistan. Did he coordinate the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed?]

And so, 10 years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us.

[The 9/11 attacks was the justification for waging war on Afghanistan on the grounds of`"self defense". Afghanistan was said to be harboring Al Qaeda and was, therefore, complicit in an outright act of war against the USA.

The fact of the matter is that the Taliban government on two occasions in the weeks following 9/11 offered (through diplomatic channels) to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US Justice system. President George W. Bush refused the offer of the Taliban government, intimating that America "does not negotiate with terrorists".

NATO went to war in support of the US, invoking Article Five of the Washington Treaty. The latter states that an "act of war" against one member of the Atlantic Alliance is considered "an act of war" against all members of NATO under the doctrine of collective security.]

Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe haven in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

[The whereabouts of Osama bin Laden have always been known to US intelligence. President Obama conveys the illusion that US-NATO forces and their intelligence operatives could not find bin Laden. In the words of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (2002), "it is like searching for a needle in a stack of hay". The alleged Al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan serves as a pretext for waging drone attacks against alleged terrorists in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

President Obama also intimates that Al Qaeda operatives equipped with stinger missiles and Kalashnikovs had managed to outsmart the US-NATO multi-trillion dollar military machine.]

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

[A lot has been written on this issue. No proof as to the identity of the person who was allegedly killed by the Seals Special Forces In the words of Paul Craig Roberts; "The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered..." ]

The goal that I set -- to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild -- is now within our reach.

[There is ample evidence that Al Qaeda (a US sponsored "intelligence asset") is still alive and fully operational. Officially, the goal is to "defeat Al Qaeda". Unofficially, Al Qaeda is supported covertly by US intelligence.

Since 9/11, Al Qaeda has developed into a multinational entity with "subsidiaries" in various geopolitical hotspots around the world.

In Libya and Syria, Al Qaeda brigades are the foot soldiers of the US-NATO military alliance. Wherever the US military and intelligence apparatus is deployed, Al Qaeda is present:

Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Al Shaabab (Somalia), Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed) (Pakistan), Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI) (Indonesia) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, etc. (See US State Department Foreign Terrorist Organizations, United Nations Security Council, List of individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida Al-Qaida Sanctions List)

In a bitter irony, in all these countries, US intelligence is covertly coordinating the activities of Al Qaeda affiliated groups. Officially counterterrorism consists in fighting the "Islamic jihad" Unofficially through covert operations, Western intelligence supports their "assets" including terror entities on the US State Department list.

Moreover, these various terrorist organizations are now being used in US-NATO covert military operations against sovereign countries (e.g. Libya and Syria). According to Israeli intelligence sources:

"NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime's crackdown on dissent. Instead of repeating the Libyan model of air strikes, NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces."(DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011) ]


Ronald Reagan chats with Mujahideen Freedom fighters

Who is or was Osama? 

An "intelligence asset", namely an instrument of the CIA used to justify the "Global War on Terrorism".

It is worth recalling that on September 14, 2001, both the House and the Senate adopted a historical resolution authorizing the president to "go after" countries which "aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks"

The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Today in 2012, there is ample evidence that:

1) Al Qaeda was not behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

2) There is also detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, continue to support and "harbor such organizations" [Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations]. In Libya, the "pro-democracy" rebels were led by Al Qaeda paramilitary brigades under the supervision of NATO Special Forces. The "Liberation" of Tripoli was carried out by "former" members of the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The jihadists and NATO work hand in glove. These "former" Al Qaeda affiliated brigades in Libya were the backbone of the "pro-democracy" rebellion.

3) There is evidence that the WTC towers were brought down through controlled demolition, raising the possibility of complicity and cover-up within the US government, intelligence and military. (See the writings of Richard Gage, Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7, Global Research, March 2008, see also video, Richard Gage Controlled Demolitions Caused the Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on September 11, 2001, Global Research)

Who is Obama?

A political liar and a war criminal.

Obama's scripted speeches are slanted distortions. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as peace-making operations...

Ironically, the text of the September 14, 2001 Congressional resolution (see above) does not exclude judiicial action and criminal investigation directed against the US-NATO sponsors of international terrorism, including president Obama, who have used the tragic events of 9/11 as a pretext to wage "a war without borders" under the humanitarian banner of the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

Obama versus Romney

In the election campaign opposing Barack Obama to Mitt Romney, Osama and the "threat of Al Qaeda" will be "center stage".

Supported by carefully crafted public relations campaigns, each of the presidential candidates will present --within the realm of a world of sheer fantasy-- their "Al Qaeda -Global War on Terrorism platform" to the American people. In this ritual, Al Qaeda becomes the central talking point of the campaign; all real major issues including the economic crisis, poverty in America and the devastations of war will be conveniently side-stepped.

