Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:45 am Post subject:
The same Putin who is standing up against the relentless push for a NWO Tyranny. The same Putin who reacted (unexpectedly forcefully and rapidly) to US Puppet Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili when he attacked South Ossetia; a favoured 'Puppet', Mason Saakashvili (also 'Friend of Israel') took over Georgia in a US 'Rose' revolution; he is now Governor of Odessa in Ukraine, wanted in Georgia for many crimes.
Small world, what? _________________ '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 Oct 23, 2015 8:37 pm Post subject:
conspiracy analyst wrote:
Times have moved on. Ukraine happened so did anti Russian sanctions.
Putin is pleading like a puppy to do Americas dirty work in the ME.
You have to keep up in order to not be left behind.
Russia is about to be sucked into a new Afghan adventure...
MH17 happened, an intentional 'False Flag' op, and Russia was blamed and got more sanctions.
Some puppy! Why are the West apoplectic at Russia's entry? Because they are bombing the Western-backed mercenary thugs, instead of airdropping arms and supplies to them. I don't know where you get your ideas from - maybe the Dandy or Beano? Or is it Radio Free Europe? _________________ '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.
Times have moved on. Ukraine happened so did anti Russian sanctions.
Putin is pleading like a puppy to do Americas dirty work in the ME.
You have to keep up in order to not be left behind.
Russia is about to be sucked into a new Afghan adventure...
MH17 happened, an intentional 'False Flag' op, and Russia was blamed and got more sanctions.
Some puppy! Why are the West apoplectic at Russia's entry? Because they are bombing the Western-backed mercenary thugs, instead of airdropping arms and supplies to them. I don't know where you get your ideas from - maybe the Dandy or Beano? Or is it Radio Free Europe?
Kissinger supports Putin...
The West in a nutshell.
Russia agreed for rebels to hand over black box. Didn't publicise contents.
However much you want to paint Putin as an anti western leader you have to show where the talk ends and the practice begins.
He is currently Obamas lap dog...in the ME. If he wasn't he would have been supplying the Yemeni rebels to attack Saudi Arabia, the Kurds to create a state and the Palestinians to get arms.
I don't think the Beano or the Dandy would subscribe to my views...
'The Kurds in Rojava are testing a democratic model shaped by the political philosophy of an American eco-anarchist
Perhaps the last place you would expect to find a thriving experiment in direct democracy is Syria. But something radical is happening, little noticed, in the eastern reaches of that fractured country, in the isolated region known to the Kurds as Rojava.
Just as remarkable, perhaps, is that the philosophy that inspired self-government here was originated by a little-known American political thinker and one-time “eco-activist” whose ideas found their way to Syria through a Kurdish leader imprisoned upon an island in the Sea of Marmara. It’s a story that bizarrely connects a war-torn Middle East with New York’s Lower East Side.
I visited Rojava last month while filming a documentary about the failings of the western model of democracy. The region covers a substantial “corner” of north-east Syria and has a population of approximately 3m, yet it is not easy to get to. The only passage is by small boat or a creaky pontoon bridge across the Tigris from Iraq.
Turkey has closed its borders with Rojava, preventing all movement from the north, including humanitarian supplies to Kurdish-controlled areas. To the south, in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government does not make access easy; permits for journalists are not straightforward and, we were told, repeat visits are discouraged.
The isolation is not only physical. Turkey regards the Syrian Kurd YPG militia that is fighting the jihadi organisation Isis in Rojava as synonymous with the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK), a longstanding enemy inside Turkey. The YPG’s advance against Isis along Syria’s northern border has been halted by the declaration by Turkey of a so-called “safe zone” to the west of the Euphrates between the front line and the Kurdish-controlled canton of Afrin in the north-west. For the Kurds, the motive seems transparently clear: to prevent the formation of a contiguous area of Kurdish control along Turkey’s southern border.
The KRG, which collaborates with Turkey against the PKK, has also been reluctant to support the YPG, even though they share a common enemy in the shape of Isis. Turkey has likewise pressured the US to eschew the Syrian Kurds, although in the past few days Washington has come out in more open support, including delivering arms supplies to the YPG. Meanwhile, the Kurds maintain an uneasy truce with the Syrian regime, which keeps two small bases in Rojava but otherwise has no military presence here — a tacit deal whereby the Kurds control the territory in return for not fighting the regime.
Those journalists that do get here naturally gravitate to the front lines like the devastated city of Kobani; similarly, images of the photogenic young women who make up the female Kurdish militia, the YPJ, are more eye-catching than the village hall meetings that comprise the reality of an innovative grassroots democracy. But it is in those dusty assemblies across Rojava that a democratic revolution is taking place..............' _________________ '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.
'Published on 27 Oct 2015
Authorities in Iraq estimate that thousands of women and children are being held hostage by Islamic State fighters. Over three hundred ISIS victims have been saved from the Iraqi town of Sinjar by one man Abu Shuja. He rescues women and children through a covert network he has developed in territories held by the terrorists.'
Full video: 'Victims of ISIS':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLm_7NFBleY _________________ '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.
The Western media quoting US officials has reported that the Russian Air Force is not really targeting ISIS terrorists.
They are targeting CIA sponsored operatives inside Syria.
According to a US official in an interview with Fox News:
‘Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.’
Moscow is “deliberately targeting” U.S.-backed forces in Syria as part of a military campaign that has killed up to 150 CIA-trained rebels, a U.S. official told Fox News
The claims state that Russia’s apparent mission to destroy ISIS is really a facade, and that their real mission is to kill American assets. (October 14, 2015).
The “Our Guys” category (“fighting for their lives”) not only includes bona fide “moderate terrorists” trained by the Western military alliance, it also includes countless Western military advisers, intelligence agents and mercenaries (often recruited by private security companies) operating on the ground inside Syria since March 2011.
In a bitter twist, by making these accusations directed against Moscow, the Obama Administration candidly acknowledges what has been known from the outset: the presence of Western forces inside Syria in support of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Lest we forget, this constitutes an undeclared act of war against a sovereign country in violation of international law (Nuremberg).
Amply documented, from the outset of the Syrian insurgency, Western special forces and covert intelligence agents including British SAS, French Parachutistes, CIA, MI6 and Mossad have integrated rebel ranks. Their activities are not limited to training. They are routinely involved in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with Turkish and Qatari special forces, as well thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries:
“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria [2012 report] assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help. (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)
From the outset of the insurgency, Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces including ISIS and Al Nusrah are “infiltrated” by Western military and intelligence operatives.
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)....' _________________ '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.
From 8.00 - the Congressman got hit by a surfboard whilst surfing - a guy with a big long board had an 'accident' and flipped the board in her direction..... yuh, sure, what a convenient 'accident'; I wonder what the odds are against that sort of occurrence???
But she's still speaking sense and truth to Power..... _________________ '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.
THE WHITEHOUSE SHOWS FULL FRAUD!...COWARDS BLASTING bs!..AND PROVE NOTHING FROM THE WHITEHOUSE
THE USA IS FRAUD...AND LYING THROUGH THEIR ASSES!
US STATE DEPT GRILLED OVER ACCUSATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA
AND IT GETS SPIT FROM MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN YOUR FRAUD WHITEHOUSE!
Good interview Tony. _________________ In the end, it's not the words of your enemies you will remember, but the silence of your friends. Martin Luther King
How come all these tanker trucks have survived over a year's US bombing?
Perhaps the US couldn't detect them? They are very difficult to see, after all...... _________________ '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.
By Prof. Tim Anderson
Global Research, November 27, 2015
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?
The following text is the introductory chapter of Professor Tim Anderson’s forthcoming book entitled The Dirty War on Syria
Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the new evil in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past 15 years.
Dr. Tim Anderson
This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.
In 2011 I had only a basic understanding of Syria and its history. However I was deeply suspicious when reading of the violence that erupted in the southern border town of Daraa. I knew that such violence (sniping at police and civilians, the use of semi-automatic weapons) does not spring spontaneously from street demonstrations. And I was deeply suspicious of the big powers. All my life I had been told lies about the pretexts for war. I decided to research the Syrian conflict, reading hundreds of books and articles, watching many videos and speaking to as many Syrians as I could. I wrote dozens of articles and visited Syria twice, during the conflict. This book is a result of that research.
Dirty wars are not new. Cuban national hero Jose Martí predicted to a friend that Washington would try to intervene in Cuba’s independence struggle against the Spanish. ‘They want to provoke a war’, he wrote in 1889 ‘to have a pretext to intervene and, with the authority of being mediator and guarantor, to seize the country … There is no more cowardly thing in the annals of free people; nor such cold blooded evil’ (Martí 1975: 53). Nine years later, during the third independence war, an explosion in Havana Harbour destroyed the USS Maine, killing 258 US sailors and serving as a pretext for a US invasion.
