Love Bombs for Syria? – Syrian Girl on Intervention and Hypocrisy [video]
The Corbett Report
April 15, 2012
Syrian commentator “Syrian Girl” joins us to discuss the latest news on the moves toward outside intervention in Syria.
Download audio: http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-495-syrian-girl-on-the-syrian-interven…
Syrian Girl’s recommended websites on Syria:
Website: http://www.syrianews.cc/
Real Friends of Syria blog http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/
Youtube channel exposing media lies: http://www.youtube.com/user/SyriansWorldWide
UN approves monitors’ deployment to Syria [video]
Russia Today
April 14, 2012
The UN Security Council has voted unanimously on a resolution to send a team of observers to Syria. The group of up to 30 monitors will help oversee the country’s fragile ceasefire. This, amid reports of fresh shelling and more bloodshed in the country, despite the truce. RT’s Marina Portnaya is following the events in New York.
RT on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Faux-Feminist’s Ridiculous “Women Under Siege” Syria Map
CIA Asset Gloria Steinem’s “Women Under Siege” Joins Syrian Propaganda Campaign.
by Tony Cartalucci
April 14, 2012 – Ironically, faux-feminist Gloria Steinem’s “Women Under Siege’s” latest campaign to demonize the Syrian government in tandem with the US State Department and its vast stable of media and intelligence assets, stands to set the stage for extremist ideologues to overrun Syria, ending its secular society and entirely stripping away the “women’s rights” Steinem claims to have spent a lifetime fighting for.
Image: “Women Under Siege – Documenting Sexualized Violence in Syria” attempts to demonize the Syrian government and raise the level of feigned humanitarian-hysteria ahead of NATO maneuvering to rearm and redeploy militant extremists sure to end all human rights in currently secular Syrian society – just as they’ve done in Libya.
Of course, when one understands that Steinem is an establishment asset merely leveraging/perverting legitimate concerns regarding women to manipulate, divide, and control people for a corporate-financier agenda, such hypocrisy makes perfect sense.
Women Under Siege is a project of Steinem’s “Women’s Media Center,” which is itself a spinoff of its umbrella organization, Ms Foundation. Steinem’s Ms Foundation is funded by convicted criminal and Wall Street speculator George Soros‘ Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, New York Life, Google, the United Nations, AT&T, Lifetime, the ACLU, and many others featured in their 2011 Annual Report starting on page 27. So what appears to be a feminist crusade turns out to be yet another facade of Wall Street and London’s (ironically very male-dominated) charade of manipulating, exploiting, dividing, and controlling the population.
Further evidence exposing Steinem and her expansive propaganda empire as nothing more than a tool of special interests is the documented fact that she was at least for a time, an asset of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as described in the New York Times article “CIA Subsidized Festival Trips; Hundreds of Students Were Sent to World Gatherings” (full text can be found here). Steinem’s “Independent Research Service” was anything but “independent,” as it was bankrolled by the CIA. While Steinem claims the CIA did nothing to influence her organization’s policy, a tenuous defense used by many operatives caught receiving dubious funding, it is clear that her activities dovetailed with the CIA’s agenda, making her at best what is called a “useful idiot.”
Now Steinem is once again conveniently co-facilitating the agenda of the establishment though the US State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the various intelligence and military agencies involved in destabilizing Syria and overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad. She does so with her “Women Under Siege – Documenting Sexualized Violence in Syria” project, featuring a map of unverified, hearsay reports of atrocities carried out allegedly on “women.” Clearly, considering the corporate-financier backing Steinem’s Ms Foundation receives, this is not merely a convenient convergence of interests – rather more manipulative propaganda abusing and ultimately undermining real human rights – as the very term “women’s rights” is indicative of bigotry in and of itself.
Image: Pictured is “Gay Girl in Damascus.” Far from an editorial oversight, “Gay Girl in Damascus” was in reality a 40 year-old American man living in the UK. The Western media shamelessly exploited his narrative until it unraveled, and simply moved on to other actors, like “Danny” who directs fake gunfire off-camera while giving casualty reports to CNN. CIA asset Gloria Steinem’s new “Women Under Siege – Documenting Sexualized Violence in Syria” map makes a nice fit for the constant din of lies and fabrications coming out of the West in its pursuit of dividing and destroying Syria.