Included below are a number of articles by the author which provide relevant evidence and details on Al Qaeda. (Scroll down)

Obama's May 1 speech:

Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan, video of Obama's Remarks, May 1, 2012

US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria

US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria

Putin, Washington & Syria: important negotiations by Putin

We are constantly told that "Russia opposes USA" = "Russia is bad". Putin, in trying to stabilise the mess happening in Syria, may in fact be saving lives. Remember that Egypt was more tolerant before the "Arab Spring" liberated them. Most of the nations that have fallen, with (covert and overt) support from the good old USA/NATO stone faced democratic war machine have fallen in pace with the Muslim Brotherhood, making life a misery for minority groups, including (and sometimes especially for) Christians. See the following articles from Barnabus Fund, who have been keeping an eye on Syria. It is true that minority groups like the Hazara people (see my recent post) need our help, but it seems the UN and Australia constantly (and deliberately) overlook persecuted Christian groups like the South Sudanese (who are being slaughtered), Egyptian Christians and Syrian Christians. Anyway, check these articles from Barnabus Fund and then read on!
Now, from Global Research, here's some more on Syria...

Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another “world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.”  It involves intense diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards, especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv and certainly not in either Russia or China.1

According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all, 20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2 

 Read on... Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia

Friday, August 3, 2012

What on earth is happening with Syria

Syria has warships massing off its coast. China and Russia have sworn to enter into war should western powers attack Syria; and USA/NATO/Israel have been covertly supporting the uprising three (supplying training, arms and covert leadership).

Some months ago, Venezuela was criticised for having warships in the eastern Mediterranean also. The plot thickens. Who knows exactly which powers are there right now! Certainly France, Germany (and NATO in general), USA, Canada, & Turkey in the blue corner; with Russia, China, Iran and perhaps Venezuela (western media doesn't say much about this side) in the red corner. 

Some news articles that substantiate the mass of military hardware meeting in this large pond include:
As you can see, the sources are very varied here.

The questions are:
  1. What on earth is happening with Syria?
  2. Why is all this happening?
  3. What will take place next?
  4. Where will it all lead?
Let's take a look at these, in order. This article addresses point #1, more points coming soon...

1. What on earth is happening with Syria?

I have included two articles from Global Research below to give an overview so you don't have to go to all the above links. These will fill you in a bit on what's going on.

Russian warships enter the Med, bound for Syria

A Russian naval flotilla of warships destined for the Syrian port of Tartus has entered the Mediterranean, Russia's defence ministry said today.
"The Russian ships today passed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered the Mediterranean at 1200 GMT," said a defence ministry spokesman, quoted by Itar-Tass agency.
Led by the Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine destroyer, the three landing craft left their home port of Severomorsk in the Arctic Circle earlier this month. They are due to be joined in the Mediterranean by the Russian patrol ship Yaroslav Mudry as well as an assistance vessel.
The ships will perform "planned military manoeuvres", said the ministry. Earlier in the month a military source said the ships would be topping up on supplies of fuel, water and foodstuffs.
Russia has denied that the deployment is linked to the escalating conflict in Syria.


The US-NATO War on Syria: Western Naval Forces Confront Russia Off the Syrian Coastline?

Global Research, July 26, 2012

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff
officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.
But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said,
and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

Former Nato Commander General Wesley Clark.
"Let me say to the soldiers and officials still supporting the Syrian regime -- the Syrian
people will remember the choices you make in the coming days...."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Friends of Syria conference in Paris' July 7, 2012

While confrontation between Russia and the West was, until recently, confined to
the polite ambit of international diplomacy, within the confines of the UN Nations
Security Council, an uncertain and perilous situation is now unfolding in the
Eastern Mediterranean.

Allied forces including intelligence operatives and special forces have reinforced
their presence on the ground in Syria following the UN stalemate. Meanwhile,
coinciding with the UN Security Council deadlock, Moscow has dispatched to
the Mediterranean a flotilla of ten Russian warships and escort vessels led by the
Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine destroyer. Russia's flotilla is currently
stationed off the Southern Syrian coastline.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in St. Petersburg on June 29, 2012, on the eve of international talks in Geneva to find a political solution to the Syria crisis 
"Polite Diplomacy" (without smiles). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L)  and Russia's Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov meet in St. Petersbourg, June 29, 2012

Back in August of last year, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin warned
that "NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the
regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead
for an attack on Iran,..."  In relation to the current naval deployment, Russia’s navy chief,
Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov, confirmed, however, that while the [Russian] flotilla was
carrying marines, the warships would "not be engaged in Syria Tasks".
"The ships will
perform "planned military manoeuvres", said the [Russian Defense] ministry" 
The US-NATO alliance has retorted to Russia's naval initiative, with a much larger naval
deployment, a formidable Western armada, consisting of British, French and American
warships, slated to be deployed later this Summer in the Eastern Mediterranean, leading
to a potential "Cold War style confrontation" between Russian and Western naval forces.
Meanwhile, US-NATO military planners have announced that various "military options"
and "intervention scenarios" are being contemplated in the wake of the Russian-Chinese
veto in the UN Security Council.

