Explaining the Iraqi Resistance – Syrian Partisan Girl [video]
108morris108
May 20, 2012
From someone who grew up with the Iraqi invasion and followed the resistance through their defiance.
The Smell of War Wherever You Go – Hawazen Iraqi Refugee – Reports on Lebanon [video]
108morris108
May 18, 2012
The Imperialist plans to change the borders of Arab countries is playing out. Sectarian divide is a tool.
Hawazen informs us of many details on the fighting in Northern Lebanon. It is in fact a spill over from Syria.
Iraqis should thank us. How arrogant/ignorant can neocons be. [video]
YouTube – Rys2sense
March 4, 2012
Dahlia Wasfi from April 27 2006 when Dr Paul Pillar spoke to the democratic congressional forum. No one listened to her. You could see her in the background just steaming, the whole thing was like nearly 2 hours and ever person was like that. Obviously not on tv. They were just talking to a wall. I was going to put some of it in war by deception II but I was like whats the point I’m kicking a dead horse.
[hat tip: Syrian Girl]
US Wants Iraq to Block Iran Weapons Sales to Syria
by Scott Stearns
GlobalSecurity.org
March 22, 2012
Related posts:
- Weapons supply issue splits Friends of Syria
- Russia opposes ‘Libyan scenario’ in Syria and will block resolution
- Obama orders global US Iran asset block
- US accuses Iran of shipping arms to Syria
- Russia and China block UN resolution on Syria amidst fears it could mean another Libya-style intervention
[hat tip: EndtheLie.com]
Some Thoughts on Syria and Iran
by Andrew J. Fell
Activist Post
March 6, 2012
I had a disheartening conversation with my friend a few days ago. We were discussing, as we often do, the current geo-political events that are unraveling and the subject moved onto Syria pretty quickly. I don’t often watch TV, but I sat with him and watched some of the coverage pretending to be news and felt sick to my stomach; the media bandwagon is whooping and cheering its way into yet another conflict — deja vu doesn’t quite describe it.
The reason I said the conversation was disheartening is that not only did my friend, who is normally a staunch advocate of peace, feel that it was right for ‘us’ (as he put it) to be arming an armed insurgency in a sovereign country, but he strongly supports the West becoming embroiled in another regime change for the second time in a year.
This isn’t to say he is now a bad human being — far from it — merely that he, like most of the general population, continues to be duped, time and again by an ever more crafty military-industrial propaganda machine. Coverage from the BBC, CNN, CNBC and all the other ‘alphabet’ news agencies are testament to that — if one were to believe their word alone, this conflict has been a purely one-sided affair where President Assad has just suddenly decided to start massacring his civilian population for holding up some protest signs. I would say ten minutes research into these claims should put them to rest, or, at the very least, demonstrate that neither side is in the right. The key issue, once again, is not the information contained within the corporate media’s news coverage, but it is the systematic omission of key facts regarding the relevant background to these events — thus not allowing people to make their own critical decisions based upon all the information available. The question should be asked, how did this chain of events start in the first place?
The Assad government in Syria is not smelling of roses, but this whole scenario has been carefully set in motion from its inception via the pumping of money and training of armed groups by the Western powers — something admitted to only 2 years ago by the American Government — to its unfortunate, seemingly inevitable, conclusion: Assad being deposed and Syria [followed by Iran perhaps?] in chaos and flames. It’s pretty much the exact definition of the Hegelian Dialectic — problem, reaction, solution. For example, if the US had not been funding armed militants in Syria, there would be no unrest and therefore no interventionist solution would be required. The US hasn’t been funding the opposition in Saudi Arabia have they?
But what about the humanitarian situation? Isn’t it the moral duty of NATO, with the backing of the UN, to start bombing Syria in order that its civilians be saved, ergo the twisted logic of today’s mass media? The very suggestion that America is concerned about the humanitarian crisis is laughable to say the least; the examples of Bahrain, Iraq or Israel puts that to rest!
