In the wake of the Houla massacre and the flow of disinformation aimed at blaming the Syrian government for the atrocities, Global Research brings to the attention of its readers a selection of key articles, which demonstrate unequivocally that the massacre was commited by the US-NATO supported Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Prof. Chandra Muzaffar, SYRIA: The Houla Massacre and the Subversion of the Peace Plan
There is no credible, independent entity that can help reveal the entire truth about the Houla massacre. The United Nations Human Rights Council which has passed a resolution condemning the massacre hastily targeted the Syrian government as the culprit without waiting for reports from the UN-Arab League Observer Mission in Syria. This is one of the reasons why China, Cuba and Russia voted against the resolution. The Council has since the outbreak of the conflict in Syria 14 months ago adopted an antagonistic attitude towards the government. In all its submissions to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, it has ignored or downplayed the views of the Syrian government.
According to Ronda Hauben in an article entitled The United Nations and the Houla Massacre: The Information Battlefield:
The narrative that is being spread by much of the mainstream western and Arab satellite media is a narrative that blames the Assad government for the Houla massacre. At first that media claimed that the people killed, including the women and children, had been killed by shelling from Syrian troops attacking the town.
In examining the videos and photos put online or provided by the opposition making these claims, however, it became evident that many of the victims, particularly the women and children, had been killed at close range by bullets and knives and not by the shelling of heavy weapons by the Syrian military.
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky "Humanitarian War Criminals" in High Office: Was the Houla Massacre Ordered by the Western Military Alliance?:
Several authoritative reports, including a recent report of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, confirm unequivocally that "opposition" FSA terrorists were behind these atrocities. (Neue Erkenntnisse zu Getöteten von Hula: Abermals Massaker in Syrien - Politik - FAZ, June 8, 2012) […] The FAZ report largely corroborates the report by Russian journalist Marat Musin, which includes detailed testimonies […]
These two reports dispel the lies and fabrications of the Western media. Entire pro-government families in Houla were massacred. The terrorists were mercenaries and professional killers operating under the auspices of the self-proclaimed Free Syrian Army (FSA).
This really does sum up what many of us believe is happening.
On Thursday I went to a StW-organised demo against intervention in Syria; it was a very small gathering, I guess perhaps thirty, maybe forty people.
I megaphoned them, to try to inform them that the premise that they seemed to accept, that it was the Assad regime doing the massacres and atrocities, was fallacious, and that they would get very little support from the public if they seemed to be asking for no intervention against child torturers and murderers.
I reminded them of various past False Flag and False Report 'casus belli', like Gulf of Tonkin, the 'young Kuwaiti girl and the incubators' story, the Liberty, and others.
They more or less ignored me, though one asked me to move away, as no one was listening, but I stayed put. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Western propaganda continues to distort Russia’s position in respect of the Syrian crisis. It accuses Moscow of supporting Damascus for profit motives, or even criminal solidarity. In this piece, Sergey Lavrov does not expound on his country’s strategic choices, but rather on the principles that underpin his diplomacy. He responds imperturbably to the inanities spouted by Western media, underscoring Moscow’s commitment to international law and its pledge to support people. Lavrov counterpoints the massive popular support enjoyed by President al-Assad and the illegitimacy of the sectarian armed opposition, sponsored from abroad.
Over the last year or a year and a half, the events unfolding in North Africa and the Middle East have come to the forefront of the global political agenda. They are frequently referred to as the most remarkable episode in the international life of the new 21st century. Experts have long spoken about the fragility of authoritarian regimes in Arab countries and possible social and political shocks.
However, it was difficult to predict the scale and pace with which the wave of change would sweep over the region. Alongside the manifestations of crisis in the world economy, these events have clearly proved that the process leading to the emergence of a new international system has entered a zone of turbulence.
The more large-scale social movements appeared in the countries of the region, the more urgent became the issue of what policy should be pursued by external actors and the entire international community. Numerous expert discussions on that matter and subsequent practical actions of States and international organizations have outlined two main approaches: either to help the Arab peoples determine their own future by themselves, or to try to shape a new political reality to one’s taste while taking advantage of the softening of state structures that had long been too rigid. The situation continues to evolve rapidly, which makes it important for those who have the biggest say in the matters of the region to finally consolidate their efforts rather than continue to pull in different directions like the characters of a fable by Ivan Krylov.
Let me sum up the points that I have repeatedly made in relation to the evolving situation in the Middle East. First of all, Russia, in common with the majority of countries in the world, encourages the aspirations of the Arab peoples for a better life, democracy and prosperity, and stands ready to support these efforts. This is why we welcomed the Deauville Partnership initiative at the G8 summit in France. We firmly oppose the use of violence in the course of current transformations in Arab States, especially against civilians. We are well aware of the fact that the transformation of a society is a complex and generally long process which rarely goes smoothly.
Russia probably knows the true cost of revolutions better than most other countries. We are fully aware that revolutionary changes are always accompanied by social and economic setbacks as well as by loss of human life and suffering. This is exactly why we support an evolutionary and peaceful way of enacting long-awaited changes in the Middle East and North Africa.
The point is, what should be done if the showdown between the authorities and the opposition does assume the form of violent, armed confrontation? The answer seems obvious -external actors should do their best to stop the bloodshed and support a compromise involving all parties to the conflict. When deciding to support UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and making no objection to Resolution 1973 on Libya, we believed that these decisions would help limit the excessive use of force and pave the way for a political settlement. Unfortunately, the actions undertaken by NATO countries under these resolutions led to their grave violation and support for one of the parties to the civil war, with the goal of ousting the existing regime - damaging in the process the authority of the Security Council.
People versed in politics need not be told that the devil is in the detail, and tough solutions implying the use of force cannot produce a lasting long-term settlement. And in the current circumstances, when the complexity of international relations has increased manifold, it becomes obvious that using force to resolve conflicts has no chance of success. Examples are abundant. They include the complicated situation in Iraq and the crisis in Afghanistan, which is far from being over. There are many indications that things are far from being good in Libya after the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. Instability has spread further to the Sahara and Sahel region, and the situation in Mali was dramatically aggravated.
Another example is Egypt, which is still far from the safe shore even though regime change was not accompanied by large outbreaks of violence and Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled the country for more than thirty years, left the presidential palace voluntarily shortly after public protests began. We cannot but be concerned, among other issues, with the reports of growing religious clashes and abuse of the rights of the Christian minority.
Thus, there are more than enough reasons for taking the most balanced approach to the Syrian crisis that represents the most acute situation in the region today. It is clear that after what had happened in Libya it was impossible to go along with the UN Security Council taking decisions that would not be adequately explicit and would allow those responsible for their implementation to act at their own discretion. Any mandate given on behalf of the entire international community should be as clear and precise as possible in order to avoid ambiguity. It is therefore important to understand what is really happening in Syria and how to help that country to pass though this painful stage of its history.
Unfortunately, qualified and honest analysis of developments in Syria and their potential consequences is still in short supply. Quite often it is replaced by primitive images and black-and-white propaganda clichés. For several months major international media outlets have been reproducing reports about the corrupt dictatorial regime ruthlessly suppressing the aspiration of its own people to freedom and democracy.
It seems, however, that the authors of those reports did not bother asking themselves how the government could manage to stay in power without public support for more than a year, despite the extensive sanctions imposed by its main economic partners. Why did the majority of people vote for the draft constitution proposed by the authorities? Why, after all, have most Syrian soldiers remained loyal to their commanders? If fear is the only explanation, then why did it fail to help other authoritarian rulers?
We have stated many times that Russia is not a defender of the current regime in Damascus and has no political, economic or other reasons for becoming one. We have never been a major trade and economic partner of that country, the government of which has communicated mostly with the capitals of Western European countries.
It is no less clear to us than to others that the main responsibility for the crisis that has swept over the country lies with the Syrian government, that has failed to take the course of reform in due time or draw conclusions from the deep changes unfolding in international relations. This is all true. Yet, there are other facts as well. Syria is a multi-confessional state: in addition to Sunni and Shia Muslims there are Alawites, Orthodox and other Christian confessions, Druzes, and Kurds. Over the last few decades of the secular rule of the Ba’ath party, freedom of conscience has been practiced in Syria, and religious minorities fear that if the regime is broken down this tradition may be interrupted.
When we say that these concerns should be heard and addressed, we are sometimes accused of taking positions amounting to an anti-Sunni and, more generally, anti-Islamic stance. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Russia, people of various confessions, most numerous among them being Orthodox Christians and Muslims, have lived together peacefully for centuries. Our country has never waged colonial wars in the Arab world but has on the contrary continuously supported the independence of Arab nations and their right to independent development. And Russia bears no responsibility for the consequences of colonial rule marked by the changes in social structures that brought about the tensions which still persist.
The point I want to make is different. If some members of society are concerned about potential discrimination on the grounds of religion and national origin, then necessary guarantees should be provided to those people in accordance with generally accepted international humanitarian standards.
Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has traditionally been, and continues to be, a major problem for the States of the Middle East, and was one of the main causes of the "Arab revolutions".
However, Syria has never ranked low on that list, with its level of civil freedoms immeasurably higher than that of some of the countries who are now trying to give lessons in democracy to Damascus. In one of its recent issues, the French magazine Le Monde Diplomatique presented a chronology of human rights abuses by a big State in the Middle East, which contained, inter alia, the execution of 76 death sentences in 2011 alone, including for those accused of witchcraft. If we truly wish to promote respect for human rights in the Middle East, we must state this goal openly. If we proclaim ending the bloodshed as our primary concern, we should focus precisely on that; in other words, we must press for a ceasefire in the first place, and promote the start of an inclusive all-Syrian dialogue aimed at negotiating a peaceful crisis settlement formula by the Syrians themselves.
Russia has been sending these messages since the first days of unrest in Syria. It was quite clear to us and, I guess, to everyone who has sufficient information on that country, that pressing for an immediate ousting of Bashar al-Assad, contrary to the aspirations of a considerable segment of Syrian society that still relies on this regime for its security and well-being, would mean plunging Syria into a protracted and bloody civil war. Responsible external actors should help Syrians avoid that scenario and bring about evolutionary rather than revolutionary reform of the Syrian political system through a national dialogue rather than by means of coercion from the outside.
Taking into account today’s realities in Syria, reliance on one-sided support for the opposition, particularly for its most belligerent part, will not lead to peace in that country anytime soon and will therefore run counter to the goal of protecting the civilian population. What seems to prevail in that option are attempts to bring about regime change in Damascus as an element of a larger regional geopolitical game. These schemes are undoubtedly targeting Iran, since a large group of States including the USA and NATO countries, Israel, Turkey and some States of the region appear to be interested in weakening that country’s regional positions.
The possibility of a military strike against Iran is a much-debated topic today. I have repeatedly stressed that such an option would lead to grave, catastrophic consequences. An attempt to cut the Gordian knot of long-standing problems is doomed to failure. We may recall in this regard that the US military invasion in Iraq was once considered to be a "golden chance" to change the political and economic realities of the "greater Middle East" in a quick and decisive manner, thus turning it into a region which would follow the "European pattern" of development.