The subsequent ‘Spanish-American’ war snatched victory from the Cubans and allowed the US to take control of the remaining Spanish colonial territories. Cuba had territory annexed and a deeply compromised constitution was imposed. No evidence ever proved the Spanish were responsible for the bombing of the Maine and many Cubans believe the North Americans bombed their own ship. The monument in Havana, in memory of those sailors, still bears this inscription: ‘To the victims of the Maine who were sacrificed to imperialist voracity and the desire to gain control of the island of Cuba’ (Richter 1998).
The US launched dozens of interventions in Latin America over the subsequent century. A notable dirty war was led by CIA-backed, ‘freedom fighter’ mercenaries based in Honduras, who attacked the Sandinista Government and the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That conflict, in its modus operandi, was not so different to the war on Syria. In Nicaragua more than 30,000 people were killed. The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of a range of terrorist-style attacks on the little Central American country, and found that the US owed Nicaragua compensation (ICJ 1986). Washington ignored these rulings.
With the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 the big powers took advantage of a political foment by seizing the initiative to impose an ‘Islamist winter’, attacking the few remaining independent states of the region. Very quickly we saw the destruction of Libya, a small country with the highest standard of living in Africa. NATO bombing and a Special Forces campaign helped the al Qaeda groups on the ground. The basis for NATO’s intervention was lies told about actual and impending massacres, supposedly carried out or planned by the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. These claims led rapidly to a UN Security Council resolution said to protect civilians through a ‘no fly zone’. We know now that trust was betrayed, and that the NATO powers abused the limited UN authorisation to overthrow the Libyan Government (McKinney 2012).
Subsequently, no evidence emerged to prove that Gaddafi intended, carried out or threatened wholesale massacres, as was widely suggested (Forte 2012). Genevieve Garrigos of Amnesty International (France) admitted there was ‘no evidence’ to back her group’s earlier claims that Gaddafi had used ‘black mercenaries’ to commit massacres (Forte 2012; Edwards 2013).
Alan Kuperman, drawing mainly on North American sources, demonstrates the following points. First, Gaddafi’s crackdown on the mostly Islamist insurrection in eastern Libya was ‘much less lethal’ than had been suggested. Indeed there was evidence that he had had ‘refrained from indiscriminate violence’. The Islamists were themselves armed from the beginning. From later US estimates, of the almost one thousand casualties in the first seven weeks, about three percent were women and children (Kuperman 2015). Second, when government forces were about to regain the east of the country, NATO intervened, claiming this was to avert an impending massacre. Ten thousand people died after the NATO intervention, compared to one thousand before. Gaddafi had pledged no reprisals in Benghazi and ‘no evidence or reason’ came out to support the claim that he planned mass killings (Kuperman 2015). The damage was done. NATO handed over the country to squabbling groups of Islamists and western aligned ‘liberals’. A relatively independent state was overthrown, but Libya was destroyed. Four years on there is no functioning government and violence persists; and that war of aggression against Libya went unpunished.
Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.
I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.
In that context I came to write this book. It is a defence of Syria, not primarily addressed to those who are immersed the western myths but to others who engage with them. This is therefore a resource book and a contribution to the history of the Syrian conflict. The western stories have become self-indulgent and I believe it is wasteful to indulge them too much. Best, I think, to speak of current events as they are, then address the smokescreens later. I do not ignore the western myths, in fact this book documents many of them. But I lead with the reality of the war.
Western mythology relies on the idea of imperial prerogatives, asking what must ‘we’ do about the problems of another people; an approach which has no basis in international law or human rights. The next steps involve a series of fabrications about the pretexts, character and events of the war. The first pretext over Syria was that the NATO states and the Gulf monarchies were supporting a secular and democratic revolution. When that seemed implausible the second story was that they were saving the oppressed majority ‘Sunni Muslim’ population from a sectarian ‘Alawite regime’. Then, when sectarian atrocities by anti-government forces attracted greater public attention, the pretext became a claim that there was a shadow war: ‘moderate rebels’ were said to be actually fighting the extremist groups. Western intervention was therefore needed to bolster these ‘moderate rebels’ against the ‘new’ extremist group that had mysteriously arisen and posed a threat to the world.
That was the ‘B’ story. No doubt Hollywood will make movies based on this meta-script, for years to come. However this book leads with the ‘A’ story. Proxy armies of Islamists, armed by US regional allies (mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), infiltrate a political reform movement and snipe at police and civilians. They blame this on the government and spark an insurrection, seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government and its secular-pluralist state. This follows the openly declared ambition of the US to create a ‘New Middle East’, subordinating every country of the region, by reform, unilateral disarmament or direct overthrow. Syria was next in line, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Syria, the proxy armies would come from the combined forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi fanatics. Despite occasional power struggles between these groups and their sponsors, they share much the same Salafist ideology, opposing secular or nationalist regimes and seeking the establishment of a religious state.
However in Syria Washington’s Islamists confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along religious lines, despite many provocations. The Syrian state also had strong allies in Russia and Iran. Syria was not to be Libya Take Two. In this prolonged war the violence, from the western side, was said to consist of the Syrian Army targeting and killing civilians. From the Syrian side people saw daily terrorist attacks on towns and cities, schools and hospitals and massacres of ordinary people by NATO’s ‘freedom fighters’, then the counter attacks by the Army. Foreign terrorists were recruited in dozens of countries by the Saudis and Qatar, bolstering the local mercenaries.
Though the terrorist groups were often called ‘opposition, ‘militants’ and ‘Sunni groups’ outside Syria, inside the country the actual political opposition abandoned the Islamists back in early 2011. Protest was driven off the streets by the violence, and most of the opposition (minus the Muslim Brotherhood and some exiles) sided with the state and the Army, if not with the ruling Ba’ath Party. The Syrian Army has been brutal with terrorists but, contrary to western propaganda, protective of civilians. The Islamists have been brutal with all, and openly so. Millions of internally displaced people have sought refuge with the Government and Army, while others fled the country.
In a hoped-for ‘end game’ the big powers sought overthrow of the Syrian state or, failing that, the creation of a dysfunctional state or dismembering into sectarian statelets, thus breaking the axis of independent regional states. That axis comprises Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance, alongside Syria and Iran, the only states in the region without US military bases. More recently Iraq – still traumatised from western invasion, massacres and occupation – has begun to align itself with this axis. Russia too has begun to play an important counter-weight role. Recent history and conduct demonstrate that neither Russia nor Iran harbour any imperial ambitions remotely approaching those of Washington and its allies, several of which (Britain, France and Turkey) were former colonial warlords in the region. From the point of view of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, defeat of the dirty war on Syria means that the region can begin closing ranks against the big powers. Syria’s successful resistance would mean the beginning of the end for Washington’s ‘New Middle East’.
That is basically the big picture. This book sets out to document the A story and expose the B story. It does so by rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence in case of conflict. I hope it might prove a useful resource. Here is a brief overview of the chapters.
Chapter 2, ‘Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’’ puts Syria in context of the US plans for a ‘New Middle East’, the latest chapter in a longer history of US attempts to dominate the region.
Chapter 3, ‘Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda’ addresses the problem of reporting and reading the Syrian crisis. Media channels have shown a hyper-reliance on partisan sources, committed to the war and denigrating the Syrian Army. This is the key barrier to understanding the controversies around chemical weapons, civilian massacres and the levels of support for or opposition to President Assad.
Chapter 4, ‘Daraa 2011: Another Islamist Insurrection’ reconstructs, from a range of sources, the Saudi-backed Islamist insurrection in Daraa in March 2011. Those armed attacks were quite distinct from the political reform rallies, which the Islamists soon drove off the streets.
Chapter 5, ‘Bashar al Assad and Political Reform’ explains the political reform movement from the time Bashar assumed the presidency in the year 2000 to the beginning of the crisis in 2011. From this we can see that most opposition groups were committed to reform within a Syrian context, with virtually all opposing attacks on the Syrian state. The chapter then reviews the role of Bashar as a reformer, and the evidence on his popularity.
Chapter 6, ‘The Empire’s Jihadis’ looks at the collaboration between Salafist political Islam and the imperial powers in the Middle East. Distinct from the anti-imperial Islamic currents in Iran and south Lebanon, Salafist political Islam has become a sectarian force competing with Arab nationalism across Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and drawing on long standing collaborative relations with the big powers. This history provides important background to the character of Syria’s Islamist ‘revolution’, and its various slogans.