If the Americans were funding armed opposition groups in (lets pick some arbitrarily) Bahrain, Egypt, China, Oman, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Israel, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Nigeria, Thailand, Morocco, Qatar — how do you think these governments would react? I would argue that not only would they react comparably, but in actuality even more ruthlessly; one only has to look at the brutal crackdown and murder of its own citizens during the uprising by both Bahraini and Saudi forces last year to see this in practice — not to mention the jailing of dozens of doctors for doing nothing more than assisting the injured. Similarly, there have been massacres committed in China (Ngaba) and Uzbekistan (Andijan) just within the past few years during protests there. There are many more examples throughout the world.
Imagine foreign-funded snipers taking pot-shots at the police in the UK? Not only would this be treated as an act of war, but I’m pretty sure the authorities would come down on them like a ton of bricks — just like they did in Northern Ireland in the not-so-distant past.
I’m not seeking to excuse the killing of civilians by Assad, and I’m not suggesting that we support these despotic governments, but we should look at the wider context of what is going on and how this particular state of affairs has been fomented from the start.
Who exactly is this opposition? Are they any better than Assad? Search for ‘US funding Syrian Opposition’ or ‘Syrian Opposition Terrorist’ and you will see articles including this one http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html which shows openly how the West has been posturing for this current stand-off for several years. Or this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/intelligence-chief-concerned-about-al-qaeda-in-syria-conflict. And this: http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/20/two-us-senators-call-for-arming-syrian-opposition-filled-with-al-qaeda-terrorists which shows that the ‘intelligence’ [sic] services are fully aware that the very same people who are fighting US troops in Iraq are now being backed by the US in the insurgency in Syria. Wednesday — terrorist, Thursday — freedom fighter. It boggles the mind!
This rhetoric directed towards Syria is, of course, inexorably linked with that being directed toward its ally Iran with — and I say this with a sad heart — a larger regional war being the probable eventual outcome.
If we can recall, the media and the government prior to the Iraq invasion were absolutely adamant that not only did Saddam Hussein have WMD’s, but that he could use them in a matter of minutes, sexed up or not! The similarities between current reporting and the news stories, then, are staggering — have a quick watch of this video for some examples of this occurring:
I don’t believe, however, that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, as has been confirmed by all 16 US Intelligence Agencies, theintelhub.com/2012/02/25/u-s-intelligence-agencies-agree-no-evidence-of-iranian-nuclear-weapons-program: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,5827032.story. And we shouldn’t forget that they, so far at least, have been developing their civilian nuclear program well within the auspices of their international commitments — it is in fact their right to do this, having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Israel which never complies with any international sanctions or agreements directed towards them).
Another point worth considering: would the policies being put into place, the sanctions etc., actually not have the opposite effect and put Iran in the direction of actually trying to develop a nuclear capability due to their backs being against the wall? If this is the case, then the question must be posed, Why the hell would anybody in their right mind want to do this? Well, it’s a fairly easy question to answer — the elites are completely and utterly out of their minds with barely any semblance of rational morality!
However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that what they say concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions has a semblance of truth. If we are to contemplate the logical process of Iran having WMD’s, we also have to consider what Iran would do if indeed they did have them. I would say, without any hesitation, precisely nothing; just like if this had been the case of Saddam having them. Would Iran really attack nuclear-armed nations such as the US, Israel, or Britain? Would they hell! If they did develop this capability would it not serve as a deterrent, just like in the case of North Korea? I think, fairly obviously, it would. This is without going into the discussion on the morality of anyone having these horrendous, insane devices in the first place, but I feel the point is made.
One doesn’t have to look too hard to see that the West has been doing everything in their power to evoke a reaction from the Iranians. Here are but a few: the banning of all currency transactions with the non-Rothschild-owned Iranian Central Bank; the electronic blocking and subsequent banning of the broadcast of PressTV; the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran; the positioning of carrier groups just outside of Iranian territorial waters; flimsily blaming very fishy attacks on Israeli diplomats on Iran; etc etc.
The global elites are not pursuing peace in any shape of form as they claim to be, which should be patently obvious to any rational observer; far from it, they are doing everything in their power to not only foment a war, but one the likes of which we have never seen. A war which would most likely drag in China and Russia, and truly polarize this world in which we live.
War, especially pre-emptive war, does not solve these issues, and only leads to more human misery without improving the plight of those who are having to live through it — look at Iraq — prima facie!