Irrespective of the situation concerning Iran, however, it is evident that fuelling intra-Syrian strife may trigger processes that would affect the situation in the vast territory surrounding Syria in the most negative way, having a devastating impact on both regional and international security. Risk factors include loss of control over the Syrian-Israeli border, a worsening of the situation in Lebanon and other countries in the region, weapons falling into the "wrong hands," including those of terrorist organizations, and, perhaps the most dangerous of all, an aggravation of inter-faith tensions and contradictions inside the Islamic world.
* * *
Back in the 1990s in his book The Clash of Civilisations, Samuel Huntington outlined the trend of the increasing importance of identity based on civilisation and religion in the age of globalization; he also convincingly demonstrated the relative reduction in the abilities of the historic West to spread its influence. It would definitely be an overstatement if we tried to build a model of the modern international relations solely on the basis of such assumptions. However, today it is impossible to ignore such a trend. It is caused by an array of different factors, including more transparent national borders, the information revolution which has highlighted blatant socio-economic inequality, and the growing desire of people to preserve their identity in such circumstances and to avoid falling into the endangered species list of history.
The Arab revolutions clearly show a willingness to go back to the roots of civilisation that reveals itself in broad public support for the parties and movements acting under the flag of Islam. This trend is apparent not only in the Arab world. Let us mention Turkey, which is more actively positioning itself as a major player in the Islamic space and the surrounding region. Asian states, including Japan, are more boldly declaring their identity.
Such a situation is further proof that the simple (if not simplistic) binary construction of the Cold War period, described in the paradigms of East-West, capitalism-socialism, North-South, is being replaced by a multidimensional geopolitical reality that does not allow for the identification of a single dominating factor. The global financial and economic crisis drew a line under discussions on whether one system can dominate in any area whatsoever, be it economy, politics or ideology.
There is no doubt left that within the broad framework that defines the development of most States and is characterized by democratic governance and a market economy, each country will independently choose its own political and economic model with due regard to its own traditions, culture and history. This is likely to result in a greater impact on international affairs of the factor of identity based on civilisation.
In terms of practical politics, these conclusions can only suggest one thing: attempts to impose one’s own set of values are totally futile and may only lead to a dangerous aggravation of tensions between civilisations. This certainly does not imply that we must completely renounce influencing each other and promoting the right image of our country in the international arena.
However, this should be done employing honest, transparent methods that will foster the export of national culture, education and science while showing full respect for the values of other peoples’ civilisations as a safeguard for the world’s diversity and esteem for pluralism in international affairs.
It seems evident that hopes to apply cutting edge information dissemination and communications technologies, including social networks, in order to change the mentality of other peoples, thus creating a new political reality, are bound to fail in the long run. The current market for ideas is far too manifold, and virtual methods would only bring about a virtual reality - provided, of course, that we do not resort to George Orwell’s Big Brother mentality, in which case we can give up on the whole idea of democracy, not only in countries that are subjected to such influence but also in those that are exercising it.
Developing a universal scale of values and morals becomes a big political issue. Such a scale could serve as the foundation for a respectful and fruitful dialogue between civilisations based on a common interest in reducing the instability which accompanies the creation of a new international system and aimed at eventually establishing a solid, efficient, polycentric world order. And here, we can only ensure success if we rule out black-and-white approaches, whether we tackle exaggerated concern for the rights of sexual minorities or, on the contrary, attempts to elevate to the political level narrow concepts of morale that would satisfy one group and violate the natural rights of other citizens, particularly of those who belong to other confessions.
* * *
There is a certain limit reached by crises in international relations that cannot be overstepped without causing damage to global stability. That is why work aimed at putting out regional fires, including intrastate conflicts, should be carried out as considerately as possible, with no double standards applied. Using a ’sanctions bat’ leads to dead-end at all times. All parties involved in internal conflicts should be convinced that the international community will form a united front and act in accordance with strict principles in order to stop violence as soon as possible and to reach a mutually acceptable solution through comprehensive dialogue.
Russia is guided only by such principles with regard to intrastate crises, which explains our position on what is happening in Syria. That is why we have offered full and sincere support for the mission of the UN/Arab League Special Envoy Kofi Annan, aimed at finding a mutually acceptable compromise as soon as possible. UN Security Council Presidential Statements and UN Security Council Resolutions in this regard reflect the approaches that we have promoted from the very beginning of the unrest in Syria; these ideas are also reflected in our joint statement with the League of Arab States adopted on March 10, 2012.
If we were successful in making these approaches work in Syria, they could become a model for international assistance in resolving future crises.
The essence of Kofi Annan’s "six principles" is to ensure an end to violence regardless of where it comes from and to start a Syrian-led political dialogue which should address the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Syrian people. It should result in a new political configuration in Syria that will take into account the interests of all groups in its multi-confessional society.
It is necessary to encourage the preparation and implementation of agreements aimed at settling the conflict without taking sides, to reward those who respect them and to clearly name those who oppose the peace process. To achieve this, an unbiased monitoring mechanism is needed, and such a mechanism was set up in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2043. Russian military observers are part of the international monitoring team.
Unfortunately, the process of implementing Kofi Annan’s plan in Syria is proceeding with great difficulty. The world was appalled by massacres of unarmed civilians, including the tragedy that happened in the village of Houla on May 25, 2012 and the subsequent bloody violence in the vicinity of Hama. It is necessary to clarify who is responsible for this and to punish the perpetrators. No one has the right to usurp the role of judge and to use these tragic events to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Abandoning such attempts will make it possible to stop the spiral of violence in Syria.
Those who say that Russia "is saving" Bashar al-Assad are wrong. I would like to reiterate that it is the Syrian people themselves who choose the political system and leadership of their country. We are not trying to whitewash the multiple mistakes and miscalculations made by Damascus, including the use of force against peaceful demonstrations at the beginning of the crisis.
For us, the issue of who is in power in Syria is not the major one; it is important to put an end to civilian deaths and to start a political dialogue in a situation where the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country will be respected by all external actors. No violence can be justified. The shelling of residential areas by government troops is unacceptable, but it cannot be viewed as an indulgence for terrorist acts in Syrian cities, for murders conducted by insurgents opposed to the regime, including those of Al-Qaida.
The logic that dictates the need to break the vicious circle of violence has manifested itself in the unilateral support that members of the UN Security Council have given to the Annan Plan. We are upset by the claims and actions of some actors involved in the Syrian situation that manifest their stake on the failure of the Special Envoy’s efforts. Among them, are the calls of the Syrian National Council (SNC) leadership for foreign intervention. It is unclear how such claims would help SNC sponsors to unite the Syrian opposition under its umbrella. We stand for the integration of the Syrian opposition only on the platform of preparedness for political dialogue with the government - in exact accordance with the Annan Plan.
Russia keeps working with the Syrian authorities almost every day urging them to fully comply with the six points proposed by Kofi Annan and to resolutely abandon their delusion that the internal political crisis in Syria will somehow go away. We also work with representatives of almost all branches of the Syrian opposition. We are sure that if all our partners work in the same concentrated manner without any hidden motives or double standards, there is a chance for a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria. We need to bring all the weight to bear on both the regime and the opposition and make them cease fighting and meet at the negotiating table. We consider it important to urgently take collective effort to this end and to convene an international conference of the States directly involved in the crisis in Syria. With that goal in mind, we maintain close contacts with Kofi Annan and other partners.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:18 am Post subject:
I have only skipped through Sergey Lavrov's article, but remarkably from what I have read, he seems oblivious to the machinations of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and George Soros' millions in bringing about the 'spontaneous' 'Arab Spring'.
Good grief, after all the machinations of the same and other players in bringing about the 'spontaneous' revolutions against Russian rule in the ex-USSR states, how on earth can he not even mention these forces?
And it doesn't take a genious to figure out that these Capitalistic forces have absolutely zero interest in true Democracy, but in simply stirring the pot and assisting their chosen players to come out on top, initially by financial assistance, then in many cases by military intervention (in the cases of the Middle East, North Africa and Ivory Coast). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.
The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.
The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.
The clandestine intelligence-gathering effort is the most detailed known instance of the limited American support for the military campaign against the Syrian government. It is also part of Washington’s attempt to increase the pressure on President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has recently escalated his government’s deadly crackdown on civilians and the militias battling his rule. With Russia blocking more aggressive steps against the Assad government, the United States and its allies have instead turned to diplomacy and aiding allied efforts to arm the rebels to force Mr. Assad from power.
By helping to vet rebel groups, American intelligence operatives in Turkey hope to learn more about a growing, changing opposition network inside of Syria and to establish new ties. “C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,” said one Arab intelligence official who is briefed regularly by American counterparts.
American officials and retired C.I.A. officials said the administration was also weighing additional assistance to rebels, like providing satellite imagery and other detailed intelligence on Syrian troop locations and movements. The administration is also considering whether to help the opposition set up a rudimentary intelligence service. But no decisions have been made on those measures or even more aggressive steps, like sending C.I.A. officers into Syria itself, they said.
The struggle inside Syria has the potential to intensify significantly in coming months as powerful new weapons are flowing to both the Syrian government and opposition fighters. President Obama and his top aides are seeking to pressure Russia to curb arms shipments like attack helicopters to Syria, its main ally in the Middle East.
“We’d like to see arms sales to the Assad regime come to an end, because we believe they’ve demonstrated that they will only use their military against their own civilian population,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said after Mr. Obama and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, met in Mexico on Monday.
Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels, some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street Journal.
Until now, the public face of the administration’s Syria policy has largely been diplomacy and humanitarian aid.
The State Department said Wednesday that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would meet with her Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, on the sidelines of a meeting of Asia-Pacific foreign ministers in St. Petersburg, Russia, next Thursday. The private talks are likely to focus, at least in part, on the crisis in Syria.
The State Department has authorized $15 million in nonlethal aid, like medical supplies and communications equipment, to civilian opposition groups in Syria.
The Pentagon continues to fine-tune a range of military options, after a request from Mr. Obama in early March for such contingency planning. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told senators at that time that the options under review included humanitarian airlifts, aerial surveillance of the Syrian military, and the establishment of a no-fly zone.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject:
But of course we already have had good info on this thread with articles by Thierry Meyssan and Sybil Edmonds to the effect that US troops, ostensibly 'going home' from Iraq, were in reality transferred to a base or area in Jordan near the Syrian border, where they proceeded to organise, arm and assist 'Freedom Fighters' to enter Syria with high-tech (including Israeli) weaponry, and that the US were training, arming and assisting 'Freedom Fighters' to infiltrate Syria from Incirlik US base in Turkey, and also how the Turks were doing similar from their own near-Syria areas.
Maybe the NY Times is just printing a 'limited hang-out', due to their 'Puppet-Masters' realising that a lot of this info has already got out, or maybe it's because the US and it's cronies are about to be far more blatant about it, and ramp up the 'covert' assistance (remember the 'Contra' thugs the US organised, paid, trained, and provided with bases in Honduras and Puerto Rico?).