Chapter 7, ‘Embedded Media, Embedded Watchdogs’ identifies the propaganda techniques of media channels and the network of ‘human rights’ bodies (Human Rights Watch, Avaaz, etc) which function as megaphones and ‘moderators’ for the Washington agenda. Many have become fierce advocates for ‘humanitarian war’. A number of newer western NGOs (e.g. The Syria Campaign, The White Helmets) have been created by Wall Street agencies specifically for the dirty war on Syria. A number of their fabrications are documented here.
Chapter 8, ‘The Houla Massacre Revisited’ considers in detail the evidence from the first major massacre designed (following success of the technique over Libya) to influence UN Security Council consideration of military intervention. While the first UN inquiry group, actually in Syria, found contradictory evidence on this massacre, a second UN group outside Syria and co-chaired by a US diplomat, tried to blame the Syrian Government. Yet more than a dozen witnesses blamed Farouq FSA Islamists, who killed pro-government villagers and took over the area, holding it for some months. Several other ‘false flag’ massacres are noted.
Chapter 9, ‘Chemical Fabrications: the East Ghouta Incident’ details the second major ‘false flag’ incident of international significance. This incident in August 2013, which nearly sparked a major escalation involving US missile attacks on Syria, was used to accuse the Syrian Government of killing hundreds of civilians, including children, with chemical weapons. Within a fairly short time multiple sources of independent evidence (including North American evidence) disproved these accusations. Nevertheless, Syria’s opponents have repeated the false accusations, to this day, as though they were fact.
Chapter 10, ‘A Responsibility to Protect and the Double Game’ addresses a recent political doctrine, a subset of ‘humanitarian intervention’ popularised to add to the imperial toolkit. The application of this doctrine in Libya was disastrous for that little country. Fortunately the attempts to use it in Syria failed.
Chapter 11, ‘Health and Sanctions’ documents the NATO-backed Islamist attacks on Syria’s health system, linked to the impact of western economic sanctions. These twin currents have caused great damage to Syrian public health. Such attacks carry no plausible motive of seeking local popular support, so we must interpret them as part of an overall strategy to degrade the Syrian state, rendering it more vulnerable to outside intervention.
Chapter 12 ‘Washington, Terrorism and ISIS: the evidence’, documents the links between the big powers and the latest peak terrorist group they claim to be fighting. Only evidence can help develop informed opinion on this contentious matter, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is little ideological difference between the various Salafi-Islamist groups, and Washington and its allies have financed and armed every one of them.
Chapter 13, ‘Western Intervention and the Colonial Mind’ discusses the western cultural mindset that underlies persistent violations of the rights of other peoples.
Chapter 14 ‘Towards an Independent Middle East’, considers the end-game in the Syrian crisis, and its implications for the Middle East region. At tremendous cost the Syrian Arab Republic, its army and its people, have successfully resisted aggression from a variety of powerful enemies. Syria’s survival is due to its resilience and internal unity, bolstered by support from some strong allies. The introduction of Russian air power in late September 2015 was important. So too were the coordinated ground forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, in support of an independent Syria.
When the attacks on Syria abate the Middle East seems set to be transformed, with greater political will and military preparedness on the part of an expanded Axis of Resistance. That will signal the beginning of the end for Washington’s 15 year spree of bloodshed and ‘regime change’ across the entire region.
Notes:
Edwards, Dave (2013) ‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies’, Media Lens, 13 June, online:http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts- 2013/735-limited-but-persuasive-evidence-syria-sarin-libya-lies.html
Forte, Maximilian (2012) Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Quebec
ICJ (1986) Case concerning the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits’, International Court of Justice, Judgement of 27 June 1986, online: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5
Kuperman, Alan J. (2015) Obama’s Libya Debacle’, Foreign Affairs, 16 April, online:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas -libya-debacle
Martí, Jose (1975) Obras Completas, Vol. 6, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana
McKinney, Cynthia (Ed) (2012) The Illegal War on Libya, Clarity Press, Atlanta
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:17 am Post subject:
Wow!!!! What a pity none of us noticed this Global Research bombshell article a few days ago!
Could have worked havoc on the 'Bomb 'em and flog 'em' brigade!
Still, no matter what the outcome later today in Parliament, this needs to be as widely distributed as possible, especially to all those who have contacted their MP's and got some bs reply.
Get to work planting the seeds of truth, comrades! _________________ '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: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:01 pm Post subject:
Zionist Benn’s Grab For Power https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/zionist-benns-grab-for -power/
by craig on December 3, 2015 2:32 pm
Hilary Benn is very serious about his power grab and has been laying the ground for it very carefully. On 18 November BICOM – the British Israeli Communications and Research Centre – published this:
Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country.
Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.”
Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”
It is worth reading the next article BICOM published. Brigadier General Michael Herzog, head of strategy for the Israeli defence Force, sets out a strategy for Israeli interests in Syria which dovetails precisely with what Benn and Cameron were pushing in the Commons. Note that Herzog says an overall diplomatic solution is not realistic and rather de facto partitioning of Syria suits Israel’s interests. Therefore there should be no waiting for diplomatic progress before western military action.
With his abandonment of any pretended concern for the slow and agonising genocide of the Palestinians, and his strident support for Trident, Benn is embracing the Israeli establishment and the British military and political establishment. In return, the Tories roared his speech to the rafters, while the media, and especially the Genie Energy linked media, are boosting him to the Labour leadership.
The United Kingdom has, temporarily, an opposition leadership which is not controlled, Zionist, neo-con and in the pocket of the arms industry. Benn has positioned himself very carefully to offer himself as the vehicle for the entire establishment to move to correct this aberration.
also - - - Mainstream media is the truth? >>>> This makes 'terrorist sympathisers' of most of the British population
Young people who question Government or media may be extremists, officials tell parents
A leaflet distributed as part of an anti-extremism drive says these signs are 'specific' to radicalisation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/young-people-who-questio n-government-policy-or-the-media-may-be-extremists-officials-tell-pare nts-a6756086.html
Jon Stone | @joncstone |Wednesday 2 December 2015|
Protesters sit down in the middle of the road during a day of protest outside Downing Street against the possible British involvement in the bombing of Syria, in London. UK anti-war organisation, Stop the War Coalition, organised the protest in response to the proposed vote in Parliament by David Cameron to involve British forces in the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria
Child protection officials been criticised after warning parents that young people who take issue with government policy or question what they are told in the media may have been radicalised by extremists.
A leaflet drawn up by an inner-city child safeguarding board warns that “appearing angry about government policies, especially foreign policies” is a sign “specific to radicalisation”.
Parents and carers have also been advised by the safeguarding children board in the London Borough of Camden that “showing a mistrust of mainstream media reports and a belief in conspiracy theories” could be a sign that children are being groomed by extremists.
Other apparent hints listed include young people changing friendship groups or styles of dress, secretive behaviour, switching computer screens when adults approach, or glorifying violence.
The leaflet says children who show a combination of these signs may be en route to emulating those who “have been persuaded to leave the country in secret and against the wishes of their family, putting themselves in extreme danger as a result”.
“This leaflet aims to help parents and carers recognise when their child may be at risk from radicalisation and where to get help if they are worried,” it explains.
Camden Safeguarding Children Board is a statutory organisation overseen by the area’s local council to safeguard children in the borough.
Council officials and local politicians sit in the board, as well as local voluntary groups and community organisations. Local Safeguarding Children Boards are mandated by the Government all around the country under the Children Act 2004.
Bella Sankey, policy director at the campaign group Liberty, criticised the leaflet.
“Children should be encouraged to take an interest in politics and think critically about what they see in the media, not deemed suspect for so doing,” she said.
The relevant part of the leaflet distributed to parents and carers
“Clumsy laws and policies that encourage suspicion in family homes will alienate ordinary teenagers and may further marginalise those genuinely at risk. If we want to keep our children away from violent extremism, we must include them in open discussion and teach human rights values, not police democratic concerns about government policy.”
This summer academics and writers warned in a letter published in the Independent that the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, spearheaded by the Prevent programme, would have a chilling effect on open debate, free speech, and political dissent.
The letter’s signatories warned that groups affected by the crackdown could include non-violent groups such as anti-austerity and environmental campaigners – “largely those engaged in political dissent”.
“Prevent [the strategy] will have a chilling effect on open debate, free speech and political dissent,” the signatories warned.
“It will create an environment in which political change can no longer be discussed openly, and will withdraw to unsupervised spaces. Therefore, Prevent will make us less safe.”