So, in conclusion, if what is being presented to us is not the truth then what is? This is a loaded question with a multitude of possible subsidiary questions which, together, probably all form a part of the real story. Some of these are below and not all of them tie in with my current thinking, but they should at the very least be put into consideration:
- Is it a stepping stone along the way toward instituting a One World Government? Probably — in order for the elites to introduce their concept of a NWO (look up Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley) they must first remove any obstacles from their path, and that would include regimes who are not sympathetic to their goals — Syria and Iran are quite firmly in this category.
- Is the West deliberately attempting to draw the other great super-powers, China and Russia into an all-out war by squeezing them of both their influence and their oil supplies? Quite probably — Russia has a large naval presence in Syria, whilst China has lost major oil contracts with Libya and Sudan over the past year and is increasingly relying on Iran. It is also worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key foreign policy adviser to Obama and previous administrations, has advocated through books such as the Grand Chessboard, the deliberate playing off of China and Russia through the disruption of China’s oil supplies from the Middle East, thus forcing them to look greedily northwards towards Siberia. A seemingly outlandish view on the face of it, but increasingly more likely once you look at a map and see how China’s supply lines are being increasingly taken away.
- Are they purposefully destabilizing the Middle East in order to create an actual terrorist threat? Quite possibly — the actions of the past 10 years certainly could be explained somewhat by this, especially in the context of September 11th, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which I think most people would agree have not reduced the so-called ‘terrorist threat’ by any measure of the imagination.
- Is it part of the Zionist plan for a greater Israel of which Syria would be a part, or the Zionist/Evangelical Christian Belief (of which George Bush is one) that the ‘rapture’ will only come once there is a major conflict in the Middle East? The fact that so many politicians in the west are publicly pro-Zionist in their philosophy gives more weight to this scenario. (Source)
- Creating war will help save the world’s economy from meltdown? I doubt it — at most it would put the economic problems on hiatus. However, considering that the world’s economic problems can largely by blamed on these same people who are creating these wars, I think that it is unlikely this is their reason for starting them.
I’ll leave it for you to decide what the real reasons are, for these are only some possible explanations for this seemingly inexplicable insanity. The only thing that I’m truly sure of at this point is that the pretext being fed to us for war is a lie and, personally, I’m trying to work backwards logically from that point.
We must learn our history and see that in many respects it is repeating itself. It is a very Orwellian thing to say ‘war is peace and peace is war’ but that to me, in no uncertain terms, is exactly what is being presented to us. We should be outraged at this ridiculous state of affairs! Spread the word.
Andrew Fell lives in the Czech Republic and is a lecturer of English at a Social Work College in Prague. He has a keen interest in geo-politics, ethics, history, cooking and playing music. He can usually be found armed with a smile, sipping a cup of tea at a čajovna in Prague.
Syrian Girl – Syria’s Relationships With Turkey & Iraq [video]
YouTube – 108morris108
February 20, 2012
Just over a year ago, Turkey and Syria were best friends. What Happened? Turkey has been supporting the armed opposition to the Syrian Government.
Iraq is showing solidarity with Syria because Iran is telling it to. Syrian Girl does not think much of the Iraqi Government which was shaking hands with Condoleezza Rice.
Iraq: Invasion Ends – Neo-Colonial Rule Begins
Foreign-domination of Iraq’s economy are the real chains of servitude.
by Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer Report
December 29, 2011
Even as US troops symbolically withdraw from Iraq, a superficial indicator that many may interpret as the return of Iraqi sovereignty, it is the flow of foreign-investment into the country that marks the true chains of foreign-rule being laid out. USA Today in an article titled, “Foreign investment begins to pour into Iraq,” describes the real take over, prepared for over the course of nearly a decade, and is now beginning.
Image: A nation can survive and resist an occupation of troops. It is much more difficult to resist an insidious occupation build on an endless, fraudulent torrent of capital and economic domination. Iraqi PM Nouri Al-Maliki “opens Iraq” for just such an occupation – one of Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier interests.