One thing I think we can be sure of: the NY Times has not had a 'Damascene Event' and decided to print the truth for a change about US illegal and 'big-time' (War Criminal) immoral activities against a Sovereign State. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject:
'The military has also drawn up plans for how coalition troops would secure Syria’s sizable stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons if an all-out civil war threatened their security.'
Well, perhaps Syria will have taken note of Saddam's 'disarmament', and Qaddafi's 'disarmament', before their countries were taken over and the leaders executed, and decide it is a case of 'use 'em or lose 'em', and then lose their country and lives as well.
Of course, that may be why the Russians are there, to preclude the use of these weapons. I suspect that is the case. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Syrian rebels tried to get me killed, says Channel 4 correspondent http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/08/alex-thompson-syrian-rebel s
Alex Thomson says crew was led to 'free-fire zone' as deaths would discredit Bashar al-Assad's regime
Ben Dowell - guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 June 2012 13.36 BST
The chief correspondent of Channel 4 News has claimed that Syrian rebels deliberately tried to get him and his crew killed by gunfire from government forces in a bid to discredit the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Alex Thomson alleged a small group from the Free Syrian Army deliberately guided the vehicle in which he and his Channel 4 News colleagues were travelling into what he described as a "free-fire zone" on a blocked road near the city of al-Qusayr, because "dead journos are bad for Damascus".
Thomson said that after being led into a "no man's land" between Syrian army and rebel forces by four men in a black car, his team were fired upon and forced to take evasive action, eventually managing to "floor it back to the road we'd been led in on".
He also claimed that later on the same car of rebels blocked the road between their vehicle and the UN vehicles accompanying them, which he said prompted the UN escort to drive off and abandon them after seeing the Channel 4 team surrounded by "shouting militia". The incident took place last weekend and Thomson is now back in the UK.
"Suddenly four men in a black car beckon us to follow. We move out behind," Thomson wrote in a Channel 4 News website blog published on Friday/ morning.
"We are led another route. Led in fact, straight into a free-fire zone. Told by the Free Syrian Army to follow a road that was blocked off in the middle of no-man's land," he added.
"At that point there was the crack of a bullet and one of the slower three-point turns I've experienced. We screamed off into the nearest side-street for cover. Another dead end.
"There was no option but to drive back out on to the sniping ground and floor it back to the road we'd been led in on. Predictably the black car was there which had led us to the trap. They roared off as soon as we reappeared.
"I'm quite clear the rebels deliberately set us up to be shot by the Syrian army. Dead journos are bad for Damascus."
Thomson said this conviction was only strengthened half an hour later when "our four friends in the same beaten-up black car suddenly pulled out of a side street, blocking us from the UN vehicles ahead".
"The UN duly drove back past us, witnessed us surrounded by shouting militia, and left town. Eventually we got out too and on the right route, back to Damascus," he added.
"In a war where they slit the throats of toddlers back to the spine, what's the big deal in sending a van full of journalists into the killing zone? It was nothing personal."
A spokeswoman for ITN-produced Channel 4 News said: "The safety of our journalists is of paramount importance and we only ever send experienced teams into these hostile environments.
"Alex is an incredibly experienced journalist who has covered conflicts around the world for more than two decades and has used social media to share the full detail of these assignments. We will be reviewing this trip, as we do with every other foreign send and sharing the review across ITN as we continue to cover this complex and important story." _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:23 pm Post subject:
NATO needs air power as they are losing now against Assad.
Pilotless Phantom jet?
Set up now for a naval battle as Turkish and Syrian ships compete to find the 'bodies' if there are any?
If any NATO pilot is asked to get into a decrepid old jet right now the answer has to be
NO WAY JOSE!
Syria downed Turkish fighter jet over its territorial waters
Published: 23 June, 2012, 01:20
http://www.rt.com/news/turkish-plane-erdogan-statement-543/
The office of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says it is “understood” that Syria shot down a Turkish military jet. The Syrian military confirmed that it downed the plane “over Syrian territorial waters.”
The office’s statement says Turkey will “decisively” take the necessary measures once all details of the incident come to light, Reuters reports. The search and rescue operation for the missing parts is still underway, the statement says.
"As a result of information obtained from the evaluation of our concerned institutions and from within the joint search and rescue operations with Syria, it is understood that our plane was brought down by Syria," The Prime Minister's office stated.
The statement was issued after a two-hour meeting between Erdogan, members of the cabinet and the military.
Rescuers have already found an ejector seat and a parachute in the sea, though there were no signs of the plane itself, Turkish state television reported.
Erdogan told reporters that he could not say whether the plane had crashed or had been shot down following initial reports of the incident. He did not confirm reports that Syria had apologized for the supposed downing of the jet.
The jet was unlikely to be carrying out a simple reconnaissance mission, but was probably a provocative probe to test the Syrian security initiative and ability to protect its borders, believes author and academic Colin S. Cavell. Being a NATO member, Turkey can count on the alliance's support if it comes under attack, he says.
“The F-4 Phantom is utilized and supplied by the US to Turkey, and of course the United States and Turkey can claim that Syria has attacked it,” Cavell told RT. “Of course that would be the ruse they will utilize if they wanted NATO to further intervene. But I don’t think they are going to call on NATO right now.” _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: Syria / Avaaz - Astroturfing for the CIA ?
Avaaz File:
Summaries of, and links to, articles concerning the connection between George Soros and Avaaz plus the emotive reporting on unconfirmed accusations of wrong doing e.g. rape in Libya and the demands for military intervention by Western power in Syria. http://urwreview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/avaaz-file.html
Why exposing Avaaz - IS IMPORTANT:
Avaaz's evolvement in the Western planned, funded, and armed destabilisation of Syria is the corollary of the agenda that Soros is promoting with Obama currently at the helm. Avaaz policy on Syria echos the policy of the US NATO military alliance.
http://urwreview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/editors-comment-avaaz-syria-20 12.html
The Art of Manipulation
Opposition to established power, even if disorganised, has always been targeted by those in power as a threat, as a enemy to be controlled or destroyed as required. The oldest strategy is,
"the best way to defeat your enemy - is to lead them"
http://urwreview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/puppet-masters-decoys-and-shil ls.html[/url]
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:06 am Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
Good God have you ever seen such a biased one-sided BBC report on the Syria situation? Entirely one sided as well at the apparently Zionist BBC interviewer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18625273
Getting round to the key issue unswerving support for Israel toward the end.
Such an accusation, already!
On the other hand (whilst completely agreeing with Tony), I make him right. (Figure that one out!).
On a brighter note, I attended a Stop the War meeting in SOAS this evening, and managed to get in a point about the lying MSM, and how many reported atrocities were in fact committed by the so-called 'rebels'.
Whilst the 9/11 Truth Campaign have had a very hard time with StW in London, I think I have made a breach in their hostile approach. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:26 pm Post subject:
There is a 'Student' StW Demo today (Saturday 30th June) in Trafalgar Square, 13.00 hours.
Whilst this should be put in the 'events' section, it is obviously important at least for Londoners who are following this Syrian thread, to be aware of it.
It is also (IMO) particularly important to the general Truth movement, because it is Students that are (hopefully) protesting.
Students have been conspicous by their absence from the 9/11 Truth Movement, and it seems to me in any movement that is not involved with their own self-interest (Student Loans etc).
Bit of proselytising springs to mind??
Hope to see y'all (well, I'll settle for a handfull) later today.
(PS - I'll have my Megaphone). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:07 am Post subject:
(Groan!)
Whilst keeping a wary aquaintance with 'Veterans Today' (an often apparently anti-Zionist, and sometimes 'anti-Jewish' site), I was shocked to find this load of baloney, that Syria and Israel were really the best of pals, along with Turkey:
'We shall lead every revolution against us' springs to mind.
Still, it does have some useful material on the site sometimes.... _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:54 am Post subject:
WHO RUNS THE MADHOUSE? by Dr Paul Craig Roberts
Posted on July 1, 2012 by Montecristo
http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-runs-the-madhouse-by-dr-paul-craig-rob erts/
WHO RULES AMERICA?
When President Reagan nominated me as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, he told me that we had to restore the US economy, to rescue it from stagflation, in order to bring the full weight of a powerful economy to bear on the Soviet leadership in order to convince them to negotiate the end of the cold war. Reagan said that there was no reason to live any longer under the threat of nuclear war.
The Reagan administration achieved both goals, only to see these accomplishments discarded by successor administrations. It was Reagan’s own vice president and successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, who first violated the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings by incorporating former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire into NATO and taking Western military bases to the Russian frontier.
The process of surrounding Russia with military bases continued unabated through successor US administrations with various “color revolutions” financed by the US National Endowment for Democracy, regarded by many as a front for the CIA. Washington even attempted to install a Washington-controlled government in Ukraine and did succeed in this effort in former Soviet Georgia, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin. The President of Georgia, a country located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, is a Washington puppet. Recently, he announced that former Soviet Georgia is on schedule to become a NATO member in 2014.
Those old enough to remember know that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was an alliance between Western Europe and the US against the threat of the Red Army overrunning Western Europe. The North Atlantic is a long, long ways from the Black and Caspian Seas. What is the purpose of Georgia being a NATO member except to give Washington a military base on the Russian underbelly?
The evidence is simply overwhelming that Washington—both parties—have Russia and China targeted. Whether the purpose is to destroy both countries or merely to render them unable to oppose Washington’s world hegemony is unclear at this time. Regardless of the purpose, nuclear war is the likely outcome.
ARMAGEDDON APPROACHES . . .
The presstitute American press pretends that an evil Syrian government is murdering innocent citizens who only want democracy and that if the UN won’t intervene militarily, the US must in order to save human rights. Russia and China are vilified by US functionaries for opposing any pretext for a NATO invasion of Syria.
The facts, of course, are different from those presented by the presstitute American media and members of the US government. The Syrian “rebels” are well armed with military weapons. The “rebels” are battling the Syrian army. The rebels massacre civilians and report to their media whores in the West that the deed was done by the Syrian government, and the Western presstitutes spread the propaganda.
Someone is arming the “rebels” as obviously the weapons can’t be purchased in local Syrian markets. Most intelligent people believe the weapons are coming from the US or from US surrogates.
“DIVIDE ET IMPERA” — DIVIDE AND RULE
The object is to fragment Syria into petty sectarian statelets forever at each others’ throats. Ideally, this will be accomplished by a war that will do for Syria what has already been done so spectacularly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, i.e., destroy their infrastructures and leave them in ruins. When Syria is destroyed and more of its land annexed to Israel, adding to the territory already stolen in the water-rich Golan Heights, the next step will be the fragmentation of Iran and the plunder of its oil and gas resources. Iran is the big one. Syria is the small one on the way to Iran. As the neoconservative chickenhawks in Washington keep saying: “Real men go to Tehran!” (LD)
(For more on Israel’s role in the Syrian situation, see ‘Israel, Master of Puppets in Syria Unrest.’)