The planned naval deployment is coordinated with allied ground operations in support
of the US-NATO sponsored "Free Syrian Army"(FSA). In this regard, US-NATO has speeded
up the recruitment of foreign fighters trained in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Russian warship in the Syrian port of Tartus
Franco-British War Games: "Warship Diplomacy"
France and Britain will be participating later this Summer in war games codenamed
Exercise Cougar 12 [2012]. The games will be conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean
as part of a Franco-British  "Response Force Task Group
" involving  Britain's HMS
Bulwark and France's Charles De Gaulle carrier battle group. The focus of these naval
exercises will be on amphibious operations involving the (planned simulated) landing
ashore of troops on "enemy territory". 
File:HMS Bulwark midships.jpg
Britain's HMS Bulwark
Fichier:Charles De Gaulle (R91) underway 2009.jpg
France's Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier
Smokescreen: The Proposed Evacuation of Western Nationals "Using a Humanitarian
Naval Fleet of WMDs"
Barely mentioned by the mainstream media, the warships involved in the Cougar 12
naval exercise will also participate in the planned evacuation of  "British nationals from
the Middle East, should the ongoing conflict in Syria further spill across borders into
neighboring Lebanon and Jordan.":
The British would likely send the HMS Illustrious, a helicopter carrier, along with
the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious ship, as well as an advanced destroyer to provide
defenses for the task force. On board will be several hundred Royal Marine
commandos, as well as a complement of AH-64 attack helicopters (the same ones
used in Libya last year). A fleet of French ships, including the Charles De Gaulle
aircraft carrier, carrying a complement of Rafale fighter aircraft, are expected
to join them.

Those forces are expected stay offshore and could escort specially chartered
civilian ships meant to pick up foreign nationals fleeing Syria and surrounding
countries.  (, 24 July 2012). 
Sources in the British Ministry of Defense, while confirming the Royal Navy's
"humanitarian mandate" in the planned evacuation program, have categorically
denied "any intention of a combat role for British forces [against Syria]".

The evacuation plan using the most advanced military hardware including the HMS
Bulwark, the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is an obvious smokescreen. The not so
hidden agenda is military threat and intimidation directed against a sovereign nation
located in the historical cradle of civilization in Mespotamia: 
"The Charles De Gaulle alone is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with an entire
squadron of jets more advanced than anything the Syrians have -- is sparking
speculation that those forces could become involved in a NATO operation against
Syrian forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad...

The HMS Illustrious, which is currently sitting on the Thames in central London,
will likely only be sent to the region after the end of the Olympics." (Ibid)
This impressive deployment of Franco-British  naval power could also include the USS
John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, which is to be sent back to the Middle East:  
[On July 16, 2912], the Pentagon also confirmed that it would be redeploying the
USS John C. Stennis, a nuclear-powered supercarrier capable of carrying 90
aircraft, to the Middle East... The Stennis would be arriving in the region with an
advanced missile-launching cruiser, .... The carrier USS Eisenhower is already
expected to be in the Middle East by that time (two carriers currently in the region
are to be relieved and sent back to the U.S.).
Amid unpredictable situations in both Syria and Iran, that would have left
U.S. forces stretched and overly burdened if a firm military response were
needed in either circumstance.
(Ibid, emphasis added)