The relevant section of the anti-extremism leaflet reads in full: “The following could describe general teenage behaviour but together with other signs may mean the young person is being radicalised: Out of character changes in dress, behaviour and changes in their friendship group; Losing interest in previous activities and friendships; Secretive behaviour and switching screens when you come near.”
It continues: “The following signs are more specific to radicalisation: Owning mobile phones or devices you haven’t given them, Showing sympathy for extremist causes, Advocating extremist messages, Glorifying violence Accessing extremist literature and imagery, Showing a mistrust of mainstream media reports and belief in conspiracy theories, Appearing angry about government policies, especially foreign policy.”
The document urges parents who are worried about their children to contact the police or the local area's anti-extremism coordinator.
Dominic Clout, the independent chair of the Camden Safeguarding Children’s Board defended the leaflet’s content.
“The leaflet was created by the professional and parent members of the Community Engagement Sub Group of Camden’s Safeguarding Children’s Board,” he said.
“The Board has a duty to safeguard children and the leaflet is intended to support parents on the difficult issue of potential radicalisation of their children.
“None of the statements included are indicative of radicalisation; rather they are a list of factors, which when seen in combination, may be suggestive of extremism. In isolation, none of the factors could themselves suggest extremism for example ‘Glorifying violence’ or ‘Owning a mobile device you (Parent) haven’t given them’.” _________________ 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/
By Rob Crilly, New York
9:19PM GMT 21 Nov 2015
Member states urged to take "all necessary measures" but falls short of invoking Chapter VII of the UN charter which authorises military action to restore peace and security
The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2249 on Friday, condemning terrorist attacks and calling on member states to act against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
What does the resolution mean?
In its own words, resolution 2249 urges member states to “take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law” against Isil and to eradicate the group's safe havens in Iraq and Syria. As a unanimous call to action it shows that the international community is united in opposition to the jihadist group. But like so many UN resolutions, exactly what those “necessary measures” might be is left vague.
Does it give David Cameron legal authority to conduct air strikes in Syria? Why or why not?
Depends. It does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN charter which can be used to authorise military action in order to restore peace and security. But Mr Cameron has always said he already has authority to act in self-defence and in the words of Matthew Rycroft, Britain's permanent representative to the UN, the resolution is a “powerful part of the case that the Prime Minister is setting out in terms of the British role in Syria and elsewhere”. But others interpret it differently.
How do other countries interpret it?
Broadly in line with their own strategic goals. So France, which sponsored the resolution, takes the more robust view that it authorises collective self-defence against an armed attack, under article 51 of the UN charter, and immediately announced it was tripling air strikes against Isil. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Judah Ari Gross is The Times of Israel's military correspondent.
Israeli jets carried out several raids north of Damascus overnight Thursday-Friday, Channel 2 reported, citing foreign reports. There were no immediate reports of casualties.
The airstrikes were said to have targeted a four-truck Syrian army convoy, loaded with ballistic missiles.
The Israeli planes struck the vehicles after they left an army base, the reports said.
The Israeli Air Force also reportedly hit a gas supply, sparking massive explosions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday acknowledged the IAF operates in Syria “from time to time” to thwart weapons transfers to Lebanon.
Speaking at the Galilee Conference in Acre, the prime minister praised the Israeli-Russian coordination in Syria, echoing comments from his defense minister in recent days.
“We operate in Syria from time to time to prevent it turning into another front against us. We act, of course, to prevent the transfer of deadly weaponry from Syria to Lebanon,” Netanyahu said.
Israeli airstrikes in Syria have been widely reported over the last almost-five years of the country’s civil war, though officials have refused to confirm them on the record.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon on the Golan Heights, northern Israel, June 30, 2015, looking toward Syria. (Eden Moladavski/Ministry of Defense)
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on the Golan Heights, northern Israel, looking toward Syria, July 30, 2015. (Eden Moladavski/Ministry of Defense)
The official acknowledgment of the Israeli strikes in Syria was not a first for the prime minister, who said on November 10 that “if Hezbollah wants to transfer weapons through Syria, we’ll take action, as we have.”
On Monday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Israel was “keeping an eye out” for the possibility that Hezbollah has attained chemical weapons in Syria.
Ya’alon was responding to unconfirmed reports that Israel has struck sites in Syria five times in recent weeks, despite the presence of a new Russian missile-defense system in the country.
This photo released by the Syrian official news agency SANA, shows a general view of damaged buildings wrecked by an Israeli airstrike, in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, May 5, 2013. Israeli warplanes struck areas in and around the Syrian capital, as they targeted a shipment of highly accurate, Iranian-made guided missiles believed to be on their way to Lebanon's Hezbollah. (Photo credit: AP/SANA)
A general view of damaged buildings wrecked by an Israeli airstrike, in Damascus, Syria, May 5, 2013. Israeli warplanes struck areas in and around the Syrian capital, as they targeted a shipment of highly accurate, Iranian-made guided missiles believed to be on their way to Lebanon’s Hezbollah. (AP/SANA)
Ya’alon insisted that the Russians were aware of what actions in Syria would invite Israeli response and were committed to allowing Israel to take action as necessary.
“We are acting in accordance with needs,” Ya’alon said. “Anyone who infringes on our sovereignty — we act against them. Anyone who attempts to transfer advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations, with an emphasis on Hezbollah — we will not allow it.
'In two weeks we have seen two apparent acts of war by the US-led NATO military alliance in Syria. First, the Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane inside Syrian airspace; now this week the Syrian army is hit in a deadly airstrike.
Despite absurd denials, the grim conclusion is that NATO is at war in Syria.
The Syrian government is unequivocal about the latest incident. Damascus issued a condemnation to the UN Security Council on Monday over what it says is “a flagrant act of aggression” by the US military coalition. Early reports say three Syrian soldiers were killed and over a dozen others seriously wounded when an army base was blasted in the Deir Ezzor eastern province. Four US-led coalition warplanes were apparently involved in the attack, firing nine missiles at the base.
However, Colonel Steve Warren, spokesman for the US coalition, was quoted by various media outlets denying that NATO aircraft carried out the raid. Warren claimed that coalition fighter jets had conducted airstrikes at a location 55 kilometers from the Syrian army camp, which is located near the village of Ayyash. He said the airstrikes were against oil-smuggling operations run by the Islamic State (IS) terror group and there were “no humans” in the vicinity.
So who did carry out the deadly attack on the Syrian army? The US, Britain and France have been flying warplanes in the eastern province where the IS group has its strongholds around Deir Ezzor.
Washington and its NATO allies have negligible credibility. The US-led alliance has been operating an absurdist policy while bombing Syria for the past 15 months. Allegedly targeting the IS network, the terror group has only expanded its territory since Washington began (illegally) bombing Syria back in September 2014.
More recently, NATO has flatly denied Turkey’s provocative shoot-down of a Russian warplane even though Russia’s flight data shows that its Su-24 bomber was hit by a Turk F-16 jet that breached Syria’s border before firing its air-to-air missile.
Washington has also denied extensive aerial evidence of oil smuggling by the Islamic State terror group wending its way across the border to Turkish industrial centers. Russian defense ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov has mocked the American “see no evil” statements on the industrial-scale oil smuggling into Turkey as a “theater of absurd”.
When does theater of the absurd stop peddling double think and just become plain, factual war theater?
American political analyst Randy Martin at crookedbough.com says that recent events are proof that Washington and its NATO allies are indeed at war in Syria. Not against the IS jihadists, as officially claimed, but against the Syrian state. By extension that means NATO has also moved to a war footing against Russia, as an ally of the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
“It’s quite clear that the US and the other NATO powers have stepped up their military operations in Syria precisely because their covert war for regime change against Assad is being smashed up by Russia’s intervention,” Martin told me. “The whole notion of the West backing so-called moderate rebels while being opposed to the Islamic State brigades is just a preposterous charade furnished in part by the Western media. All these groups are working as mercenary proxy armies for the Western objective of regime change.”
“Russian President Vladimir Putin has dealt a decisive blow to the US-led covert campaign of deploying various proxy terror groups to overthrow the Syrian state. It’s like Putin has smashed a hornet’s nest hanging from a tree and now all hell is breaking out,” says the analyst.
Since Russia ordered its warplanes and cruise missiles into Syria on September 30, the intervention has decimated hundreds of jihadi bases and, crucially, the oil-for-weapons racket that fuels the Western-backed covert war....'
It's what most of us have known all along - Assad's Syria is the target of NATO, not the US mercenary thugs that still are carrying out the West's and Israel's purposes. _________________ '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.
