The Syrian Golan Citizens Rally in Support for Bashar Al Assad [video]
YouTube — ravenise00
August 27, 2012
Globalist Rag Gives “Two Cheers” for Terrorism
Foreign Policy plums new depths of own legendary depravity.
by Tony Cartalucci
August 24, 2012 – Foreign Policy published a recent article literally titled, “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists.” In it, general editor of the Neo-Con Middle East Forum Gary Gambill concedes that the Syrian government “would not be in the trouble it’s in today were it not for the Islamists,” revealing what the West and its media houses have attempted but failed at obfuscating – that the violence in Syria is the work of sectarian extremists, not “pro-democracy activists.” The latter’s existence was amplified by the Western media specifically to provide cover and legitimacy for the violence and subversion of the former.
Image: Must be seen to believe – screenshot of FP’s article literally titled, “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists.” The writer, Gary Gambill, comes from the Middle East Forum which regular features the warmongering rants of Neo-Cons like Daniel Pipes and Islamophobia-propagandist Robert Spencer.
Gambill continues his “two cheers” for terrorism in perhaps the most perverse statement found to-date in the Western press on the subject:
“Islamists — many of them hardened by years of fighting U.S. forces in Iraq — are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts. Assad has had extraordinary difficulty countering tactics perfected by his former jihadist allies, particularly suicide bombings and roadside bombs.”
Gambill is gushingly praising men who have killed Western troops, admiring their prowess on the battlefield through their use of indiscriminate terrorist tactics which have killed and maimed tens of thousands of civilians across the Arab World.
The Big Lie
Gambill continues by stating, “The Sunni Islamist surge may also be essential to inflicting a full-blown strategic defeat on Iran,” before concluding at length as to why the US should support terrorism in Syria:
“For the foreseeable future, however, Iran constitutes a far greater and more immediate threat to U.S. national interests. Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran unthinkable, it won’t have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington.
So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies, we should quietly root for them — while keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames. ” –Gary Gambill, “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists,” (2012)
In this, Gambill divulges the true agenda behind destabilizing Syria – the isolation and undermining of Iran to the east, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to the West. Gambill also mentions the destruction of Syria as a means of realigning Iraq to US interests.
Gambill disingenuously claims that the US can do “little about” what he calls the “political ascendancy” of these sectarian extremists, portraying the rise of violence across the Levant and the miraculous resurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab World as coincidentally aligned to American interests, and something that should be allowed, even encouraged, to run its course.
Gambill fails to mention, however, that this “political ascendancy” was planned, funded, armed, and organized by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia as far back as 2007, according to a detailed, 9-page report published by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker titled “The Redirection.”
In the report, it explicitly states:
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” –Seymour Hersh, The Redirection (2007)
Hersh’s report would also include:
“the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.” –Seymour Hersh, The Redirection (2007)
In essence, Gambill’s gushing support for terrorism – and in particular, terrorists who have fought and killed Americans – is but the latest in an attempt to spin and repackage Al Qaeda and the fraudulent “War on Terror” as public awareness outgrows the fallacious “humanitarian pretenses” the operation has been couched within hitherto.
Gambill’s material support for terrorism echos a recent article titled, “Al-Qaeda’s Specter in Syria,” published by the Council on Foreign Relations, a premier Fortune 500-funded US think-tank, which stated:
“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”
Why is Gambill Writing This?
Consider the audience of Foreign Policy. It is not propaganda fit for the masses. Rather it is for aspiring, as well as low to mid-level members of the global corporate-financier establishment. Western involvement in both Libya and Syria have undermined the governments, institutions, and organizations many of these people work for, and as public awareness (and anger) grows, it will be these low to mid-level members who bear the brunt of the system’s collapsing legitimacy. Many are already expressing doubts over the viability and nature of the West’s global agenda as it unfolds.
It must be remembered that the terrorists Gambill is “cheering” for had ensnared millions of Western troops for over a decade in the so-called “War on Terror.” It has killed thousands of troops, tens of thousands were maimed both physically and psychologically, and hundreds of thousands have forever lost time they could have spent at home with their loved ones. As public awareness grows of Western support for these very terrorists, it would be almost inconceivable that there would not be a profound, perhaps even violent backlash against people like Gambill and the establishment he represents.
Gambill’s cheerleading is designed to rally the lower ranks of the establishment around this new narrative as he and fellow warmongers attempt to flee forward through Syria and then into Iran. Eventually, the reckless promotion of terrorism Gambill and others are committed to will once again call US soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen into harms way – either to fight nations defending themselves against US-sponsored terrorism, or to liquidate US-supported terrorists when their services are longer needed.
Gambill by causally saying, “there will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames,” means specifically more US troops will be deployed, and will most certainly die, all in the pursuit of corporate-financier interests in the Middle East. Gambill specifically refers to “hegemonic ambitions,” not any conceivable threat to US defense, as the impetus for cheering on terrorism, a theme that is omnipresent throughout US policy papers on Iran.