So, Washington has started a civil war in Syria, as it did in Libya, but this time the gullible Russians and Chinese have caught on and have refused to permit a UN resolution like the one the West exploited against Gaddafi.
To get around this roadblock, fish out an ancient Phantom fighter jet from the 1960s Vietnam war era and have Turkey fly it into Syria. The Syrians will shoot it down, and then Turkey can appeal to its NATO allies to come to its aid against Syria. Denied the UN option, Washington can invoke its obligation under the NATO treaty, and go to war in defense of a NATO member against a demonized Syria.
What was that Turkish plane doing sniffing around Syrian airspace? — It was begging to be shot down! So that Turkey could give NATO its casus belli, its pretext for all all-out attack on Syria in violation of international law. The warmongers in Washington have only one way of making a living nowadays — and that is by selling arms to war-torn countries and then systematically looting their resources. (LD)
The neoconservative lie behind Washington’s wars of hegemony is that the US is bringing democracy to the invaded and bombed countries. To paraphrase Mao, “democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun.” However, the Arab Spring has come up short on democracy, as have Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries “liberated” by US democratic invasions.
What the US is bringing is civil wars and the breakup of countries, as President Bill Clinton’s regime achieved in former Yugoslavia. The more countries can be torn into pieces and dissolved into rival factions, the more powerful is Washington.
Russia’s Putin understands that Russia itself is threatened not only by Washington’s funding of the “Russian opposition,” but also by the strife among Muslims unleashed by Washington’s wars against secular Muslim states, such as Iraq and Syria. This discord spreads into Russia itself and presents Russia with problems such as Chechen terrorism.
When a secular state is overthrown, the Islamist factions become free to be at one another’s throats. The internal strife renders the countries impotent. As I wrote previously, the West always prevails in the Middle East because the Islamist factions hate one another more than they hate their Western conquerors. Thus, when Washington destroys secular, non-Islamist governments as in Iraq and now targeted in Syria, the Islamists emerge and battle one another for supremacy. This suits Washington and Israel as these states cease to be coherent opponents.
RUSSIA SURROUNDED
The Russians are only too aware that the projected wars against Iran and Syria are proxy wars against them. The Chinese know that they, too, are being covertly targeted by these attacks on their Iranian and Syrian allies. Russia and China therefore have a stark choice: either to intervene and stop the planned destruction of Iran and Syria by the US, Israel and their camp followers in NATO and the Muslim world — or else be next on the hit list. (LD)
Russia is vulnerable, because Putin is demonized by Washington and the US media and because Putin’s Russian opposition is financed by Washington and serves US, not Russian, interests. The turmoil that Washington is unleashing in Muslim states leaks back to Russia’s Muslim populations.
It has proved to be more difficult for Washington to interfere in China’s internal affairs, although discord has been sowed in some provinces. Several years from now, the Chinese economy is expected to exceed in size the US economy, with an Asian power displacing a Western one as the world’s most powerful economy.
Washington is deeply disturbed by this prospect. In the thrall and under the control of Wall Street and other special interest business groups, Washington is unable to rescue the US economy from its decline. The short-run gambling profits of Wall Street, the war profits of the military/security complex, and the profits from offshoring the production of goods and services for US markets have far more representation in Washington than the wellbeing of US citizens. As the US economy sinks, the Chinese economy rises.
Washington’s response is to militarize the Pacific. The US Secretary of State has declared the South China Sea to be an area of American national interest. The US is wooing the Philippine government, playing the China threat card, and working on getting the US Navy invited back to its former base at Subic Bay. Recently there were joint US/Philippines military/naval exercises against the “China threat.”
AMERICA believes it has a right to establish bases all over the Pacific Ocean, threatening Chinese interests . . . but would America like it if China established Chinese bases all over the Atlantic Ocean, threatening America? (LD)
The US Navy is reallocating fleets to the Pacific Ocean and constructing a new naval base on a South Korean island. US Marines are now based in Australia and are being reallocated from Japan to other Asian countries. The Chinese are not stupid. They understand that Washington is attempting to corral China.
For a country incapable of occupying Iraq after 8 years and incapable of occupying Afghanistan after 11 years, to simultaneously take on two nuclear powers is an act of insanity. The hubris in Washington, fed daily by the crazed neocons, despite extraordinary failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now targeted formidable powers—Russia and China. The world has never in its entire history witnessed such idiocy. The psychopaths, sociopaths, and morons who prevail in Washington are leading the world to destruction.
The criminally insane government in Washington, regardless whether Democrat or Republican, regardless of the outcome of the next election, is the greatest threat to life on earth that has ever existed.
AMERICA, YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the REAL President of America — the man who runs the American Madhouse with the help of AIPAC and America’ s Zionist organizations . . . _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:11 am Post subject: Hillary Clinton - the Wicked Witch of the West
RUMBLED! Netanyahu is the ventriloquist. Hillary is his doll. Here we go! So why don't you and your Saudi friends lay off giving arms to the rebels and trying to create another Libya? Oh yes, I see your Libya dream is turning to dust so that's why you want Syria out of the way & in your oil companies' hands quickly. INNIT!
- Hilly the Hick making the world a nice place ready for the olympics eh?
Clinton Says Syria Must End Violence To Avoid 'Catastrophic Assault' http://www.rferl.org/content/clinton-syria-must-end-violence/24638500. html?
July 08, 2012
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Syrian government has a better chance to avoid what she called a "catastrophic assault" the sooner the violence ends and the political transition begins.
Clinton said the regime of Bashar al-Assad must acknowledge that its days are numbered, and that there was no doubt Syria's opposition forces were growing more effective.
She said last month was the deadliest for the Syrian people in the 16-month revolt against Assad.
Clinton was speaking in Tokyo on the sidelines of an international donors conference for Afghanistan.
Special UN envoy Kofi Annan, meanwhile, acknowledged in an interview published on July 7 that the international community's efforts to find a political solution to the escalating violence in Syria have failed.
Clinton Says Syria Must End Violence To Avoid 'Catastrophic Assault'
Quote:
From studio album "Ride The Lightning", 1984
Lyrics:
Do unto others as they have done to you
But what the hell is this world coming to?
Blow the universe into nothingness
Nuclear warfare shall lay us to rest
Fight fire with fire
Ending is near
Fight fire with fire
Bursting with fear
We all shall die
Time is like a fuse, short and burning fast
Armageddon is here, like said in the past
Fight fire with fire
Ending is near
Fight fire with fire
Bursting with fear
Soon to fill our lungs the hot winds of death
The gods are laughing, so take your last breath
Fight fire with fire
Ending is near
Fight fire with fire
Bursting with fear
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
Fight...
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
A document prepared by the Catholic lobby in France mentioned that the Syrian National Council is the military arm of the American intelligence.
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Controversial atmosphere took place after Basma Qadamani attended the largest Masonic conference in the world.
The report from which we are going to publish a document is attached to the conference of the global Bilderberg Group and prepared by a group of French activists who support the so-called Catholic lobby which is the most powerful in France. The report mentions that the position of France has deteriorated recently on the global level. The weakness of its presence in Bilderberg Club, the most important economic, political, security, and military club ever, is clear evidence. The conference classified the National Syrian Council as security and political council, and reported that there was a significant Turkish and Israeli representation as well as a sort of weird Syrian representation by the spokesperson of the Syrian Council "Basma Qadamani" and attributing her attendance to the presence of two high-level American security officials.
Some Arabic sites did not comment on Qadamani's attendance at Bilderberg Conference, yet some sides in the Syrian opposition criticized the event in electronic mails. Although we obtained some of those mails that were distributed among activists in this domain, however we will only publish certain paragraphs from the report of the French Catholic lobby since its publishers have a significant experience in Western relations, French security and politics, and inside the churchly lobby that is close to decision-making in France.
So weird was the attendance of a Syrian representative at the Masonic Bilderberg Club Conference, the club of world leaders and most powerful companies and personas in the world. Basma Qadamani is the spokesperson of the Syrian National Council or the so-called Council of Istanbul. Qadamani's unexplainable presence at the conference came along with the attendance of two Turkish representatives as well as a Russian, not to mention that it is the first time for those three countries to be represented at such conference.
A close side to the Catholic lobby in France prepared this report that mentioned the following: "The meeting of Bilderberg Group was held between May 31st and June 2nd in the Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles hotel, 40 kilometers from the White House, under intensive security and military measures. This place witnessed two previous meetings for the same group as sources stated. And Basma Qadadmani, the spokesperson of the Syrian National Council, attended it accompanied with the Israeli professor of Economics at New York University Itamar Rabinovich , in addition to Ariel Levitt, an instructor at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Among the attendees, there were the former Russian world champion of chess and the anti-president Vladimir Putin, Gary Kasparov, Obama's National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, and Keith Alexander, the Director of America's major intelligence branch; the National Security Agency.
According to the same sources, the Turkish attendance was also notable. Turkish daily Harriet's editor-in-chief, Anis Barbar Oglu was present as well as Erdogan's Adviser for Economic and Financial Affairs, Ali Barbakan, and the Head of Turkey's Kook Group, Mustapha Kook. Professor of International Relations in the University of Sabanci, Fouad Kayman, and the General Manager of Vodafone Turkey, Serpil Timuray also attended on the Turkish level.
The report that described the Syrian National Council as the military arm of the CIA mentioned that:"Along with the attendance of Thomas Donilon and Keith Alexander, the symbolic presence of Qadamani, the representative of the number one group among the military opposition to Bashar Assad's regime, indicates that this council is the military arm of American intelligence agencies.
What is the Bilderberg Group?
Bilderberg Group represents an unofficial annual conference attended by 130 members, most of whom are the world's strongest politicians, businessmen, and bankers. Inside the conference, top secret talks about several global, financial, military, and political issues take place.
Any Arab or Islamic figure is allowed to attend the conference because all the talks are about them, especially how to control them and oblige them to surrender. The American activist Alex Jones recorded their meeting in 2009 and produced a documentary about this club asserting that Hillary Clinton attended it.
The international Wikipedia defines this group as: An unofficial annual conference attended by 150 invitees, most of whom are the strongest politicians, businessmen, and bankers worldwide. And global economic, military, and political issues are top-secretly discussed at the conference.
The Group was founded in 1954 after some rich and powerful men suggested its establishment. It was named after Bilderberg Hotel in the Dutch village Oosterbeek where the first conference was held in the same year. Europeans constitute two thirds of the members while the rest are Americans.
The meetings are annually held in Europe, and once every four years in the U.S. or Canada. The hotel in where the conference is held is totally reserved, extreme security measures take place, and media outlets are banned from having access. No statements are distributed after the meeting and members of the group have to say the oath of secrecy.
An internal management committee selects the new members according to a number of qualifications such as supporting Zionism and never opposing Semitism. Its members, in general, believe in Fabian's socialist theory which demands "democratic control on all the activities of the society." This theory considers that the "Global Government" is the best way to control humans. It is common between Fabian and Communism.