However, Steinem’s efforts find good company amongst the constant din of unverified reports fabricated by London-based NGOs like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, exposed frauds like CNN’s “Syrian Danny,” and “Gay Girl in Damascus” who turned out to be a middle-aged American man living in the UK.
[hat tip: End the Lie]
Syria: Another “Humanitarian War” Based on Lies & Deceit
Mini-Documentary Exposes Imperial Expansion Through “Humanitarian Interventionism”
by Tony Cartalucci
April 13, 2012 – The Paris-based Centre for the Study of Interventionism (CSI) and Julien Teil, director of “Lies behind the “Humanitarian War” in Libya: There is no evidence!” has recently released a short documentary exposing how a cartel of Western nations and their Arab proxies are purposefully creating chaos inside targeted nations and then using it as a pretext to invade, topple governments, and replace them with preselected client regimes, and in effect threatening the very concept of national sovereignty.
The documentary particularly focuses on Syria and features video of Syrian opposition members sitting at the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) “round-table” having praise heaped upon them, and in particular Washington-based Syrian “activist” Radwn Ziadeh, for their complicity in betraying their nation and people for the corporate-financier interests that constitute NED’s board of directors.
Image: Just some of the corporate-financier interests represented by the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) Board of Directors. NED’s mission statement of “supporting freedom around the world” is exposed as a ludicrous cover for what is obviously an organization dedicated to expanding the corporate-financier hegemony of its membership and sponsors – merely using the cover of “democracy promotion” to justify what is in fact global imperial conquest. (click on image to enlarge)
Mention is made of how this very same gambit, featuring very similar characters working with the very same Western organizations and “institutions” similarly ravaged Libya, toppled the government, and installed a proxy client regime using this fraudulent model of “Responsibility to Protect.” It is stated multiple times, that the West’s self-evident desire to see “regime change” in Syria and its decision to “pick sides” in regards to backing Syrian opposition terrorist clearly violates the not only Syria’s national sovereignty, but endangers the very concept of national sovereignty all together.
It is important to understand that this agenda of neo-imperialism is being driven by converging corporate-financier interests centered around Wall Street and London and seeks to create a global “open society” which they can dominate without the hindrance of borders or national institutions opposing them. The distinction is made in the documentary between Western-educated opposition members helping facilitate the West’s global blitzkrieg who hold the “global worldview of the West” verses the classical view of international law and diplomacy held by the rest of the world.
Humanitarian interventionism is simply the institutionalization of modern global imperial conquest.
Please be sure to support the makers of this documentary by rating their video on YouTube. Please also visit Julien Teil’s “The Humanitarian War” website.
[hat tip: Global Research TV]
Libyan scenario for Syria?
by Dmitry Babich
Voice of Russia
April 5, 2012
The recent statement of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the inability of NATO and its allies to replace Gaddafi’s regime in Libya with a viable modern state gets some worrisome confirmations every day. A military coup in Mali, another African country, where the black African majority is facing a rebellion of the local Tuareg minority with simultaneous attacks from the aggressive Islamist group named Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQMI), was another ominous sign of the destabilization in the region. It is a commonly held opinion of a number of experts in Algeria, Morocco, France and other countries that the events in Mali were a consequence of Colonel Gaddafi’s violent removal from power in 2011, in which NATO members and Persian Gulf monarchies took part. During his recent visit to Baku, Sergei Lavrov let it be understood that he shared that opinion.
“The people, who abused the UN Security Council’s mandate, who defeated Gaddafi’s army killing dozens of civilians in the process of doing this, these people left in Libya something that cannot really be called a state,” Lavrov said in Baku. Lavrov added that the Libyan tragedy, whose damage to civilians still needs to be assessed and investigated, is far from over. “Right now the state of Mali is being destroyed,” Lavrov said.
There are surprisingly few reports in the Western press on the dangerous instability in Libya and the military action in Mali, which indeed was a direct consequence of the West-supported eviction of Tuaregs from Libya. The anti-Gaddafi rebels summarily suspected Tuaregs of helping the government forces, so they made short work of them after Mr. Gaddafi’s defeat. So, the lack of interest that the Western media showed for their fate was particularly strange after many months of hysterical reports demonizing Gaddafi and predicting an eventual massacre which Gaddafi’s forces might presumably have inflicted on the Libyan opposition in Benghazi. This media circus served to justify the Western intervention and stopped immediately after the insurgents took over Tripoli. The massacre inflicted on Gaddafi’s supporters in the city of Sirte, Gaddafi’s stronghold, which lost up to 30 percent of its population, was not presumed, but quite real. However, only the French daily Le Figaro dwelled on the plight of the victims.