Legendary US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler once said “war is a racket.” For an increasing number of people worldwide, they are beginning to understand why.
Evyln Garcia truth telling is a hate crime [video]
Rys2sense
July 20, 2012
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29403
to see her e-mail’s text
Resistance Girl from S Lebanon Explains the Fighting [video]
108morris108
August 26, 2012
The Jabal (33 seconds in) are the Alawites in Tripoli.
The whole Syrian conflict has been started to weaken Hezbollah
Everyone knows there will be another war in Israel
Her Twitter account is: http://twitter.com/Amani_Lebanon
Obama and Netanyahu Lay Out Strategic Plans to Strike Iran and Cause WW III
By Susanne Posel
theintelhub.com
August 23, 2012
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come out publicly stating that he will authorize a military strike on Iran before US elections in November.
With the Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, this is viewed as a preparatory strategy as the operation to destabilize and takeover Syria and Iran is prime on Israel’s colonization agenda to control the Middle East.
In New York, at the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu and Obama discussed their plans to use military and propaganda to justify and cover their agenda against Iran.
Tom Donlion, National Security Advisor to Obama and Ron Demer, senior advisor to Netanyahu are devising a “four-point plan” to implement Israeli strategies into US foreign policy concerning Iran.
In their scenario , Obama will inform Congress in writing that he will use military force against Iran in response to their alleged nuclear weapons program. In asking for their approval, Obama could be enabled to circumvent their decision.
It is decided that Obama will speak in Israel just weeks before the US elections wherein he will devote the US military to Israel’s plan to attack sovereign Islamic nations.
Paralleling this strategy, the federal intelligence and surveillance agencies in the US will be “upgraded” so that regardless of who is elected this November, the US government will be equipped with the necessary resources to attack Iran.
This is slated for the spring of 2013.
Israeli propaganda is reporting that Iran is “upgrading” their short-range missile defense systems in response to the US military threat.
Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, says that she guesses that Iran is responding to the US threat in the Gulf.
Landau said: “The fact that Iran indicated that it can hit both land targets and a target at sea [with the Fateh-110 missile] seems to hint at least that this kind of message is directed at the US.”
Landau maintains that Iran’s constant announcements of their growing military might must be indicative that they “have special messages” that veil a threat to Israel.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) believes that Syria and Iran will collaborate their military forces to battle the US together.
As the US continues to infiltrate Syria with state-sponsored fake revolution with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the CFR happily favors the use of al-Qaeda in conjunction with CIA training bases in Turkey that support the FSA in destabilizing Syria.
This week, Obama warned Syria and intimated that he was not opposed to using military might against Assad. Obama used the false claim of Syria’s alleged chemical or biological weapons to justify his threat of attack.
Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.
“We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us.”
Obama also stated that his threat is not for Syria alone, but also alluded to Iran as they are also planning on framing other nations that are “considering chemical warfare.”
A strike on Syria would lead to an involvement with Russia. Russian naval ships have positioned themselves with troops off the coast of Tartus.
When Israel moves to attack Syria, Russia will be strategically placed to respond.
This would lead to another world war.
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Corbett: IAEA and Nuclear Monopolists a “Gang of Thugs” [video]
Russia Today
August 24, 2012
Iran and the UN’s nuclear watchdog are set to resume talks later on Friday – more than two months after the previous round failed. Tehran insists it only wants peaceful energy, but the West remains suspicious of its nuclear ambitions. Hopes aren’t high for these negotiations either – while Iranian citizens continue to be hit hardest by US and European sanctions. For more on this we RT talks to James Corbett – journalist and editor of The Corbett Report – an online multi-media news and information source.
Israel’s War Plans to Attack Iran “Before the US Elections”
Pakalert Press
August 22, 2012
by Michel Chossudovsky
Israel’s Channel 10 suggests, in no uncertain terms, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “determined to attack Iran before the US elections” and that the “time for action is getting closer.”
“Israel is now closer than ever to a strike designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive”.
This timely report suggests that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak firmly believe that President Obama “would have no choice but to give backing for an Israeli attack” were it to be waged before the November presidential elections:
The TV station’s military reporter Alon Ben-David, who earlier this year was given extensive access to the Israel Air Force as it trained for a possible attack, reported that, since upgraded sanctions against Iran have failed to force a suspension of the Iranian nuclear program in the past two months, “from the prime minister’s point of view, the time for action is getting ever closer.”
Asked by the news anchor in the Hebrew-language TV report how close Israel now was to “a decision and perhaps an attack,” Ben-David said: “It appears that we are closer than ever.”
He said it seemed that Netanyahu was not waiting for a much-discussed possible meeting with US President Barack Obama, after the UN General Assembly gathering in New York late next month — indeed, “it’s not clear that there’ll be a meeting.” In any case, said Ben-David, “I doubt Obama could say anything that would convince Netanyahu to delay a possible attack.”