'December 09, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Sputnik" - Syria is ready to deploy the fearsome S-300 air-defence system supplied by its Russian ally. The anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles will give Syria control over its territory and the capability to shoot down any intrusive warplane or missile. NATO warplanes beware!
The fatal shoot-down of a Russian fighter jet by a Turkish F-16 two weeks ago has given urgency to installing the air-defence system. It is as much in Russia’s interest as it is in Syria’s to have air cover – and the S-300, and its newer generation, the S-400, are reckoned to be the best technology in the world for that job.
“It’s a top-of-the range weapon”, says the British defence publication, IHS Jane’s, probably surpassing the American Patriot missile system. The Russian-made S-300 can take out any modern fighter plane or missile, including Cruise missiles, at a range of up 150 kilometres and an altitude of 27 kilometres.
According to a senior officer at the Syria-Russia joint military operations room in Damascus, the mobile S-300 is ready for deployment at various locations across the country.
Translated from Arabic language Alrai Media (thanks to the reliable Fort Russ Russian news site), the senior Syrian officer at the operations room is quoted as saying: “Soon Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and [we] will shoot the jet down without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.”
This may seem like a dangerous escalation. American fighter jets have been bombing Syrian territory since September 2014, having carried out thousands of air strikes allegedly against the Islamic State (IS) terror group (also known by its Arabic name Daesh).
Since the Paris terror attacks last month, France has stepped up its air strikes in Syria too. In the past week, Britain and Germany parliaments have voted for their air forces to join the other NATO members in aerial operations. The US-led bombing coalition in Syria also includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Russia is the only country whose military aircraft are legally deployed in Syria because Moscow has the full consent of the Syrian government. All the others do not have consent from Damascus.
So we have at least seven foreign powers deploying their warplanes to bomb Syrian territory – all in violation of international law.
It is irrelevant whether the US-led alliance claims to be fighting terrorists, or whether they claim it is in “self-defence” as France, Britain and Germany are. The Germany justice minister Heiko Maas, speaking after the Bundestag voted for military action this week, claimed that the United Nations Security Council resolution passed last month in the wake of the Paris attacks makes the German intervention legal. That UNSC resolution does not specifically sanction military action.
In any case, the ultimate legal criterion is the position of the Syrian state authorities. Western governments and their media have done everything to discredit, demonise and delegitimise the Syrian government. That’s part of the US-led criminal enterprise for regime change in Syria. But the fact remains, Syria is a sovereign state fully entitled the legal rights of all other UN members.
If the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad – which is the internationally recognised governing authority of Syria and retains its seat at the UN – does not consent to foreign military intervention, then that intervention is illegal, as Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly pointed out.
Syria, with the S-300 missile system supplied by its Russian ally, now has the technical means to defend its borders and airspace from all intruders. It also has the legal right to defend the inviolability of its territory. After all, US President Barack Obama invoked this right with regard to Turkey after the shoot-down of the Russian Su-24. Obama said Turkey had “every right to protect its skies” (even though the evidence shows that the Russian fighter jet did not breach Turkish territory).
In other words: what’s good for Turkey is good for Syria, as for any other nation.
Now, some might say it is a reckless move for Syria to train its skies with the powerful S-300. If a US, French, British or German warplane is shot down then that may ignite a full-on war with the American NATO military alliance. Russia would inevitably be dragged into the fight, which could slide into a world war between nuclear powers.
But hold on a minute. That logic amounts to the US and its allies using such fear as a weapon to disarm others and to prevent sovereign states from exercising their rights.
Such a dynamic is a blank cheque for powers to bully and oppress others.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin has said time and again, the issue is one abiding by international law. Without respect for international law then the world resorts to the law of the jungle and barbarism, as Putin said in his recent state of the nation speech.....'
Wonder what all the 'War Hawks' in Parliament will make of this?
And I just found this - apparently not reported in Western and Israeli press:
'The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, “the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights.”
Fars News Agency (FNA) also confirmed the Israeli attacks and the shooting down of an Israeli fighter plane
The Syrian air defense system shot down an Israeli warplane violating the Arab country’s air space.
The Israeli fighter jet was targeted over the city of Al-Quneitra on Friday.
Israel regularly violates the Syrian airspace and it launches missile attacks against the Arab country.
On Friday, the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting Brigade 68 Base in Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and Brigade 90 Base in the al-Quneitra province after a six hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights.
* * *
Yesterday, Friday, August 21, 2015 in the early hours, Damascus time, an Israeli US made F-16 fighter-bomber, flew into Syrian airspace brazenly and fired at Brigade 68 and, then, turned and flew back toward Brigade 90 in Qunaytra in order to insure a safe landing in occupied Palestine if the aircraft was struck. It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 “Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16’s electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.
Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.
Syria’s Right to Self Defense
It had to happen, sooner or later. The seeming diffidence of the Syrian brass had to transform into a bolder and more pugnacious articulation of Syria’s right to self-defense. With Russia now inevitably bound to the Syrian government for reasons discussed at length on our website; and Iran, now dazzled by a new role to play in regional politics; the green light turned on, finally, with Moscow withdrawing all restrictions on the use of advanced weaponry sold to the Syrian military. If you want to know what the former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Martin Dempsey, meant when he told Congress Syria had a “robust air defense system”, the Zionists just found out for themselves.
Yesterday, there was despondence after Israel assaulted Qunaytra and killed civilians seated in a public vehicle. The Israelis also killed one Syrian soldier and wounded several others in the Brigade 68 base.
But, the Syrian Army Chief of Staff, in consultation with the president and the Defense Minister, had no intention of letting this episode slide by especially in light of President Putin’s recent meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Moscow during which he flatly told the diplomat that relations with Turkey would be severed if Erdoghan did not stop supporting terrorism. It also came just after Sergei Lavrov called the Saudi foreign minister an “imbecile” just as the latter was renouncing any intention to treat with the Syrian government. There is a new belligerency in both Moscow and Teheran and it is being translated into action over Syria.
Ziad Fadel, Attorney for 35 years and Supreme Court Certified Interpreter for Arabic/English
It is hardly credible to think Cameron and the Military and Security Services didn't know about the shoot-down of Israel's F16; so why was this not brought up in the rush to get a vote in Parliament to send in the RAf? Ditto, Merkel.
Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle Civil Defense Film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60 _________________ '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: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:38 am Post subject:
War Propaganda Begins: UK Airstrikes Hit Already ‘Obliterated’ Syrian Oil Field: War Propaganda Begins: UK Airstrikes Hit Already ‘Obliterated’ Syrian Oil Field
'Just over a month ago on Friday 23rd October 2015, The Express reported the following obliteration of an ‘ISIS held’ oil field by a Russian and American attack:
‘The terrorists’ oil field in eastern Syria – part of a half a billion dollar crude industry for the group – was obliterated in a day of bombing conducted by both Russia and the US-led coalition.
US operations officer Major Michael Filanowski told reporters in Baghdad the Omar oil field was blitzed, heavily damaging the lucrative funding source for ISIS.
He said: “There were strikes last night that struck Daesh-controlled oil refineries, command and control centres and transportation nodes.
“There were 26 targets and all 26 were struck.”‘
Now, The Express is reporting that the commencing British airstrike action has “destroyed” the same oil field:
‘Four Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus just an hour after MPs voted in favour of launching airstrikes in the war-torn country. The jets struck targets in the Omar oil field in Eastern Syria, dealing a “real blow” to the death cult, also known as Daesh.‘
One wonders… how it might be possible to deal a ‘real blow’ to a target which had already been ‘obliterated’ over one month ago?
Of course, it is possible that excessive hyperbole was used in the original reporting, but it is interesting that this was the first target that the British report hitting.
explosion
‘OIL BOOM’: Business is booming. (Photo Credit: Andy Dunaway)
Just over two weeks ago, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was insisting that the internationally recognised and legal government headed by President of Syria Bashar al-Assad “has to go“, but that “We [the UK] are not seeking to destroy the institutions of government in Syria” – surely this is one of the greatest examples of double speak we’ve seen yet.
If Britain’s airstrikes are not hitting actual live ISIS targets, perhaps they are already working on their true end game of trying to oust Assad. To do so, they will have to avoid hitting terrorist fighters because they will need to work with them in order to achieve their primary objective which is regime change. Still, they will have to deal with the increasing Russia presence seeking to secure the sovereignty of Syria.