Among the invitees, there were representatives of the following companies: IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, and others... The meeting of 2009, held in a Greek hotel, was attended by high-ranking figures such as Beatrix, the Queen of the Netherlands, Sofia, the Queen of Spain, the prime ministers of Greece and Finland, the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, the Head of the American Federal Reserve, the President of the World Bank, and the President of the European Commission. The broadcaster Alex Jones followed up several meetings of the group and took photos for the attendees. He also asserts in a documentary of his that Hillary Clinton was among the invitees of the 2009 conference.
With respect to the high-level personages affiliated with the group, and the unprecedented secrecy of its meetings, many theories about attempts to control world were referred to this club.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject:
Those pesky Germans do what the BBC never does.
And boy to they dislike doing interviews in English - good one though
Give the Syrian government point of view.
Video: Assad remains defiant in TV interview as Annan arrives in Syria
11 hours ago 1,352 Views 10 Comments
http://www.thejournal.ie/syria-bashar-assad-kofi-annan-damascus-514313 -Jul2012/
INTERNATIONAL ENVOY KOFI Annan has arrived in Syria after admitting that his peace plan has so far failed to end nearly 16 months of carnage, as scores more die in the violence-wracked country.
“The Joint Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan, arrived in Damascus late yesterday for talks with President Bashar Al-Assad,” his spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said of Annan’s third trip to Syriasince the outbreak of the conflict.
Earlier, Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi had told AFP Annan would hold talks on his six-point plan for peace with the Syrian leadership.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned on Sunday that time is running out to save Syria from a “catastrophic assault,” and as 99 more people were reportedly killed across the country, most of them civilians.
Annan himself has said his UN-backed mission has so far failed to halt the bloodshed, while stressing that Russia and Iran must not be sidelined from peace efforts.
“Russia wields influence but I am not sure that the events will be determined by Russia alone… Iran is an actor. It has to be part of the solution. It has influence and we cannot ignore it,” Annan told France’s Le Monde daily.
He also expressed irritation that while Moscow and Iran are mentioned by some as stumbling blocks to peace, “little is said about other countries which send arms, money, and have a presence on the ground.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the United States and its allies of opposing Assad’s regime with the goal of dominating the Middle East and propping up Israel.
Iran’s deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said on Sunday in Jordan that any attack on Syria would be “stupid” and “catastrophic.”
Syria’s state news agency SANA reported that the country’s navy staged live fire exercises to “simulate the scenario of repelling a sudden attack from the sea.”
Earlier, Clinton acknowledged in Tokyo that efforts led by Annan to get Assad’s regime to halt its crackdown were proving difficult.
“The sooner there can be an end to the violence and a begetting of a political transition process, not only will fewer people die, but there’s a chance to save the Syrian state from a catastrophic assault that would be dangerous not only to the country, but the region,” she told reporters.
“It should be abundantly clear to those who support the Assad regime their days are numbered.”
Clinton was speaking after talks in Paris on Friday where countries pledged to increase pressure on Assad to step down by seeking a tough UN resolution backed by a threat of sanctions. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
The keel for the ship, the Ponce, was cast in 1966, and the vessel, nearing the end of its service, was to have been scrapped. But the Ponce was reborn as a floating forward base for staging important military operations across the region - the latest example of the new American way of war.
The first mission of the reborn Ponce was designed to be low profile and defensive, as an operations hub for mine clearing in the Strait of Hormuz, a counter to threats from Tehran to close the vital commercial waterway. In that role, the Ponce will be a launching pad for helicopters, a home to underwater diver teams and a seaborne service station providing fuel and maintenance for minesweeping ships.
But with the relatively simple addition of a modular barracks on the deck, the Ponce can also be a mobile base for several hundred Special Operations forces to carry out missions like hostage rescue, counterterrorism, reconnaissance, sabotage and direct strikes. Even with the addition of the barracks, there is ample room for helicopters and the small, fast boats favored by commandos.
Allies and friends are important, but they can veto American missions initiated from bases on their territory. The Ponce operates from international waters. Surprise and speed are critical to military success; the Ponce can sail close to areas of conflict. And having the ability to carry out different missions for different branches of the armed services is more valuable than having a weapons platform that does just one thing for one branch of the military.
Iranian leaders see the Ponce differently, of course, and they have lashed out at the American deployments, accusing Washington of mounting a provocative military buildup. (The American reinforcements also include a doubling of minesweepers to eight and the addition of Air Force fighter and attack jets.) An Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander even threatened that his nation would counter the moves by ordering a buildup of missiles that could endanger American warships and allied bases in the region.
The Navy is convinced that the capability provided by the Ponce is essential to future military operations, and it has proposed that Congress continue a four-year, $1.2 billion program to build two new vessels dedicated solely to be what the service terms "afloat forward staging bases." Allison F. Stiller, the Navy's deputy assistant secretary for ship programs, said the two ships, now under construction, were the first vessels built specifically for the job, as opposed to warships temporarily assigned the mission.
The first of the new ships should be available by 2015, and the second a year later, if Congress approves the budget requests.
"The afloat forward staging base gives us the ability to deliver this mine countermeasure capability directly to the scene of operations," said Rear Adm. Kenneth M. Perry, vice commander of the Navy's mine and antisubmarine warfare command.
Admiral Perry is based in San Diego, but he described the Ponce's role in a telephone interview from the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, where he has moved to oversee mine-clearing exercises and, potentially, mine-clearing missions.
For decades, the military has used various warships and service vessels as platforms for staging operations, whether the Pacific island-hopping campaign of World War II or the river campaigns of the Vietnam War. In a more recent and creative example, the Navy emptied the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk of attack jets before the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and turned it over to Special Operations forces for raids against Taliban targets.
The idea of creating a dedicated fleet of floating bases gained traction in the 1990s, as the military retrenched after the collapse of communism and looked for ways to operate independently near contested areas. One idea was to tow giant offshore oil platforms to a conflict zone and lash them together to form an airport large enough for helicopters and even transport planes. It was ultimately dismissed because the platforms would have been too vulnerable to attack and insufficiently mobile.
The design of the floating bases expands on what is called the mobile landing platform, which is used to get Marines and their war-fighting equipment from ship to shore. Those landing platforms are built by General Dynamics Nassco, which is also constructing the new basing ships. To the untrained eye, the vessels look very much like an oil tanker.
To accommodate the many missions of different military branches aboard the floating base, the vessels will be outfitted with a helicopter hangar on the deck and with access portals for small, fast boats. A hospital suite and a water purification facility also are on board.
"It will be a ship that is 'purpose built' to have that capability, whereas we have taken Ponce and converted her to provide that capability, or we have taken another ship offline to do the mission," said Ms. Stiller, the Navy official.
Pentagon and Navy officials note that the decades-old quest for an afloat forward staging base was accelerated, and finally became a reality, owing to pressure from the global combatant commanders - especially from senior officers at Central Command and Special Operations Command.
"Mine countermeasures operations are critical to protecting sea lines of communication by mapping out and neutralizing sea mines," said Lt. Col. T. G. Taylor, a Central Command spokesman. "Sea mines are indiscriminate to their victims and require a robust countermeasures program to ensure the safety of all maritime vessels."
Comment: This ship is also part of a larger group of ships (the US Fifth Fleet) in the Persian Gulf.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject:
The bombs doors are open. The plans have been drawn up.
This has been brewing for a time. The sheer energy and meticulous planning that's gone into this change of regime – it's breathtaking. The soft power and political reach of the big foundations and policy bodies is vast, but scrutiny is no respecter of fancy titles and fellowships and "strategy briefings". Executive director of what, it asks. Having "democracy" or "human rights" in your job title doesn't give you a free pass.
And if you're a "communications director" it means your words should be weighed extra carefully. Weiss and Fakher, both communications directors – PR professionals. At the Chatham House event in June 2011, Monajed is listed as: "Ausama Monajed, director of communications, National Initiative for Change" and he was head of PR for the MJD. The creator of the news website NOW Lebanon, Eli Khoury, is a Saatchi advertising executive. These communications directors are working hard to create what Tamara Wittes called a "positive brand".
They're selling the idea of military intervention and regime change, and the mainstream news is hungry to buy. Many of the "activists" and spokespeople representing the Syrian opposition are closely (and in many cases financially) interlinked with the US and London – the very people who would be doing the intervening. Which means information and statistics from these sources isn't necessarily pure news – it's a sales pitch, a PR campaign.
The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition- doing-the-talking
The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …
Charlie Skelton - guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 July 2012 15.48 BST
A nightmare is unfolding across Syria, in the homes of al-Heffa and the streets of Houla. And we all know how the story ends: with thousands of soldiers and civilians killed, towns and families destroyed, and President Assad beaten to death in a ditch.
This is the story of the Syrian war, but there is another story to be told. A tale less bloody, but nevertheless important. This is a story about the storytellers: the spokespeople, the "experts on Syria", the "democracy activists". The statement makers. The people who "urge" and "warn" and "call for action".
It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business. The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as "official spokesmen" or "pro-democracy campaigners" without, for the most part, scrutinising their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections.
It's important to stress: to investigate the background of a Syrian spokesperson is not to doubt the sincerity of his or her opposition to Assad. But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.
Though it is not yet stated US government policy to oust Assad by force, these spokespeople are vocal advocates of foreign military intervention in Syria and thus natural allies of well-known US neoconservatives who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now pressuring the Obama administration to intervene. As we will see, several of these spokespeople have found support, and in some cases developed long and lucrative relationships with advocates of military intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.
"The sand is running out of the hour glass," said Hillary Clinton on Sunday. So, as the fighting in Syria intensifies, and Russian warships set sail for Tartus, it's high time to take a closer look at those who are speaking out on behalf of the Syrian people.
The Syrian National Council
The most quoted of the opposition spokespeople are the official representatives of the Syrian National Council. The SNC is not the only Syrian opposition group – but it is generally recognised as "the main opposition coalition" (BBC). The Washington Times describes it as "an umbrella group of rival factions based outside Syria". Certainly the SNC is the opposition group that's had the closest dealings with western powers – and has called for foreign intervention from the early stages of the uprising. In February of this year, at the opening of the Friends of Syria summit in Tunisia, William Hague declared: "I will meet leaders of the Syrian National Council in a few minutes' time … We, in common with other nations, will now treat them and recognise them as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people."
The most senior of the SNC's official spokespeople is the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani.
Bassma Kodmani
Here is Bassma Kodmani, seen leaving this year's Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia.
Kodmani is a member of the executive bureau and head of foreign affairs, Syrian National Council. Kodmani is close to the centre of the SNC power structure, and one of the council's most vocal spokespeople. "No dialogue with the ruling regime is possible. We can only discuss how to move on to a different political system," she declared this week. And here she is, quoted by the newswire AFP: "The next step needs to be a resolution under Chapter VII, which allows for the use of all legitimate means, coercive means, embargo on arms, as well as the use of force to oblige the regime to comply."
This statement translates into the headline "Syrians call for armed peacekeepers" (Australia's Herald Sun). When large-scale international military action is being called for, it seems only reasonable to ask: who exactly is calling for it? We can say, simply, "an official SNC spokesperson," or we can look a little closer.
