Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

President Obama, When It Comes to Human Rights, We Need More Action, Not Words

By Jamil Dakwar | ACLU | March 2, 2016

The Obama administration this week made new pledges and commitments to protect “human rights and fundamental freedoms” to the United Nations in advance of the U.S. re-election to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Yet while the U.S. has used its first six years of HRC membership to advance human rights overseas, its participation has had little direct bearing on human rights at home. Lack of accountability for torture and cooperation with U.N. human rights experts are just two examples of such double standards.

When he took office, President Obama promised to disavow many of the disastrous Bush administration policies, including by closing Guantánamo and ending the use of torture. Obama also promised to reassert U.S. global leadership on human rights by joining the HRC later that year.

While the president issued an executive order on his second day in office ending the CIA’s secret detention and torture program, he declined to support any meaningful measures of accountability for crimes that had taken place. His policy of “looking forward rather than backward,” as well as his administration’s continuing fight against transparency and any attempts to reveal the whole truth about Bush administration torture policies, will undoubtedly stain his human rights legacy.

That’s why it was surprising when the U.S. government released the following statement earlier this week:

“The United States is committed to upholding our international obligations to prevent torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The United States supports the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Committee Against Torture, and in 2015, the United States was proud to become a participant in the Group of Friends of the Convention Against Torture Initiative.”

This kind of rhetoric is emblematic of the Obama administration’s hypocrisy and cherry-picking when it comes to U.S. international legal obligations. The U.S. is obligated under the Convention Against Torture not only to prevent torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It is also obligated to hold accountable those who ordered or perpetrated acts of torture and to provide legal redress to victims. On these fronts, our government’s record has been abysmal. Yesterday Human Rights Watch and the ACLU submitted a response to the U.S. one year follow-up report to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, which details the United States’ failure to meet its legal obligations to fully investigate acts of torture during the Bush administration.

When it comes to torture, the gap between rhetoric and action isn’t limited to the Bush administration’s record. While it is encouraging to see the U.S. expressing support for the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, consider the ways the U.S. has directly prevented this critically important institution from effectively doing its job.

The current special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, is about to end his six-year term. Since the early days of his mandate, he has repeatedly asked to visit U.S. prisons and detention facilities in order to examine the widespread use of solitary confinement, which often causes mental and physical suffering and can amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment — even torture. However, the U.S. has consistently stonewalled his requests and has so far failed to provide him with the minimum standards of access required by U.N. protocol for such visits. It is very likely that Mr. Mendez won’t be able to carry out his visit before the end of his term, which is exactly what the U.S. likely intended in delaying and dragging out the process. It’s simply outrageous that the United States won’t provide basic access to its domestic detention facilities, especially given that the U.S. is perhaps the only Western democracy that doesn’t have a permanent and independent monitoring system of all detention facilities.

American leadership on the world stage suffers when the country presents such a stark double standard on human rights and denies independent human rights monitors access to U.S. facilities abroad, like Guantánamo, and here in the United States.

This coming November, the U.S. will be on the ballot for a new three-year-term membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has another opportunity to demonstrate to the world that U.S. commitment to the universal prohibition against torture is serious and long-lasting. By upholding U.S. human rights obligations through action in addition to rhetoric, the Obama administration can send a strong message to future presidents that there will be consequences for breaking the law and more effectively press other governments to end torture abroad.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia working on ways to protect its internet due to US online dominance – Com. Minister to RT

RT | March 2, 2016

The US government and a handful of corporations working under US jurisdiction have a disproportionately strong influence on the internet. So other countries are mulling ways to protect their web sectors, the Russian communications minister told RT.

“Today, if you have a look at the whole IT global system, you will see that the whole world… is actually totally dominated by a single country and literally by several companies, which have practically monopolized the entire IT system,” Nikolay Nikiforov said.

The issue is not only about market shares of tech giants such as Google and Facebook, but also about the US government’s control of critical elements of the internet’s infrastructure, he said.

One small example is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which assigns internet domain names. In 2014, the US pledged to hand over control over it from the US Department of Communications to a multi-stakeholder collective, which would include governments, companies, international organizations and individual users. The transition was scheduled to happen in September last year, but was postponed for at least a year.

“This didn’t happen for some reason, and many reasons were voiced. I believe them to be pretty far-fetched,” Nikiforov said.

“With this prolonged monopolization, many countries in the world are working on technical solutions that would protect national segments of the internet from a possible external destructive action. They are creating backup infrastructures, which respond to a disruption – intentional or accidental – and prevent national segments from being blocked,” he added.

The minister said Russia is among the countries heavily investing in the internet and naturally wants to protect this investment.

The issue is not theoretical for Russia. As part of the US-imposed sanctions, several American companies suspended their services in Crimea, which seceded from Ukraine in response to an armed coup in Kiev and rejoined with Russia. Washington called the move illegal and targeted individuals and some sectors of the Russian economy with sanctions.

Google, Apple, PayPal and others cut Crimea from their services. This affected tens of thousands of people, who could no longer properly update the software for their phones, buy apps, use electronic payments for online products and do other basic things.

The minister was speaking in Egypt, which he is visiting to foster business ties. He said Russia and Egypt have agreed to have mobile operators to cut down roaming tariffs, which would benefit Russian tourists visiting the North-African country.

“It’s no secret that overpriced roaming is the reason why many travelers simply don’t use their phones abroad. We are trying to make this problem go away for Egypt and Russia,” he said.