**As 21WIRE first reported last year, on the first day of the US-led Coalition ‘Anti-ISIL Airstrikes’ last fall in 2014, the US hit a series of empty targets, where ISIS fighter were actually given advanced warning and vacated the building in advance of bombing raids.**
It should come as no surprise if Cameron is actually dropping bombs on already ‘obliterated’ targets. Those weapons have to be paid for, which will make the British government’s friends in the military industrial complex incredibly happy indeed.'
John Pilger at his brilliant best; BUT he does make one big mistake: Roland Dumas says he was told by high British officials in London about Britain's plans to overthrow Assad with mercenaries in 2009, whereas Pilger, who mentions this, says it was in 2013. _________________ '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.
By Prof Nicolas Boeglin
Global Research, December 03, 2015
A few days ago, Prime Minister David Cameron has appealed to Parliament Members to vote in favor of Royal Air Forces (RAF) airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria, in order to “keep the British people safe” from the threat of terrorism. At the opening of a 10-hour Commons debate on December 2, the Prime Minister said the country had no other choice. In the report presented to the Parliament (see full text) he stated that: “I believe that the UK should now join Coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Syria” (p. 7) and pointed out that “On 20 November 2015, the UN Security Council unanimously called on Member States to use all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL, and to deny them safe haven in Syria and Iraq” (p. . In page 15 of this same document, he also indicated just after quoting Resolution 2249 that “there is a clear basis for military action against ISIL in Syria”.
It must be reminded that on August 30, 2013, a similar vote took place in United Kingdom with a short negative result for the Executive concerning airstrikes in Syria (see note of BBC): the government motion was rejected at his time by 285 vote against and 272 in favor. In BBC note above referred, it can be read that “On Friday French President Francois Hollande told the newspaper Le Monde that he would still be willing to take action without Britain’s involvement. He said he supported taking “firm” punitive action over an attack he said had caused “irreparable” harm to the Syrian people”.
The “urgency” to take a decision
During these last days, United Kingdom’s Executive seemed to be extremely “urged”, as reported by press (see for example the title of this note), and time seemed extremely short for more debate and for the examination of further details. As very well known, “urgency” is sometimes extremely useful, mainly when arguments presented are simple. In a recent article entitled, “Voting on Military Action in Syria“, it is written that Prime Minister seems quite clear on one very particular point: “In his address to Parliament, David Cameron insisted that the UN SC Resolution provides a legal basis for military action“. It must be reminded that the Resolution 2249 has been adopted on November 20, just one week after Paris attacks of November 13, supposing also an urgent work among diplomats in New York to reach a consensus on a text. From this perspective, France´s Executive was also expecting, with some urgency too, the decision to be taken in United Kingdom (see note), as it appears quite isolated in Europe Union concerning airstrikes in Syria, and its predicable consequences (Note 1).
It must be recalled that first official French airstrikes in Syria against ISIS positions took place last September 27 (see note of Le Monde of this very same day): just 24 hours after, France President took the floor at the United Nations General Assembly. The daily newspaper Le Monde understood (as all of us) that the choice of September 27 was not due to mere coincidence or hazard: “C’est une opération qui tombe à point nommé. L’annonce des premières frappes aériennes françaises en Syrie, dimanche 27 septembre, ne doit rien au hasard » (see note of Le Monde)
Even if United Kingdom´s Executive obtained this December 2, a positive vote on airstrikes in Syria (by a great majority of 397 votes in favor and 223 against) followed a few hours after by the first airstrikes of RAF in Syria (see note of France24), some of the arguments presented during the discussion deserve some comments, from the perspective of international law.
Which coalition are we talking about?
Concerning the sentence mentioned before in which Primer Minister said that “I believe that the UK should now join Coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Syria“, we must note that the expression “Coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Syria” seems to be a new one.
As known, a coalition has been set up in September 2014 by United States and its allies: State Department includes an official list with more than 60 Members of this Coalition called officially “The Global Coalition to Counter ISIL” : it must be noted that Panama appears as the only State from Latin America, whilst, concerning Africa, Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia and Tunisia are included in this official list. Prime Minister David Cameron seems to refer to another coalition, or at least, to a specific branch of “The Global Coalition to Counter ISIL“. In a recent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons entitled “The extension of offensive British military operations to Syria“, extremely useful information is provided in order to know which are the States involved in airstrikes in Syria (and in Iraq). At note 22, page 9, we read the following data:
“Airstrikes in Iraq: US, UK, Australia, Belgium (withdrawn), Canada (expected to withdraw), Denmark (withdrawn), France, Jordan, The Netherlands (9). Airstrikes in Syria: US, Australia, Bahrain, Canada (expected to withdraw), France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE (9). Total of 13 states overall”.
On Nov. 30, The Washington Times informed (see note) that some members of the coalition have stopped flights against ISIS positions:
“One Pentagon official directly involved in the counter-Islamic State fight told The Washington Times that the Saudis haven’t flown a mission against the group in nearly three months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bahrain is still involved, but confirmed that Jordan stopped flying sorties against the extremists in August and the UAE hasn’t flown one since March”.
Curiously, in its presentation at the “Sénat” in France, last November 25, French Minister of Foreign Affairs declares publicly (see compte-rendu analytique) that: “Une trentaine d’État sont engagés militairement dans la coalition“. The number 13 is a number of member States quite far from 30. But visually speaking (mainly if you are urged) the number 13 is very close to 31. Maybe (maybe not…) new glasses are needed somewhere at the Quai d´Orsay.
When Russia announced its first military operations in Syria last September 30, the reaction of the so called “Coalition” didn´t included the signature of 60 or 30 States, but only 7 States agreed on a short declaration made public last October 2 (see official text): France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The declaration stated:
« Nous, gouvernements de France, d’Allemagne, du Qatar, d’Arabie saoudite, de Turquie, du Royaume-Uni et des États-Unis d’ Amérique faisons la déclaration suivante à la suite des récentes offensives militaires de la Fédération de Russie en Syrie : Nous exprimons notre vive inquiétude devant le renforcement de l’engagement militaire russe en Syrie et, en particulier les frappes de l’armée de l’air russe sur Hama et Homs hier qui ont tué des civils et ne visaient pas Daech. Ces opérations militaires constituent une nouvelle escalade et ne feront qu’attiser l’extrémisme et la radicalisation. Nous demandons instamment à la Fédération de Russie de mettre immédiatement fin à ses attaques contre l’opposition et la population civile syriennes et de concentrer ses efforts sur le combat contre Daech ».
As briefly presented, “The Global Coalition to Counter ISIL” is quite different from “Coalition airstrikes against ISIL in Syria“; with respect to numbers referred by France´s head of diplomacy, they seem to be extremely far from reality if compared with the exact number of States involved in military operations in Syria and Iraq.
It must be recalled that France has been the first EU member to bomb ISIS positions in Iraq. During the last days of September 2014, Belgium, Denmark and United Kingdom acceded also to participate in these airstrikes in Iraq (see note of Temps Réels). As known, the main difference between Iraq and Syria is that the Iraqi authorities gave their formal consent to United States and its allies to combat ISIS on their territory (see letter of September 20, 2014 in which It can be read that:
“we, in accordance with international law and the relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements, and with due regard for complete national sovereignty and the Constitution, have requested the United States of America to lead international efforts to strike ISIL sites and military strongholds, with our express consent. The aim of such strikes is to end the constant threat to Iraq, protect Iraq’s citizens and, ultimately, arm Iraqi forces and enable them to regain control of Iraq’s borders”).
UNSC Resolution 2249: a confusing text from legal perspective
With respect to another argument presented by Prime Minister David Cameron, the content of the Resolution 2249 has been made public since November 13 (Note 2), and assertions made by Prime Minister require, in our view, some clarifications. As known, Security Council 2249 (see text) resolution does not provide any legal basis for airstrikes in Syria. A careful reading of the text shows that Resolution 2249 does not mention Article 42 of the UN Charter, which allows Security Council to authorize States to the use of force, or even Chapter VII generally; nor does use the verb “decide“, used when Security Council adopts a resolution on the use of force. An extremely interesting note published by Royal Institute on International Affairs and entitled “Assessing the Legal Basis for UK Military Action in Syria” is quite clear on this very particular point of Resolution 2249 adopted last November 20 in New York by an urged Security Council:
“In order to provide legal authority for the use of force against ISIS under international law, a Security Council resolution would need to constitute a decision, taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, that states could use all necessary measures in their action against ISIS. Although resolution 2249 determines that ISIS is a ‘global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and refers to ‘all necessary measures’, the language used in the operative part of the resolution is merely hortatory (‘calls upon’) and does not refer to Chapter VII. For those who are looking for specific UN authorization for the use of force, this is not it”.