This year was Kodmani's second Bilderberg. At the 2008 conference, Kodmani was listed as French; by 2012, her Frenchness had fallen away and she was listed simply as "international" – her homeland had become the world of international relations.
Back a few years, in 2005, Kodmani was working for the Ford Foundation in Cairo, where she was director of their governance and international co-operation programme. The Ford Foundation is a vast organisation, headquartered in New York, and Kodmani was already fairly senior. But she was about to jump up a league.
Around this time, in February 2005, US-Syrian relations collapsed, and President Bush recalled his ambassador from Damascus. A lot of opposition projects date from this period. "The US money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005," says the Washington Post.
In September 2005, Kodmani was made the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI) – a research programme initiated by the powerful US lobby group, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The CFR is an elite US foreign policy thinktank, and the Arab Reform Initiative is described on its website as a "CFR Project" . More specifically, the ARI was initiated by a group within the CFR called the "US/Middle East Project" – a body of senior diplomats, intelligence officers and financiers, the stated aim of which is to undertake regional "policy analysis" in order "to prevent conflict and promote stability". The US/Middle East Project pursues these goals under the guidance of an international board chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft.
Brent Scowcroft (chairman emeritus) is a former national security adviser to the US president – he took over the role from Henry Kissinger. Sitting alongside Scowcroft of the international board is his fellow geo-strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who succeeded him as the national security adviser, and Peter Sutherland, the chairman of Goldman Sachs International. So, as early as 2005, we've got a senior wing of the western intelligence/banking establishment selecting Kodmani to run a Middle East research project. In September of that year, Kodmani was made full-time director of the programme. Earlier in 2005, the CFR assigned "financial oversight" of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). In come the British.
The CER is overseen by Lord Kerr, the deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell. Kerr is a former head of the diplomatic service and is a senior adviser at Chatham House (a thinktank showcasing the best brains of the British diplomatic establishment).
In charge of the CER on a day-to-day basis is Charles Grant, former defence editor of the Economist, and these days a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a "pan-European thinktank" packed with diplomats, industrialists, professors and prime ministers. On its list of members you'll find the name: "Bassma Kodmani (France/Syria) – Executive Director, Arab Reform Initiative".
Another name on the list: George Soros – the financier whose non-profit "Open Society Foundations" is a primary funding source of the ECFR. At this level, the worlds of banking, diplomacy, industry, intelligence and the various policy institutes and foundations all mesh together, and there, in the middle of it all, is Kodmani.
The point is, Kodmani is not some random "pro-democracy activist" who happens to have found herself in front of a microphone. She has impeccable international diplomacy credentials: she holds the position of research director at the Académie Diplomatique Internationale – "an independent and neutral institution dedicated to promoting modern diplomacy". The Académie is headed by Jean-Claude Cousseran, a former head of the DGSE – the French foreign intelligence service.
A picture is emerging of Kodmani as a trusted lieutenant of the Anglo-American democracy-promotion industry. Her "province of origin" (according to the SNC website) is Damascus, but she has close and long-standing professional relationships with precisely those powers she's calling upon to intervene in Syria.
And many of her spokesmen colleagues are equally well-connected.
Radwan Ziadeh
Another often quoted SNC representative is Radwan Ziadeh – director of foreign relations at the Syrian National Council. Ziadeh has an impressive CV: he's a senior fellow at the federally funded Washington thinktank, the US Institute of Peace (the USIP Board of Directors is packed with alumni of the defence department and the national security council; its president is Richard Solomon, former adviser to Kissinger at the NSC).
In February this year, Ziadeh joined an elite bunch of Washington hawks to sign a letter calling upon Obama to intervene in Syria: his fellow signatories include James Woolsey (former CIA chief), Karl Rove (Bush Jr's handler), Clifford May (Committee on the Present Danger) and Elizabeth Cheney, former head of the Pentagon's Iran-Syria Operations Group.
Ziadeh is a relentless organiser, a blue-chip Washington insider with links to some of the most powerful establishment thinktanks. Ziadeh's connections extend all the way to London. In 2009 he became a visiting fellow at Chatham House, and in June of last year he featured on the panel at one of their events – "Envisioning Syria's Political Future" – sharing a platform with fellow SNC spokesman Ausama Monajed (more on Monajed below) and SNC member Najib Ghadbian.
Ghadbian was identified by the Wall Street Journal as an early intermediary between the US government and the Syrian opposition in exile: "An initial contact between the White House and NSF [National Salvation Front] was forged by Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist." This was back in 2005. The watershed year.
These days, Ghadbian is a member of the general secretariat of the SNC, and is on the advisory board of a Washington-based policy body called the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS) – an organisation co-founded by Ziadeh.
Ziadeh has been making connections like this for years. Back in 2008, Ziadeh took part in a meeting of opposition figures in a Washington government building: a mini-conference called "Syria In-Transition". The meeting was co-sponsored by a US-based body called the Democracy Council and a UK-based organisation called the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD). It was a big day for the MJD – their chairman, Anas Al-Abdah, had travelled to Washington from Britain for the event, along with their director of public relations. Here, from the MJD's website, is a description of the day: "The conference saw an exceptional turn out as the allocated hall was packed with guests from the House of Representatives and the Senate, representatives of studies centres, journalists and Syrian expatriats [sic] in the USA."
The day opened with a keynote speech by James Prince, head of the Democracy Council. Ziadeh was on a panel chaired by Joshua Muravchik (the ultra-interventionist author of the 2006 op-ed "Bomb Iran"). The topic of the discussion was "The Emergence of Organized Opposition". Sitting beside Ziadeh on the panel was the public relations director of the MJD – a man who would later become his fellow SNC spokesperson – Ausama Monajed.
Ausama Monajed
Along with Kodmani and Ziadeh, Ausama (or sometimes Osama) Monajed is one of the most important SNC spokespeople. There are others, of course – the SNC is a big beast and includes the Muslim Brotherhood. The opposition to Assad is wide-ranging, but these are some of the key voices. There are other official spokespeople with long political careers, like George Sabra of the Syrian Democratic People's party – Sabra has suffered arrest and lengthy imprisonment in his fight against the "repressive and totalitarian regime in Syria". And there are other opposition voices outside the SNC, such as the writer Michel Kilo, who speaks eloquently of the violence tearing apart his country: "Syria is being destroyed – street after street, city after city, village after village. What kind of solution is that? In order for a small group of people to remain in power, the whole country is being destroyed."
But there's no doubt that the primary opposition body is the SNC, and Kodmani, Ziadeh and Monajed are often to be found representing it. Monajed frequently crops up as a commentator on TV news channels. Here he is on the BBC, speaking from their Washington bureau. Monajed doesn't sugar-coat his message: "We are watching civilians being slaughtered and kids being slaughtered and killed and women being raped on the TV screens every day."
Meanwhile, over on Al Jazeera, Monajed talks about "what's really happening, in reality, on the ground" – about "the militiamen of Assad" who "come and rape their women, slaughter their children, and kill their elderly".
Monajed turned up, just a few days ago, as a blogger on Huffington Post UK, where he explained, at length: "Why the World Must Intervene in Syria" – calling for "direct military assistance" and "foreign military aid". So, again, a fair question might be: who is this spokesman calling for military intervention?
Monajed is a member of the SNC, adviser to its president, and according to his SNC biography, "the Founder and Director of Barada Television", a pro-opposition satellite channel based in Vauxhall, south London. In 2008, a few months after attending Syria In-Transition conference, Monajed was back in Washington, invited to lunch with George W Bush, along with a handful of other favoured dissidents (you can see Monajed in the souvenir photo, third from the right, in the red tie, near Condoleezza Rice – up the other end from Garry Kasparov).
At this time, in 2008, the US state department knew Monajed as "director of public relations for the Movement for Justice and Development (MJD), which leads the struggle for peaceful and democratic change in Syria".
Let's look closer at the MJD. Last year, the Washington Post picked up a story from WikiLeaks, which had published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables. These cables appear to show a remarkable flow of money from the US state department to the British-based Movement for Justice and Development. According to the Washington Post's report: "Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified US diplomatic cables show that the state department has funnelled as much as $6m to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria."
A state department spokesman responded to this story by saying: "Trying to promote a transformation to a more democratic process in this society is not undermining necessarily the existing government." And they're right, it's not "necessarily" that.
When asked about the state department money, Monajed himself said that he "could not confirm" US state department funding for Barada TV, but said: "I didn't receive a penny myself." Malik al -Abdeh, until very recently Barada TV's editor-in-chief insisted: "we have had no direct dealings with the US state department". The meaning of the sentence turns on that word "direct". It is worth noting that Malik al Abdeh also happens to be one of the founders of the Movement for Justice and Development (the recipient of the state department $6m, according to the leaked cable). And he's the brother of the chairman, Anas Al-Abdah. He's also the co-holder of the MJD trademark: What Malik al Abdeh does admit is that Barada TV gets a large chunk of its funding from an American non-profit organisation: the Democracy Council. One of the co-sponsors (with the MJD) of Syria In-Transition mini-conference. So what we see, in 2008, at the same meeting, are the leaders of precisely those organisations identified in the Wiki:eaks cables as the conduit (the Democracy Council) and recipient (the MJD) of large amounts of state department money.
The Democracy Council (a US-based grant distributor) lists the state department as one of its sources of funding. How it works is this: the Democracy Council serves as a grant-administering intermediary between the state department's "Middle East Partnership Initiative" and "local partners" (such as Barada TV). As the Washington Post reports:
"Several US diplomatic cables from the embassy in Damascus reveal that the Syrian exiles received money from a State Department program called the Middle East Partnership Initiative. According to the cables, the State Department funnelled money to the exile group via the Democracy Council, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit."
The same report highlights a 2009 cable from the US Embassy in Syria that says that the Democracy Council received $6.3m from the state department to run a Syria-related programme, the "Civil Society Strengthening Initiative". The cable describes this as "a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners" aimed at producing, amongst other things, "various broadcast concepts." According to the Washington Post: "Other cables make clear that one of those concepts was Barada TV."
Until a few months ago, the state department's Middle East Partnership Initiative was overseen by Tamara Cofman Wittes (she's now at the Brookings Institution – an influential Washington thinktank). Of MEPI, she said that it "created a positive 'brand' for US democracy promotion efforts". While working there she declared: "There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government … That's an agenda that we believe in and we're going to support." And by support, she means bankroll.
The money
This is nothing new. Go back a while to early 2006, and you have the state department announcing a new "funding opportunity" called the "Syria Democracy Program". On offer, grants worth "$5m in Federal Fiscal Year 2006". The aim of the grants? "To accelerate the work of reformers in Syria."
These days, the cash is flowing in faster than ever. At the beginning of June 2012, the Syrian Business Forum was launched in Doha by opposition leaders including Wael Merza (SNC secretary general). "This fund has been established to support all components of the revolution in Syria," said Merza. The size of the fund? Some $300m. It's by no means clear where the money has come from, although Merza "hinted at strong financial support from Gulf Arab states for the new fund" (Al Jazeera). At the launch, Merza said that about $150m had already been spent, in part on the Free Syrian Army.