The US Chamber of Commerce, which represents the collective interests of the largest corporations both in the United States and around the world, has a “US-Iraq Business Initiative” dedicated to “building a better Iraq through private sector investment.” The Chamber of Commerce stated in a post titled, “Iraqi Prime Minister: Business Now at the Front,” that “Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the Chamber today [December 13, 2011] to mark the transition from U.S. military engagement to economic engagement through commerce, trade, and investment.” A similar article can be read via “The Hill’s” “Iraq is open for Business.”
What is Economic-Imperialism?
An explanation of how economic-imperialism works was noted in February 2011’s “Egypt Today, Thailand Tomorrow:”
In the late 90’s these think-tanks, NGOs, and research groups together with their International Monetary Fund and the World Bank made immense loans to developing nations around the world. Nations were forced to take these loans with the threat of sanctions aimed against them by the World Trade Organization should they refuse. Like a mafia loan shark, these globocrat gangsters decided to call in the loans knowing how hopelessly unpayable they were.
And like a mafia loan shark, favors were asked of those who defaulted on their payments. Target nations were called to exercise sweeping economic liberalization reforms, eliminating their control and protection over their economy, industry, infrastructure, and as a result, eliminating their national sovereignty itself. It was a new form of an old art. It was economic neo-colonialism.
This is no different than the one-sided trade deals made by the old European empires with target nations in the colonial age. These trade deals also included ownership of property by foreigners, the ability to operate a business, and travel with impunity throughout the host nation – all with minimum or no taxes imposed upon the foreign occupiers. The only difference would be that modern day concessions are forced through invasive economic policy, while colonial concessions were forced through “gunboat policy.”
Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850’s. Thailand/Siam
was never colonized but made many concessions.Thailand, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations and in turn was made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. See how many of these “gunboat policy” imposed concessions sound like today’s “economic liberalization:”
1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.A more contemporary example would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer’s (CFR) economic reformation of the broken nation.
The Economist gleefully enumerates the neo-colonial “economic liberalization” of Iraq in a piece titled “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream:”
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.As you can see, not much has changed since 1855 as far as imperialist “wish-lists” go. The Economist argued, as would any 19th century imperialist, that Iraq needed foreign expertise to catch up, justifying the evisceration of their national sovereignty.
Similarly we saw in April 2011’s “Libyan Rebels Fighting the Globalists’ War” NATO’s military conquest of Libya sowing the seeds for post-war dominion of Libya’s economy led by what was predicted to be a “Western stooge” that would serve foreign, not Libyan interests. Months later, it would be confirmed that indeed such a Western stooge, Abdurrahim el-Keib, had been found and promptly installed as “Prime Minster” after the fall of Qaddafi’s government.
Abdurrahim el-Keib, portrayed by the Western corporate-media as a progressive academic who had spent decades in the United States teaching at Alabama University and leading the local Muslim community, was in fact also a “professor & chairman” at the Petroleum Institute, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE and sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France’s Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. El-Keib’s Petroleum Institute profile also describes extensive research conducted by him sponsored by various US government agencies and departments over the years. In other words, el-Keib is a man that owes his existence to corporate-financier oligarchs, as well as his current position of power, and will surely spend his time in office paying them back at the expense of the Libyan people.
Conclusion
Considering the Economist’s eagerness to commandeer the Iraqi economy, historical contexts stretching back over a century, the US Chamber of Commerce’s own admissions, and recent developments in Libya where a fraudulent “humanitarian war” has yielded a government led not by a national government in the service to the people, but to foreign interests, it is safe to say that Iraq’s real occupation by the forces of global corporate-fascism is only now beginning.
It should be noted that many of the corporations now jockeying for a position to infest the Iraqi economy, represented within the Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors, are also chief contributors, partners, members, and sponsors of the very US policy think-tanks that engineered the Iraq War in the first place, as well as America’s other planned or ongoing military operations around the world. They literally have hijacked the governments of the West to carry out a campaign pursuing global hegemony, both militarily and economically.
It is essential to take note of these corporate-financier interests, boycott them entirely, and replace them with local, pragmatic solutions. Their unwarranted influence throughout business, politics, and even the theater of war constitutes the greatest threat toward free humanity, not the contrived excuses they have used to dominate nation after nation and continuously perpetuate their agenda.
PN 