Recently, two distinguished international lawyers entitled their analysis of Resolution 2249 (see article): “The Constructive Ambiguity of the Security Council’s ISIS Resolution“. For the authors of this article, the legal basis on which military actions can be taken in Syria is totally absent of the text:
“Resolution 2249, on the other hand, is constructed in such a way that it can be used to provide political support for military action, without actually endorsing any particular legal theory on which such action can be based or providing legal authority from the Council itself. The creative ambiguity in this resolution lies not only in the fact that it does not legally endorse military action, while appearing to give Council support to action being taken, but also that it allows for continuing disagreement as to the legality of those actions”.
With respect to the vote that took place last December 2 and, in particular to the arguments presented by Prime Minister concerning Resolution 2249, a distinguished professor of international law at Nottingham wrote in his article entitled “How the Ambiguity of Resolution 2249 Does Its Work” the following conclusion:
“Calling this particular resolution “clear and unambiguous” is, with respect, a real howler. But nonetheless we can see how the ambiguity of the resolution also did its magic in internal UK politics, and not just on the international plane – I very much doubt that without it the Prime Minister could have obtained the necessary majority for the air strikes, or even if he did that majority would have been slim indeed”.
A discrete French omission
It is possible that some colleagues that teach international law in France – extremely discrete since last month – will find the following lines politically incorrect, but it must be recalled that references to United Nations Charter in operative part of resolution 2249 are the result of … Russia insistence, and were not included in the original draft presented by France to the members of the Security Council. In this note entitled “Adoption of a Resolution on Counter Terrorism“, specifically concerning modifications to the original draft presented, we read that: “Russia insisted that a reference to the UN Charter be inserted and France agreed“. Despite public declarations made by France ´s delegates after the vote of Resolution 2249 (Note 3), this resolution does not justify the legality of France´s airstrikes in Syria. On this and others French contradictions, and on the very first “premiere” offered by France diplomacy at the United Nations (in order to avoid an explicit reference to the Charter in operative paragraphs of a draft resolution) we refer to our modest article published in French and entitled “La Résolution 2249 n’autorise pas à bombarder en Syrie“.
In another recent article on the intervention of Russia in Syria from the legal perspective, entitled “Russia´s intervention in Syria“, France ´s official reasons given to intervene in Mali´s civil war at the request of national authorities are mentioned. The author concluded that:
“On the basis of the reasoning of the Court and the responses of states to the recent interventions in Mali by France and in Syria by Russia, it is argued here that there is no such rule that prohibits an intervention in a civil war if the invitation comes from the government. It is thus submitted that the Russian intervention in Syria is in accordance with international law”.
With respect to this quite confused (and confusing) resolution 2249 adopted by Security Council one week after Paris attacks of November 13 (on which we can find many analysis written in English and we miss analysis from our French colleagues), another extremely interesting article has been entitled “Permanent Imminence of Armed Attacks: Resolution 2249 (2015) and the Right to Self Defence Against Designated Terrorist Groups”). The tittle in itself shows the confusion created by Resolution 2249 when talking of a “Permanent Imminence”. In accordance to the author, a distinguished professor of Cambridge:
“This declaration represents a very important, albeit risky, application by the Council of its powers even when acting outside of Chapter VII of the Charter. It affects the application of the right to self-defence of states wishing to rely on their own right to self-defence, rather than a right derived from Iraq or from Syrian consent”.
In his conclusion, the author emphasizes the fact that:
“In reality, this reluctance has opened up a pandora’s box of potential claims to the use of force in Syria and possibly Iraq. This is because the resolution offers an authoritative interpretation of the facts in relation to international law and the Charter, in particular the right to self-defence”.
Conclusion: a reference to Canada´s recent prudent withdraw
Very early, on April 9, 2015, Canada launched its first airstrikes in Syria (see BBC note) and became the 2ond member of NATO (after United States) to do so in Syria. Turkey launched its first airstrike in Syria on August 29, 2015, as member of the Coalition (see CNN note). On September 16, 2015, Australia initiated its airstrikes in Syria (see BBC note), followed by France on September 27. Despite the support shown by Canada, observers indicated a few months after the first Canadian airstrikes that: “Three months after a contentious vote to expand Canada’s combat mission against Islamic State into Syria, Canadian fighter jets have attacked targets there just three times” (see note of Globe and Mail).
As known, Canadian new elected authorities announced their decision to suspend airstrikes in Syria as well as in Iraq (see note of The Guardian of October 21, 2015). In an article published in 2015 on airstrikes launched by Canadian Air Force, entitled “Canada’s Military Operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the Law of Armed Conflict” the author concludes that, with regard to airstrikes in Syria:
“However, there is a further legal hurdle for Canada to overcome. Unless Canada can attribute ISIS’ attacks in Iraq to Syria, then the question becomes whether Canada may lawfully target ISIS, as a nonstate actor in Syria’s sovereign territory, using the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine to prevent ISIS’ extraterritoriality attacks against Iraq. This justification moves significantly away from the Nicaragua, Congo and Israeli Wall cases’ requirement for attribution”.
The author ends his article with the following sentence: “There is no escaping the conclusion that Canada’s air strikes on Syria are on shaky, or at least shifting, legal ground“.
Despite “urgency “and Primer Minister David Cameron´s interpretation of Resolution 2249, from the legal perspective, these very same conclusions, in our modest view, are applicable to airstrikes in Syria realized by United States and its Arabic allies (Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates), as well as by Australia, Canada, France, Turkey and the operations of this kind of RAF launched a few hours after the vote that took at United Kingdom Parliament.
Notes:
1. Three days after the first airstrikes of France in Syria (that took place on September 27, 2015) a French expert on counter terrorism and judge stressed in an interview in Paris Match (see references in this article of Le Monde) that: “« J’ai acquis la conviction que les hommes de Daech [Etat islamique] ont l’ambition et les moyens de nous atteindre beaucoup plus durement en organisant des actions d’ampleur, incomparables à celles menées jusqu’ici. Je le dis en tant que technicien : les jours les plus sombres sont devant nous. La vraie guerre que l’EI entend porter sur notre sol n’a pas encore commencé ».
2. At the end of this note, the full text of Resolution 2249 is reproduced.
3. In his declaration during Security Council session of November 20, (see full text of his declaration), French Ambassador Delattre affirmed that: “Cette résolution encadre notre action dans le cadre du droit international et dans le respect de la Charte des Nations Unies qui est notre bien commun, qui est notre trésor commun. Il offre aussi une garantie de lutte efficace contre le terrorisme transnational ».
Nicolas Boeglin is Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty, University of Costa Rica (UCR)
Text of the Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 7565th meeting, on 20 November 2015
Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,
Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed,
Determining that, by its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of forei gn terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,
Recalling that the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF) and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida also constitute a threat to international peace and security,
Determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,
Noting the letters dated 25 June 2014 and 20 September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory,
Reaffirming that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,
Reiterating that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015,
1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh, including hostage -taking and killing, and notes it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security;
2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose citizens were targeted in the above-mentioned attacks and all other victims of terrorism;
3. Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh;
4. Reaffirms that those responsible for committing or otherwise responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable;
5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
6. Urges Member States to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Member States to continue to fully implement the abovementioned resolutions;
7. Expresses its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also known as Da’esh;
Transcript
Israel Key Link in Exporting ISIS OilPAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
Thirty thousand barrels of oil a day. $19 million a month. That's apparently the revenues that are flowing to the Islamic State. Its oil exports flowing through Turkey. And now and investigative report accuses Israel of being one of the principal middlemen for Islamic State oil. Now joining us to talk about how all this works, and how it can work given supposedly the bombing campaigns that are going on, is Vijay Prashad. Vijay joins us from Northampton, Massachusetts. He's the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History, professor of international studies at Trinity College. His latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Thanks for joining us again, Vijay.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Pleasure.
JAY: So first of all, what do we know about how the oil gets out? It seems a little bizarre to me that such industrial-scale exports can take place without all the various countries that are supposedly attacking IS being able to stop this.
PRASHAD: Well, first I should say that there are a number of reports and studies that have been conducted. The Financial Times has done some reporting. Al-Araby Al-Jadeed has done a major study on the I think 26th of November, which they called Raqqa's Rockefeller. The Russian government has released their own paper on what they claim is going on between the ISIS territory, Turkey, and Israel. I did a report called ISIS Oil. So there's a number of people who have been looking at the phenomena of ISIS oil and how it's both being taken out of the ground and where it's going, how ISIS is able to make money.