Merza's group of Syrian businessmen made an appearance at a World Economic Forum conference titled the "Platform for International Co-operation" held in Istanbul in November 2011. All part of the process whereby the SNC has grown in reputation, to become, in the words of William Hague, "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" – and able, openly, to handle this much funding.
Building legitimacy – of opposition, of representation, of intervention – is the essential propaganda battle.
In a USA Today op-ed written in February this year, Ambassador Dennis Ross declared: "It is time to raise the status of the Syrian National Council". What he wanted, urgently, is "to create an aura of inevitability about the SNC as the alternative to Assad." The aura of inevitability. Winning the battle in advance.
A key combatant in this battle for hearts and minds is the American journalist and Daily Telegraph blogger, Michael Weiss.
Michael Weiss
One of the most widely quoted western experts on Syria – and an enthusiast for western intervention – Michael Weiss echoes Ambassador Ross when he says: "Military intervention in Syria isn't so much a matter of preference as an inevitability."
Some of Weiss's interventionist writings can be found on a Beirut-based, Washington-friendly website called "NOW Lebanon" – whose "NOW Syria" section is an important source of Syrian updates. NOW Lebanon was set up in 2007 by Saatchi & Saatchi executive Eli Khoury. Khoury has been described by the advertising industry as a "strategic communications specialist, specialising in corporate and government image and brand development".
Weiss told NOW Lebanon, back in May, that thanks to the influx of weapons to Syrian rebels "we've already begun to see some results." He showed a similar approval of military developments a few months earlier, in a piece for the New Republic: "In the past several weeks, the Free Syrian Army and other independent rebel brigades have made great strides" – whereupon, as any blogger might, he laid out his "Blueprint for a Military Intervention in Syria".
But Weiss is not only a blogger. He's also the director of communications and public relations at the Henry Jackson Society, an ultra-ultra-hawkish foreign policy thinktank.
The Henry Jackson Society's international patrons include: James "ex-CIA boss" Woolsey, Michael "homeland security" Chertoff, William "PNAC" Kristol, Robert "PNAC" Kagan', Joshua "Bomb Iran" Muravchick, and Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle. The Society is run by Alan Mendoza, chief adviser to the all-party parliamentary group on transatlantic and international security.
The Henry Jackson Society is uncompromising in its "forward strategy" towards democracy. And Weiss is in charge of the message. The Henry Jackson Society is proud of its PR chief's far-reaching influence: "He is the author of the influential report "Intervention in Syria? An Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards", which was repurposed and endorsed by the Syrian National Council."
Weiss's original report was re-named "Safe Area for Syria" – and ended up on the official syriancouncil.org website, as part of their military bureau's strategic literature. The repurposing of the HJS report was undertaken by the founder and executive director of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre (SRCC) – one Ausama Monajed.
So, the founder of Barada TV, Ausama Monajed, edited Weiss's report, published it through his own organisation (the SRCC) and passed it on to the Syrian National Council, with the support of the Henry Jackson Society.
The relationship couldn't be closer. Monajed even ends up handling inquiries for "press interviews with Michael Weiss". Weiss is not the only strategist to have sketched out the roadmap to this war (many thinktanks have thought it out, many hawks have talked it up), but some of the sharpest detailing is his.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
The justification for the "inevitable" military intervention is the savagery of President Assad's regime: the atrocities, the shelling, the human rights abuses. Information is crucial here, and one source above all has been providing us with data about Syria. It is quoted at every turn: "The head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told VOA [Voice of America] that fighting and shelling killed at least 12 people in Homs province."
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is commonly used as a standalone source for news and statistics. Just this week, news agency AFP carried this story: "Syrian forces pounded Aleppo and Deir Ezzor provinces as at least 35 people were killed on Sunday across the country, among them 17 civilians, a watchdog reported." Various atrocities and casualty numbers are listed, all from a single source: "Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP by phone."
Statistic after horrific statistic pours from "the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" (AP). It's hard to find a news report about Syria that doesn't cite them. But who are they? "They" are Rami Abdulrahman (or Rami Abdel Rahman), who lives in Coventry.
According to a Reuters report in December of last year: "When he isn't fielding calls from international media, Abdulrahman is a few minutes down the road at his clothes shop, which he runs with his wife."
When the Guardian's Middle East live blog cited "Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" it also linked to a sceptical article in the Modern Tokyo Times – an article which suggested news outlets could be a bit "more objective about their sources" when quoting "this so-called entity", the SOHR.
That name, the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights", sound so grand, so unimpeachable, so objective. And yet when Abdulrahman and his "Britain-based NGO" (AFP/NOW Lebanon) are the sole source for so many news stories about such an important subject, it would seem reasonable to submit this body to a little more scrutiny than it's had to date.
The Observatory is by no means the only Syrian news source to be quoted freely with little or no scrutiny …
Hamza Fakher
The relationship between Ausama Monajed, the SNC, the Henry Jackson hawks and an unquestioning media can be seen in the case of Hamza Fakher. On 1 January, Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer: "To grasp the scale of the barbarism, listen to Hamza Fakher, a pro-democracy activist, who is one of the most reliable sources on the crimes the regime's news blackout hides."
He goes on to recount Fakher's horrific tales of torture and mass murder. Fakher tells Cohen of a new hot-plate torture technique that he's heard about: "imagine all the melting flesh reaching the bone before the detainee falls on the plate". The following day, Shamik Das, writing on "evidence-based" progressive blog Left Foot Forward, quotes the same source: "Hamza Fakher, a pro-democracy activist, describes the sickening reality …" – and the account of atrocities given to Cohen is repeated.
So, who exactly is this "pro-democracy activist", Hamza Fakher?
Fakher, it turns out, is the co-author of Revolution in Danger , a "Henry Jackson Society Strategic Briefing", published in February of this year. He co-wrote this briefing paper with the Henry Jackson Society's communications director, Michael Weiss. And when he's not co-writing Henry Jackson Society strategic briefings, Fakher is the communication manager of the London-based Strategic Research and Communication Centre (SRCC). According to their website, "He joined the centre in 2011 and has been in charge of the centre's communication strategy and products."
As you may recall, the SRCC is run by one Ausama Monajed: "Mr Monajed founded the centre in 2010. He is widely quoted and interviewed in international press and media outlets. He previously worked as communication consultant in Europe and the US and formerly served as the director of Barada Television …".
Monajed is Fakher's boss.
If this wasn't enough, for a final Washington twist, on the board of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre sits Murhaf Jouejati, a professor at the National Defence University in DC – "the premier center for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)" which is "under the direction of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff."
If you happen to be planning a trip to Monajed's "Strategic Research and Communication Centre", you'll find it here: Strategic Research & Communication Centre, Office 36, 88-90 Hatton Garden, Holborn, London EC1N 8PN.
Office 36 at 88-90 Hatton Garden is also where you'll find the London headquarters of The Fake Tan Company, Supercar 4 U Limited, Moola loans (a "trusted loans company"), Ultimate Screeding (for all your screeding needs), and The London School of Attraction – "a London-based training company which helps men develop the skills and confidence to meet and attract women." And about a hundred other businesses besides. It's a virtual office. There's something oddly appropriate about this. A "communication centre" that doesn't even have a centre – a grand name but no physical substance.
That's the reality of Hamza Fakher. On 27 May, Shamik Das of Left Foot Forward quotes again from Fakher's account of atrocities, which he now describes as an "eyewitness account" (which Cohen never said it was) and which by now has hardened into "the record of the Assad regime".
So, a report of atrocities given by a Henry Jackson Society strategist, who is the communications manager of Mosafed's PR department, has acquired the gravitas of a historical "record".
This is not to suggest that the account of atrocities must be untrue, but how many of those who give it currency are scrutinising its origins?
And let's not forget, whatever destabilisation has been done in the realm of news and public opinion is being carried out twofold on the ground. We already know that (at the very least) "the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department … are helping the opposition Free Syrian Army develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training."
The bombs doors are open. The plans have been drawn up.
This has been brewing for a time. The sheer energy and meticulous planning that's gone into this change of regime – it's breathtaking. The soft power and political reach of the big foundations and policy bodies is vast, but scrutiny is no respecter of fancy titles and fellowships and "strategy briefings". Executive director of what, it asks. Having "democracy" or "human rights" in your job title doesn't give you a free pass.
And if you're a "communications director" it means your words should be weighed extra carefully. Weiss and Fakher, both communications directors – PR professionals. At the Chatham House event in June 2011, Monajed is listed as: "Ausama Monajed, director of communications, National Initiative for Change" and he was head of PR for the MJD. The creator of the news website NOW Lebanon, Eli Khoury, is a Saatchi advertising executive. These communications directors are working hard to create what Tamara Wittes called a "positive brand".
They're selling the idea of military intervention and regime change, and the mainstream news is hungry to buy. Many of the "activists" and spokespeople representing the Syrian opposition are closely (and in many cases financially) interlinked with the US and London – the very people who would be doing the intervening. Which means information and statistics from these sources isn't necessarily pure news – it's a sales pitch, a PR campaign.
But it's never too late to ask questions, to scrutinise sources. Asking questions doesn't make you a cheerleader for Assad – that's a false argument. It just makes you less susceptible to spin. The good news is, there's a sceptic born every minute.
Mafioso tactics: Smaller countries must fall when US says so
Published: 17 July, 2012, 06:17
Edited: 17 July, 2012, 09:33
View page for new video
Quote:
Resorting to blackmail tactics in order to push through a UN resolution allowing the use of external force shows that the US is extremely frustrated that Assad has been able to hold on to power in Syria for so long, activist Brian Becker told RT.
Moscow said on Monday that Western governments are trying to blackmail Russia into supporting their draft of the Syrian resolution, threatening to end the UN observer mission if a deal is not reached.
The director of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, Brian Becker, told RT that the US wants to intimidate Beijing and Moscow in the international arena so it can do what it wants in order to reach the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Assad government.
RT: Russia says it faced blackmail tactics at the UN Security Council. Is this common when it comes to big politics?
Brian Becker: Well, unfortunately all too common. And I think the Russian foreign minister is in fact being very diplomatic when he says there is “an element” of blackmail or arm-twisting.
The US government, the Clinton-Obama foreign policy, is kind of the way a mafioso works: “If you don’t go our way, if you don’t do what we do, we are going to break your leg, we’ll make it impossible, we’ll threaten you.” Blackmailing and hostage taking is sort of a soft way of putting it, in fact.
The United States hopes to be able to break Russia and China down, to have them intimidated in the international arena so it can do what it wants to do, which is to foment civil war using all available elements of violence, pushing aside the possibility of peace in order to accomplish its main objective – which is to overthrow the Assad government. Not because that government is undemocratic, not because it is anti-humanitarian but because it’s not a proxy for the West, and that’s the real objective of the US in the Middle East, in Syria and elsewhere.