There is considerable opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the report noted — with President Shimon Peres, the army’s chief of the General Staff and top generals, the intelligence community, opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, “and of course the Americans” all lined up against Israeli action at this stage.
But, noted Ben-David, it is the Israeli government that would have to take the decision, and there Netanyahu is “almost guaranteed” a majority. Other Hebrew media reports on Tuesday also said Netanyahu had dispatched a senior official, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, to update the elderly spiritual leader of the Shas ultra-Orthodox coalition party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, on the status of the Iranian nuclear program, in order to try to win over Shas government ministers’ support for an attack. (Times of Israel, emphasis added)
In an earlier report, Richard Silverstein provides details of a leaked military document (translated from the Hebrew) which outlines the nature of Netanyahu’s proposed “shock and awe attack” on Iran:
The Israeli attack will open with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyber-attack which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders. The internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations—including underground missile bases at Khorramabad and Isfahan—will be taken out of action. The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal. This would be a Sisyphean task in light of cluster munitions which would be dropped, some time-delayed and some remote-activated through the use of a satellite signal.
A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMD], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.
The missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexaflouride. Others would explode under-ground, as at the Fordo facility.
A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus. Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields.
After the first wave of attacks, which will be timed to the second, the “Blue and White” radar satellite, whose systems enable us to perform an evaluation of the level of damage done to the various targets, will pass over Iran. Only after rapidly decrypting the satellite’s data, will the information be transferred directly to war planes making their way covertly toward Iran. These IAF planes will be armed with electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally. This equipment will render Israeli aircraft invisible. Those Israeli war planes which participate in the attack will damage a short-list of targets which require further assault.
Among the targets approved for attack—Shihab 3 and Sejil ballistic missile silos, storage tanks for chemical components of rocket fuel, industrial facilities for producing missile control systems, centrifuge production plants and more.
Richard Silverstein underscores the fact that there is considerable opposition eithin Israel to the Netanyahu-Barak plan to bomb Iran, which is being waged with a view to allegedly ensuring the “safety of Israel” against Iran.
Will this Israeli opposition prevail were a decision to be taken by Netanyahu and his Defense Minister to carry out an attack plan?
Is Netanyahu a US Political Proxy?
Who is backing Netanyahu? There are powerful economic interests in the US who are in favor of an attack on Iran.
Is this an Israeli war project or is Israel’s prime minister a US political proxy, acting on behalf of the Pentagon?
What happens if Netanyahu gives the order to attack? Will this order be carried out by Israel’s high command despite extensive opposition from within Israel’s Armed Forces?
The issue is not whether Washington will grant a green light to Israel before the US elections as conveyed by the the Israeli media.
The fundamental question is twofold.
1. Who at the political level decides on launching this war? Washington or Tel Aviv? Who are the economic powers elites which overshadow the political process in both the US and Israel?
2. Who ultimately decides– in terms of military command and control– in carrying out a large scale theater war in the Middle East: Washington or Tel Aviv?
Israel is a de facto US military outpost in the Middle East. US and Israeli command structures are integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel’s Ministry of Defense. Reported last January, a large number of US troops are to be stationed in Israel. Joint war games between the US and Israel are also envisaged.
US-Israel-NATO war plans directed against Iran have been ongoing since 2003 including the deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems.
The Israeli media reports are misleading. Israel cannot under any circumstances wage a war on Iran without the military backing of the US and NATO.
Advanced weapons systems have been deployed. US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran. US military drones are involved in spying and reconnaissance activities.
Bunker buster B61 tactical nuclear weapons are slated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its alleged nuclear weapons program.
Military actions against Iran are coordinated with those pertaining to Syria.
What we are dealing with is a global military agenda, centralized and coordinated by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) involving complex logistics, liaison with various military and intelligence entities. In 2005, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” This Combatant Command integration also included coordination with America’s allies including NATO, Israel and a number of frontline Arab states, which are members of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue.
In this broader context of imperial warfare coordinated out of USSTRATCOM in liaison with US Central Command (USCENTCOM), Netanyahu’s attack plan against Iran, conveys the illusion that Tel Aviv rather than Washington calls the shots on waging a war on Iran.
The Israeli media reports mentioned above convey the impression that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are in a position to act independently of Washington as well as force Obama into supporting Israel’s attack on Iran.
The notion that Israel could act alone and against the interests of the US is part of a subtle disinformation campaign. There is a longstanding foreign policy practice for Washington to encourage its close allies to take the first step in the unleashing a war, with the Pentagon pulling the military strings in the background.
Let us be under no illusion, the war plans directed against Iran, which have been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since 2003, are established at the highest levels in Washington in consultation and coordination with Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
While Israel participates in the conduct of war, it does not play an overriding central role in setting the military agenda.
This article was written by Michel Chossudovsky and originally published at Global Research
PN 