The story is rooted actually in phenomena that predate ISIS. In other words, there are oil fields in northern Iraq in the Kurdish autonomous region where for many years the Iraqi regional government of Kurdistan has been in some kind of competition with the government in Baghdad, the central government. And oil has been siphoned out of these northern fields, these Kurdish fields, into, onto big trucks, smuggled into Turkey. And then they've gone out through [sehan] port, through Malta, often to Israel.
So this is a rather old network that has at least been going for 15 years or so. When ISIS took control of these fields about 18 months ago, they simply used the same networks, smuggling networks. They organized it, they've created in Mosul a, you know, an institution called Office of Resources, which controls things that were as far afield as oil smuggling to soft drink distribution. They do a variety of things, this Office of Resources.
As far as the oil is concerned, they've, as I said, utilized the old smuggling rings that had been used by the Kurdish regional government, so that oil travels across the border into Turkey. There is some preliminary refining that happens, because Turkey at least in this respect seems to be rather particular that you can only bring crude oil into Turkey if you have a license from the Iraqi government. If the oil is partly refined, then it can cross without that license. So there's crude refining of the oil. Bribes are paid at the border. And the trucks cross over and dispatch their crudely refined order onto trucks of another smuggling network. So the first set of trucks will return, essentially, to Mosul and to the oil fields in Iraq, and some of them in [inaud.] in eastern Syria.
Inside Turkey, the al-Araby al-Jadeed report skims this over, but here the story is quite fascinating. Because you know, yes, indeed, al-Araby al-Jadeed shows that there is a influential middleman. They call him Uncle Fareed. Fareed had, you know, he has various names, who at least takes charge of some of the trucking networks. But once the oil comes into mainstream Turkey, particularly in the three ports, one in which is [sehan] port, which is run by the Turkish government, there is a mysterious company called BMZ which takes control. And it turns out that BMZ has a familiar name as one of its owners. And that's the third child of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his name is Bilal Erdogan.
And Bilal Erdogan is one of the owners of BMZ. BMZ recently bought two major oil tankers. Why would they be buying oil tankers unless the flow of oil had increased in recent months? And they, through [sehan], take the oil out to Malta, where it is, again, ship, put onto a different ship, and it goes to Israel. From where it is either consumed in Israel, or it's laundered or sold out to European markets. To that's basically how the oil flows.
What we don't quite know yet, and I think what requires some investigation, is how the finance works. You know, how the payments are taking place. The banking networks that are involved, et cetera. But most of the money as far as the Islamic State is concerned, up to the border with Turkey, is done in cash. So there the question of banks don't apply. That's essentially, you know, how the oil travels. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'Vladimir Putin has vowed Russia’s military will “immediately destroy” any target threatening them in Syria, representing a strong warning to Turkey following its shooting down of a Russian warplane at the Syrian border.
Speaking at a meeting with senior commanders in Moscow, Putin said the military should respond with full force to any “further provocations”, adding that additional aircraft and air defence weapons have been sent to the Russian base near Latakia.
“I order you to act in the toughest way,” the Russian president said. “Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or our land infrastructure should be immediately destroyed.”....'
Good 'ole Guardian! Fails to have a 'Comment' section on that one! _________________ '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.
Global Research, December 05, 2015
Fars News 5 December 2015
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?
print 560 132 6 1169
US Military
US experts are reconstructing and equipping a desolate airport special to carrying agricultural products in the region controlled by the Kurdish forces in Hasaka region, Northeastern Syria, to turn it into a military base.
The Lebanese al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Saturday that a number of US experts have entered the region since 50 days ago to develop and prepare the runways with 2,500m length and 250m width to be used by fighter jets.
Abu Hajar airport which has not been used since 2010 is located in Tal al-Hajar region in the Eastern countryside of Hasaka which is controlled by the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG).
The airbase is located Southeast of the town of Rimelan, which is one of the YPG’s main strongholds and “largest arms and ammunition depots”.
The US has not received or even asked for a permission from Damascus for reconstructing the airbase. The United States does not have a UN mandate for interventing in the Syria war.
The airport will help enable Washington to add an additional safe place to land its forces, commando units for instance, and bring in military support to its allies who are working to finalize control over Southern Hasaka countryside, al-Akhbar said.
The report came over a week after the Kurdish region said that the US and Kurdish forces were working together to construct a 10 hectare military airbase South of the town of Rimelan in the village of Rimelan al-Basha.
“American experts are directly supervising the airbase with a Kurdish workforce,” the reports claimed, saying that US unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) had been flown from the facility to test it.
The report also said that two helicopter had flown over the town of Rimelan on November 24 and landed eight US military specialists at the airport.
Interestingly, the Kurdish YPG issued a statement saying that “two unknown helicopters” had flown over Rimelan on the same day.
The following day, the Kurdish media said that residents in the nearby village of Cil Axa had heard helicopters overhead, although they claimed they were Turkish. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'Russia says one of its warships fired warning shots at a Turkish fishing boat in the Aegean Sea to avoid a collision.
A Russian defence ministry statement said the Turkish vessel approached to 600m (1,800ft) before turning away in response to Russian small arms fire.
The captain of the Turkish boat said he was unaware that his vessel had been shot at.
The Turkish military attache in Moscow has been summoned to the foreign ministry over the incident.
Relations remain tense between the two countries since Turkey's shooting down of a Russian warplane.
Impact on Russian-Turkish relations
Presidential war of words
Turkey downs Russian fighter jet - what we know
"We are not in favour of tension," Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was quoted as saying after the incident.
"We have always been in favour of overcoming tensions through dialogue rather than conflict."
The captain of the Turkish vessel told Dogan news agency he did not realise his boat had been shot at.
"We were not aware that they had fired shots at us," Muzaffer Gecici said. "We have video footage and we have handed this to the coastguard. We didn't even know it was a Russian ship."
In November, a Russian Su-24 aircraft was shot down by two Turkish F-16s in the Turkish border-Syria area. Turkey maintained the plane had crossed into its airspace, although Russia disputed this.
And last week, Turkey complained over what it said was a sailor on a Russian naval ship brandishing a missile launcher as the vessel passed through Istanbul. Russia rejected the criticism, saying the crew had a "legal right" to protect the ship....' _________________ '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: Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:18 pm Post subject:
outsider wrote:
Western rationality
by Thierry Meyssan
You liked the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Vietnam War, the Kuwaiti incubators and the first Gulf War, the Racak massacre and the war in Kosovo, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the second Gulf War and the threats to Benghazi and the Libyan war? You will just love the gassing of civilians in Ghouta and the bombing of Syria...:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article180149.html
'..All observers have noted the high proportion of children among the victims. The United States has counted 426, or more than a third. Some observers, but neither those of the US nor their French counterparts, were intrigued to find that victims were almost all of the same age and they had no families to cry over them. Stranger still, the gas would have killed children and adult men, but would have spared women.
The wide distribution of satellite channel images of victims allowed Alawite families near Latakia to recognize their children who had been abducted two weeks prior by the "rebels." This identification was long in coming because there are few survivors of the massacre by the allies of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in loyalist villages where more than a thousand bodies of civilians were discovered in mass graves...'
''Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command. At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."
(So, the Israelis, or anyone else, could easily fabricate the so-called 'phone taps', and obviously have an interest in so doing).
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc),- The Former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas continues blowing the whistle about Western war plans against Syria, long before the first protests in 2011. After Dumas made a short statement in an interview on French television, he has now added shocking detail in an interview with the Syrian news agency SANA.
Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas.” I was approached at a party in Britain, two years before the Arab Spring, and asked if I wanted to take part in toppling the Syrian government with the help of rebels”. Photo, courtesy of SANA
In June, the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, created a scandal, when he admitted, that the war on Syria was planned two years before “The Arab Spring”.
During an appearance on the French TV channel LPC, Dumas made a short remark, saying that top British officials were preparing the subversion of Syria with the help of “rebels” two years before the first protests in 2011, and that he was asked, whether he wanted to participate.
During the TV appearance on LPC, in June, Dumas said:
“I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me, that they were preparing something in Syria”.
“This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me”
(I know this has been mentioned before, but here it is in print).
Now we have mounting proof of what we knew already - the Sarin attacks were done by the West's poxy (pardon, proxy!) gang of cutthroats, not Assad:
Chemical agent sarin smuggled from Turkey to ISIS – Turkish MP (EXCLUSIVE)
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
. In page 15 of this same document, he also indicated just after quoting Resolution 2249 that “there is a clear basis for military action against ISIL in Syria”.