RT: If Russia fails to pass a Western-drafted resolution, which is the most realistic outcome, what will be the next step for the US and its allies?
BB: The US is extremely frustrated right now that the Assad government has been able to hold on in spite of the sustained pressure from Western powers and from Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are arming the opposition. Very frustrated because they expect these smaller countries to fall when the US says “you must fall.” They are expected to be shattered quickly and the Assad government shows great tenacity, a great staying power because – as the Russian foreign minister said it correctly – because there is a big part of the Syrian population that still supports the government.
And so the United States will, if stopped in the diplomatic arena, find another outlet for its unbridled use of violence in this case to overthrow the government. This is not going to stop. This is going to be ended by one side or another having a military victory and the United States is determined to overthrow the regime.
RT: How would that work? Is it possible to launch outside military action bypassing the UN Security Council?
BB: Well, certainly, we’ve seen that in the past. Look what happened in the case of Yugoslavia. There, too, the United States and the Western powers, when they could not get the UN to go along with the break-up of Yugoslavia, they resorted to the use of NATO. The United States can use NATO. Turkey of course is the eastern flank of NATO. It too can invoke NATO treaty obligations to bring in other partners. And it has other regional allies, in this case Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
So, I think we are heading towards foreign military intervention if the Assad government is able to hold on in spite of the extreme pressure it is facing.
Published on Jul 16, 2012 by RussiaToday
Russia's Foreign Minister says foreign partners have tried to blackmail Moscow to secure a UN resolution that would allow the use of force in Syria. Sergey Lavrov was speaking ahead of talks with international envoy Kofi Annan, who's in Moscow seeking Russia's help to end the bloody crisis in Syria.
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 500 million YouTube views benchmark.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:47 am Post subject:
The situation is now at a head, and two key developments in the last 24 hours indicate that whatever NATO has planned for Syria – be it a Libyan style no-fly zone or a full on Iraqiesque invasion – will soon come to pass.
First, a final warning was reportedly sent to the Assad government through intelligence back channels that threatened airstrikes on his weapons facilities:
Quote:
…today, the Syrian ruler was given a “last warning” through intelligence channels in the West to leave the warheads and shells loaded with mustard gas, sarin and cyanide where they are. If he dared move them out of the northern and central locations where he deployed them last week, they would be destroyed from the air.
Source: Debka File
Second, likely a tell-tale sign that NATO military action will soon be initiated in Syria, several of Assad’s top generals and key security figures have fled the country with their families.
Quote:
Several high-placed generals bolted Bashar Assad’s inner circle Sunday, July 17, including such key figures as two security services chiefs who were operations commanders of the Alawite Shabiha militia plus the former head of Syria’s chemical and biological administration who took six other generals with him. They all fled to Turkey and defected. A fourth senior general from another security service was assassinated in Aleppo.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject:
The Defence minister was a Christian.
What horror this morning was perpetrated by our Western leaders?
SNC & FSA = NATO/Israel
Conning the Moslem fighters that they are fighting for God.
Mostly a psychological operation & assassination.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:47 am Post subject:
Libya, Syria and Iran, NATO and Israel's fascist obsession with regime change
BRISTOL Wednesday 18th July 2012 - Tony Gosling
Today's assassination of senior Syrian government officials, by NATO led terrorists in Damascus, brings us to a new low in a horrifying war of physical and mental attrition. It is a civil war that NATO want to happen, after all their friends are supplying the minority with weapons.
Today’s bombings in Damascus and Bulgaria may as well have been carried out by Hillary Clinton or Benjamin Netanyahu themselves. There is plenty of evidence of their love of ‘black ops’. And both bombings serve their joint purpose at the UN Security Council this week. And the purposes of their backers the private owners of the West’s monstrous Military Industrial Complex.
Even Eisenhower would have found this generation’s war profiteers a hard cookie to chew. But quite how many millions of human souls across this fragile world of ours do they hope to fool by their gameplays, and for how long, is another question entirely. Because Clinton and Netanyahu are painting themselves into a psychopath’s corner, the only way out of which will be impeachment, or an open Third World War.
Not since the days running up to World Wars One and Two have we seen such political murder cruelly calculated to take the world's superpowers to the brink.
The assassinations come in the run-up to this week's UN Security Council resolutions and are timed to send a mainstream media message to NATO zone domestic populations. “Assad can no longer rule the country, it is time for “regime change””. But these old tricks will not persuade China or Russia.
The governance of Syria is no business of Hillary Clinton. The ‘civil war’ onto which NATO and its Saudi allies are pouring petrol of heavy weapons is not about Assad, it is about the integrity of the regime, the good people of Syria, and recently democratically affirmed constitution they represent. Assad’s independence cannot be tolerated, he is manning a road-block on the way to Iran.
NATO had a choice after Gaddafi was sodomised with a bayonet by that mob in Libya. They could move straight to pulverising Iran from the air, cyberspace and using secretive space weapons. But that would leave NATO having to deal with what would be a less credulous Syrian rebel population, less hypnotised by Al Quaeda's calls to oust the 'infidel' Assad. No matter how many rocket propelled grenades Allah put into their hands. So the NATO/Israeli axis chose to bring Syria to heel first.
Since they have absolutely no moral or legal right to take out Presidents Assad nor Ahmadinejad NATO have had to rely on groupthink in the Western Mainstream press firstly to win domestic hearts and minds and secondly to ensure their occult command centres and generals are invisible and invulnerable.
We come up again here against the hideous paradox which has challenged humanity since the dawn of time. How can peace loving, honest people ever win a battle against the ruthless, the scheming and the grasping?
As Simon Heffer recently pointed out in the Daily Mail, traditionally a pro-Tory paper, “We are no longer being governed, just patronised by self-regarding pygmies who play at politics” To them it is all a game, in the NATO zone's 21st century post-modern version of democracy senior politicians are wholly-owned subsidiaries of fascist financiers.
Even opposition politicians are permanently missing the point diluted by bad advice, bought columnists and politicking which propels vain, inept individuals to the top positions.
The real power brokers are operating behind the scenes. Just as in the Italian P2 lodge scandal in 1980s Italy the nations are being run by secret committees of the unelected and unaccountable.
And this is the evil genius of our Hitlerian masters the Kissingers, Perles and the Strategic Communications propaganda barons, Grand Masters of misery in this unhappy world, is that, like the Wizard of Oz, as they remain behind the curtain, not even our own people know who leads them.
Like the North Welsh Ordovices tribe during the Roman invasion they are impossible to suppress because their command citadel is invisible and if the enemy were to come they simply melt away into the shadows.
Which is where we come to the heart of the matter. Just as the anonymity of NATO zone leadership overtly destroys Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the rest for KBR and others to cash in on rebuilding. It covertly destroys the motherland, setting us up for an almighty civil war with our own rulers who, make no mistake, when they have finished their games in the Middle East will turn their Sauron's eye on us.
Their other disguise is their Jewish ancestry deflect criticism by a media which is rightly cautious to avoid repeating past genocide. This makes their betrayal of Jewish Torah heritage doubly wrong as they quietly take the brown envelope. And sell their soul to the 4th Reich money power that murdered the holders of the noble Rabinnic tradition they have betrayed.
That same media seems almost unaware though that Muslims now are being demonised just like the Jews were in the 1930s. And that the real enemy of our shadow leaders is faith. Jews yesterday, Muslims today and Christians tomorrow.
A child understands, the drafters of the UN Charter understood. But the simple fact of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyan people’s right, indeed duty, of self-defence in the face of fascist adventurism is taboo. What if tens of thousands of Afghans parachuted into Britain to tell us how to think. Might we not kill them? Indeed we might.
On second thoughts though, regime change in Britain may be no bad thing at all. I can give a cast iron guarantee that if you were to wander out the back of the South Bank’s Royal Festival Hall and pick on the first beggar you came across, that person would have more integrity and popular success as a ruler than, and increasingly up ‘til today, any Prime Minster since Harold Wilson.
Just as in World War Two, we peace lovers must be less trusting. Reluctantly we must start again to 'think like a Nazi' to assess and prepare to tackle such an utterly evil enemy, this time within. Then the enemy was Hitler and Nazi Germany, now the enemy is a monstrous financial 4th Reich which dominates all the political institutions in Israel and the NATO zone.
The enemy within uses our resources to feed their power habit. Many are now feeling what it was like for ordinary Germans in the 1930s during Hitler's rise to power. It is not just the financial disaster we have in common with then, but the ever more comfortable gait of war criminals such as Zipi Livni, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair strutting around the streets of London today.
The culture of legal impunity is now thoroughly embedded in Britain and only Barbara Tucker's camp on Parliament Square seems to stand against this Pinochet's Britain, one woman from a military family representing the aspirations of a nation.
In 1940 Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave his ‘finest hour’ speech, citing Britain, quite rightly, as standing alone against the looming destruction of 'Christian Civilisation'. But right up until he was sacked in 1938, Nazi admirer Lord Reith had censored that sentiment, censored Churchill’s voice from the British airwaves.
That’s why freedom of expression was top of the list when our grandparents sat down to learn the lessons of World War Two and left us the UN Charter.
Their are thousands of voices crying out against these war crimes which are leading us inexorably to our young men coming home in body bags, and to WW3, and shamefully that sentiment is being smothered again by today’s BBC.
Chris Patten sold out the democratic aspirations of our people in Hong Kong, 400 thousand marched the other day against his betrayal. Did the BBC not tell you? And Patten was roundly rejected by the good people of Bath in 1992.
Marcus Agius said he’d resigned as Chairman of Barclays the other day but didn’t. These are the people who have just chosen our new Director General.
Time to wake another tramp up from his slumber under the arches by the Festival Hall. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:20 pm Post subject:
SANA Website Attacked to Prevent it from Conveying Truth of Events in Syria
Syrian Arab News Agency
http://www.sana.sy/index_eng.html NATO
US, Israel plotting to overthrow Assad: Report http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/19/251768/us-israel-plotting-to-c ollapse-syria/
US President Barack Obama and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (L) speak in Washington, DC, March 5, 2012.
Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:9PM
American defense officials are reportedly in talks with their Israeli counterparts plotting to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that US officials worked on contingency plans for a collapse of the Syrian government, focusing particularly on the chemical weapons that “Syria is thought to possess.”
The talks focused on whether Israel might move to "destroy Syrian weapons facilities," two US administration officials said.
An unnamed White House official also said US President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas Donilon, was in Israel over the weekend to discuss the Syrian unrest.
This is while Russia and China on Thursday blocked a UN Security Council resolution against Syria, which has been the scene of violence since March 2011.
Washington immediately condemned the decision of China and Russia to veto the resolution against President Assad.
The veto is a "highly regrettable decision that will, I think, have repercussions for the countries that vetoed the resolution for a long time, in terms of how they're viewed by the Syrian people," Obama's spokesman Jay Carney said.
"There's no doubt that Syria's future will not include Bashar al-Assad. His days in power are numbered. It's a mistake to prop up that regime as it comes to an end," he added. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