On Monday, another show of force which even the Western media could not ignore left at least 22 people in an area west of Tripoli, where Berber fighters from the town of Zuwarah clashed with their neighbors from the mostly Arab town of Ragdalein. Similar clashes had been recorded earlier in the Libyan desert oasis of Sabha, where at least 150 people were killed.
“Hopes in the Western press for a glorious end to the war in Libya, which were widespread in the wake of Mr. Gaddafi’s killing at the end of 2011, were somewhat shortsighted,” said Nikolai Surkov, an analyst on Middle East politics writing for the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta. “The war in fact goes on – without Gaddafi.”
The refusal of the new Libyan authorities to hand Gaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam to international justice in the Hague and the recently started trial in Tripoli of 20 Ukrainian citizens accused of doing “hardware repairs” for Gaddafi’s forces do not make the humanitarian credentials of Libya’s new masters any better. In fact, the amount of violence in the country forced even the liberal New York Times to admit that Libya’s ruling Transitional National Council “was weak and disorganized.”
As for Mali, another terrible revelation of the New York Times to the Western public is that fighting in this country and its recent coup (“a major blow to democracy in Africa”) “are among the unexpected consequences of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.” So much for the months-in-a-row media chatter about the Western intervention in Libya being a boon to Africa’s democracy.
If Mr. Lavrov’s pessimism proves to be right on Libya, there is no reason to expect him to be wrong on Syria, where events are developing according to the Libyan scenario. Michel Kilo, a respected Syrian human rights activist and opposition leader, recently blasted the penchant of the Istanbul-based Syrian National Council and its Western “friends” for the military solution to the problem and their ties to militant Islamists inside and outside Syria. He also urged the West to cooperate with other Syrian opposition groups, not just with the SNC. Right now only Russia is inviting these groups to Moscow and taking their ideas seriously. In Mr. Kilo’s opinion, it is high time for all Syrian opposition groups to cooperate with Russia.
In April, Michel Kilo is planning to convene a founding session of his organization, Democratic Forum of Syria, in Cairo, Egypt. Now there are two alternatives open for the Western press: we shall either hear less from the “Friends of Syria” or we shall not hear at all from Mr. Kilo and his Democratic Forum. The latter option, unfortunately, has a much bigger chance to be chosen.
——————————————————————————-
Source – http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_05/Libya-Syria/
[hat tip: STOP NATO]
US-UK Destabilization Campaign Stymied by Russian Support for Syria; Bouazizi Story Told by Western Media a Fraud; World Depression Propels Assault on Modern State; US Mass Strike Needs Class-Based Program to Take Power
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph. D.
TARPLEY.net
April 4, 2012
– recorded on March 15, 2012
[download video] [download audio]
Source – http://tarpley.net/2012/04/05/us-uk-destabilization-campaign-stymied-by-russian-support-for-syria/
The North American Leaders Summit and Reviving Trilateral Integration
by Dana Gabriel
BE YOUR OWN LEADER
March 26, 2012
With the demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the U.S. has essentially put Canada and Mexico on separate tracks. It has pursued dual-bilateralism with both its NAFTA partners as the primary means of advancing continental integration with regards to trade, regulatory and security initiatives. The upcoming North American Leaders Summit, which will be held in Washington, D.C. on April 2, could be used as a means of reviving the trilateral cooperation model.
While much of my focus has been on the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border and the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) action plans, the U.S. is also pursuing a similar agenda with Mexico. This includes working towards a common security perimeter. In 2010, the U.S. and Mexico issued the Twenty-First Century Border Management declaration. This established the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to implement joint border related projects to enhance economic prosperity and security. In December of last year, the ESC adopted its 2012 action plan which sets goals in areas of binational infrastructure coordination, risk management, law enforcement cooperation, along with improving cross-border commerce and ties. A press release explained that through the ESC, “we are developing and managing our shared border in an integrated fashion to facilitate the secure, efficient, and rapid flows of goods and people and reduce the costs of doing business between our two countries.” The ESC meeting also acknowledged bilateral accomplishments in expanding the use of trusted traveler initiatives such as the Global Entry Program.