The USS Stennis, at left, and the HMS Illustrious, at right, together in the Persian Gulf in April 1998. The two ships may be sailing together again sooner than expected. Photo: Wikipedia Commons
USS Stennis aircraft carrier
The USS Stennis strike group is to be sent back to the Middle East "by an unspecified
date in the late summer" to be deployed to the Central Command area of responsibility:  
"The Defense Department said that the early deployment had come from a
request made by Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, the commander for
Central Command (the U.S. military authority area that covers the Middle East),
partly out of concern that there would be a short period where only one carrier
would be located in the region." ((Strike group headed to Central Command
early - Stripes Central - Stripes
, July 16, 2012)
Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, "asked to move up
the strike group’s deployment based on “a range of factors,” and  Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta approved it"... (Ibid)
A Pentagon spokesman stated that the deployment shift of the USS Stennis strike
group pertained to "a wide range of U.S. security interests in the region". "We’re
always mindful of the challenges posed by Iran. Let me be very clear: This is not a
decision that is based solely on the challenges posed by Iran, ... " This is not about
any one particular country or one particular threat.”
intimating that Syria was also
part of planned deployment. (Ibid, emphasis added) 
"Intervention Scenarios" 
This massive deployment of naval power is an act of coercion with a view to terrorizing
the Syrian people. The threat of military intervention purports to destabilize Syria as a
nation state as well as confront and weaken Russia's role in brokering the Syrian crisis.  
The UN diplomatic game is at an impasse. The UN Security Council is defunct. The
transition is towards Twenty-first Century "Warship Diplomacy".  
While an all out allied military operation directed against Syria is not "officially"
contemplated, military planners are currently involved in preparing various
"intervention scenarios": 
‘Western political leaders may have no appetite for deeper intervention. But
as history has shown, we do not always choose which wars to fight - sometimes
wars choose us. ‘Military planners have a responsibility to prepare for
intervention options in Syria for their political masters in case this conflict
chooses them. ‘Preparation will be proceeding today in several Western
capitals and on the ground in Syria and in Turkey
. ‘Up to the point of Assad’s
collapse, we are most likely to see a continuation or intensification of the
under-the-radar options of financial support, arming and advising the rebels,
clandestine operations and perhaps cyber warfare from the West. ‘After any
collapse, however, the military options will be seen in a different light.’
(Daily Mail, July 24, 2012, emphasis added)
Concluding Remarks
The World is at a dangerous crossroads.

The shape of this planned naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean with
US-NATO warships contiguous to those of Russia is unprecedented in recent history.  
History tells us that wars are often triggered unexpectedly as a result of "political
mistakes" and human error. The latter are all the more likely within the realm of a
divisive and corrupt political system in the US and Western Europe.
US-NATO military planning is overseen by a centralised military hierarchy. Command
and Control operations are in theory "coordinated" but in practice they are often
marked by human error. Intelligence operatives often function independently and
outside the realm of political accountability.
Military planners are acutely aware of the dangers of escalation. Syria has significant
air defense capabilities as well as ground forces. Syria has been building up its air
defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles.
Any form of US-NATO direct military intervention against Syria would destabilize the
entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending
from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan
and China.
Military planning involves intricate scenarios and war games by both sides including
military options pertaining to advanced weapons systems. A Third World War scenario
has been contemplated by US-NATO-Israeli military planners since early 2000. 
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. War preparations to attack Syria
and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years.
We are dealing with complex political and strategic decision-making involving the
interplay of powerful economic interest groups, the actions of covert intelligence
The role of war propaganda is paramount not only in moulding public opinion into
accepting a war agenda, but also in establishing a consensus within the upper echelons
of the decision-making process. A selective form of war propaganda intended for
"Top Officials" (TOPOFF) in government agencies, intelligence, the Military, law
enforcement, etc. is intended to create an unbending consensus in favor of War
and the Police State.
For the war project to go ahead, it is essential that both politicians and military
planners are rightfully committed to leading the war "in the name of justice and
democracy". For this to occur, they must firmly believe in their own propaganda,
namely that war is "an instrument of peace and democracy".
They have no concern for the devastating impacts of advanced weapons systems,
routinely categorized as "collateral damage", let alone the meaning and significance
of pre-emptive warfare, using nuclear weapons.
Wars are invariably decided upon by civilian leaders and interest groups rather
than by the military. War serves dominant economic interests which operate from
behind the scenes, behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, in the Washington
think tanks, etc.
Realities are turned upside down. War is peace. The Lie becomes the Truth.

War propaganda, namely media lies, constitutes the most powerful instrument of
Without media disinformation, the US-NATO led war agenda would collapse like a
deck of cards. The legitimacy of  the war criminals in high office would be broken.
It is therefore essential to disarm not only the mainstream media but also a segment
of the self proclaimed "progressive" alternative media, which has provided legitimacy
to NATO's "Responsibility to protect" (R2P)  mandate, largely with a view to dismantling
the antiwar movement.  
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would
involve, as a first step, the destabilization of Syria as a nation state. Military planning
pertaining to Syria is an integral part of the war on Iran agenda. 
A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against
Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.
A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial
importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.
Our objective is ultimately to dismantle the US-NATO-Israeli military arsenal and restore
World Peace.

It is essential that people in the UK, France and the US prevent "the late Summer"
naval WMD deployment to the Eastern Mediterraean from occurring.

It is essential that people in the UK, France and the US prevent "the late Summer"
naval WMD deployment to the Eastern Mediterraean from occurring.

The British
Ministry of Defense has announced that several British warships are required
"to ensure the security" of the Olympic Games. HMS Bulwark is stationed in Weymouth
Bay for the duration of the games. HMS Illustrious is "currently sitting on the Thames in
central London". The deployment of British warships including HMS Bulwark and HMS
Illustrious to the Middle East is envisaged  "after" the Olympic Games.