In May of 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon directed the creation of the High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC). In February of this year, the HLRCC released a work plan whereby the U.S. and Mexico will seek greater regulatory alignment in the areas of food, transportation, nanotechnology, e-health, as well as oil and gas development standards. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded the plan for enhanced regulatory cooperation between both countries. The terms of reference for the HLRCC also recognized that, “some regulatory challenges require trilateral cooperation among the three Parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Mexico intend to involve the Government of Canada when it is necessary to focus on issues of common interest in North America.” The U.S.-Mexico HLRCC has similar goals to the U.S.-Canada RCC. At some point, these dual-bilateral councils could come together to form a single continental regulatory regime.
In his article, the road to Washington runs through Mexico, Robert Pastor, who has been a leading proponent of North American integration, criticized Canada’s continental policy. He argued that, “Instead of collaborating with Mexico to persuade the United States to address shared problems and opportunities in North America, Canada has excluded Mexico and approached the U.S. on its own.” Pastor offered potential reasons for this strategy, “Some suggest Canadians fear being tainted by association with Mexico’s violence. Others believe its ‘special relationship’ with the United States gives it an advantage that it would lose if it allied with Mexico. And some think that two countries can walk faster than three.” He further elaborated on his position, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s insistence on bilateralism — or rather ‘dual-bilateralism’ because the U.S. has to deal with Mexico too — has not worked. Regulations will not be harmonized; a uniform set of customs forms and traveller IDs will not be implemented; a continent-wide transportation and infrastructure plan will not be contemplated without a clear vision and strategy by and for North America.”
Robert Pastor’s op-ed which appeared in the Toronto Star also conceded that, “Working the U.S. Congress by itself, neither Canada nor Mexico can secure its goals. Working together, with the support of the Obama administration, the three governments could design a seamless market and eliminate an expensive, inefficient tax based on rules of origin.” He recommended, “Instead of competing against each other to gain access to Asian markets, our three countries should focus on continental competitiveness and approach China together on issues related to currency, unfair trade practices and climate change.” He insisted, “If Canada were to change its ‘divide-and-be-conquered’ strategy to a ‘unite-and-govern together’ approach on the new North American agenda, Mexico and the U.S. would join, as they did with NAFTA. And Canada could achieve its goals and the continent’s at the same time.” Pastor further lays out his plan to rejuvenate trilateral integration in his book, the North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future.
The Woodrow Wilson Center hosted an event in December 2011 entitled the Death of Trilateralism in the NAFTA Neighborhood, which examined the evolution of regional economic cooperation between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. During the proceedings, a panel agreed that the death of trilateralism has been exaggerated, but pointed out that, “dual-bilateralism, in which the United States works with Canada and Mexico separately, has become more common. Participants noted this is particularly apparent when dealing with regulatory, energy, and border issues. Countries are still, however, looking to harmonize and work toward trilateralism.” The meeting called for greater regional engagement and emphasized, “the need to focus on issues such as regulatory cooperation, infrastructure, and border efficiency.” Discussions also centered around whether North America needed a grand new plan to move deep integration forward.
On April 2, President Barack Obama will host the sixth North American Leaders Summit which will include the participation of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. According to a statement by the press secretary, the meeting will, “focus on economic growth and competitiveness, citizen security, energy, and climate change.” While announcing the upcoming summit, Prime Minister Harper praised the NAFTA trilateral relationship, “Canada, the United States and Mexico have forged a strong partnership built on free and open trade and close cooperation on security.” He went on to say, “The government’s number one priority remains the creation of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, particularly through trade, including with our close friends the United States and Mexico.” The NAFTA governments are looking to expand trade with other countries. This includes Canada and Mexico’s efforts to join the U.S., along with other nations already engaged in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks. The forthcoming North American Leaders Summit will be the first since 2009, which has caused some to question the current state of trilateralism.
When it comes to continental integration, the U.S. has shifted much of its focus to pursuing dual-bilateral agendas with both Canada and Mexico. This includes efforts to establish a North American security perimeter. At some point, these parallel initiatives could converge into one. While it is unlikely that the upcoming leaders summit will bring about any grand new plan, it could be used as a starting point to revive the whole trilateral process. With the NAFTA framework still intact, the vision for a North American Union has not been abandoned.
Related articles by Dana Gabriel
The Transformation of the U.S.-Canada Border
North American Integration and the Ties That Bind
Expanding U.S.-Mexico Economic and Security Cooperation
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com