The agreement indicates that Russia may soon lift restrictions on flights to Egypt, which were imposed after a terrorist bomb last October destroyed a plane carrying Russian tourists home from Egyptian resorts.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mental health professionals protest decision to hold conference in Jerusalem

MEMO | March 2, 2016

palestinians-being-checked-at-the-beit-el-checkpoint-in-Ramallah-Oct-17-2015Over 140 psychotherapists, researchers and other mental health professionals have written an open letter to the Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) to express dismay at its decision to hold its next international conference in Jerusalem.

In the letter, the group of professionals called for the conference to move locations, explaining that Israel’s policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including house demolitions, movement restrictions and imprisonment without trial, result in “insecurity, despair, helplessness and humiliation”.

“The calamitous impact of Israel’s occupation on the psychological health of the Palestinians is well documented,” read the letter.

The group expressed shock over the organiser’s response to their concerns, which included a promise to assist Palestinian psychotherapy researchers to attend the conference.

“This may ease SPR consciences but it is as nothing weighed against the political message they will be sending by meeting in this beleaguered city,” it added.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Hillary Clinton Praised By Neo-Cons

By Brandon Turbeville | BrandonTurbeville.com | March 1, 2016

Proving that there is no discernible difference between Republican and Democratic administrations (as if the Bush-Obama years were not proof enough), Hillary Clinton’s dramatically pro-war, Zionist, and police state policies are earning her the support (or at least the lack of public opposition) from noted Neo-Con figures who typically play the role of the right-wing Republican side of the dialectic.

Consider Jacob Heilbrunn’s article in the New York Times entitled “The Next Act of the Neocons,” where he argued that many hawkish Neo-Cons are considering the possibility of crossing over from the GOP to the Hillary Clinton camp. While the ideology of the Neo-Cons is scarcely discernible from other factions in the US ruling class, there are minor differences in terms of the presentation of that ideology. This presentation has been carefully crafted by the ruling class for years for the purposes of dividing and ruling the American people. The fact that a seemingly “conservative” movement would thus be so open about supporting a seemingly “liberal” candidate is extremely telling.

Heilbrunn’s article tends to focus on the possibility that neo-cons like Robert Kagan are considering open support for Clinton. He writes,

Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

. . . . .

It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto.[1] He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)[2]

Jason Horowitz, also writing for the New York Times, quotes Kagan as being comfortable with Clinton in terms of her foreign policy. Horowitz writes,

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”[3]

Heilbrunn also points out that Kagan is not the only well-known Neo-Con who is open to public support for the Clinton campaign. Max Boot has also expressed respect for Clinton when he described her tenure as Secretary of State.[4] He describes Clinton by saying, “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya. Later she urged arming the moderate opposition during the early days of the Syrian civil war—advice that, if Obama had taken it, might well have short-circuited the violent disintegration of Syria, which is far advanced today.”

Heilbrunn also writes that former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, a Neo-Con in everything but official title, echoes the sentiments of Boot and Kagan and that measure of support for Clinton might also be expected from his camp.

Journalist Robert Parry summed up Clinton’s history of pro-Neo-Con positions in his article, “Is Hillary Clinton A NeoCon-Lite?” by writing,

Based on her public record and Gates’s insider account, Clinton could be expected to favor a more neoconservative approach to the Mideast, one more in line with the traditional thinking of Official Washington and the belligerent dictates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton rarely challenged the conventional wisdom or resisted the use of military force to solve problems. She famously voted for the Iraq War in 2002 – falling for President George W. Bush’s bogus WMD case – and remained a war supporter until her position became politically untenable during Campaign 2008.

Representing New York, Clinton rarely if ever criticized Israeli actions. In summer 2006, as Israeli warplanes pounded southern Lebanon, killing more than 1,000 Lebanese, Sen. Clinton shared a stage with Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman who had said, “While it may be true – and probably is – that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim.”

At a pro-Israel rally with Clinton in New York on July 17, 2006, Gillerman proudly defended Israel’s massive violence against targets in Lebanon. “Let us finish the job,” Gillerman told the crowd. “We will excise the cancer in Lebanon” and “cut off the fingers” of Hezbollah. Responding to international concerns that Israel was using “disproportionate” force in bombing Lebanon and killing hundreds of civilians, Gillerman said, “You’re damn right we are.” [NYT, July 18, 2006]

Sen. Clinton did not protest Gillerman’s remarks, since doing so would presumably have offended an important pro-Israel constituency.[5]

Of course, in this sense the term “pro-Israel constituency” can easily be translated to mean “neo-con constituency” since, in reality, that is exactly what it is. Clearly, Clinton was not going to offend the Neo-Con leadership not because she is simply courting campaign funds but because Clinton herself is a Neo-Con.

Brandon Turbeville’s new book, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President is available in three different formats: Hardcopy (available here), Amazon Kindle for only .99 (available here), and a Free PDF Format (accessible free from his website,BrandonTurbeville.com).

[1] Kagan, Robert. “Superpowers Don’t Get To Retire.” Foreign Policy. May 26, 2014. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117859/allure-normalcy-what-america-still-owes-world Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[2] Heilbrunn, Jacob. “The Next Act Of The Neocons.” New York Times. July 5, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[3] Horowitz, Jason. “Events In Iraq Open Door For Interventionist Revival, Historian Says.” New York Times. June 15, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html?src=twrhp&_r=1 Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[4] Boot, Max. “Why Is Robert Gates Angry?” New Republic. February 26, 2014. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116500/duty-memoirs-secretary-war-reviewed-max-boot Accessed on September 4, 2015.

[5] Parry, Robert. “Is Hillary Clinton A Neo-Con Lite?” Consortium News. April 23, 2015. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/23/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite-2/ Accessed on September 4, 2015.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

New Report Shows Hillary Clinton Drove US Into Libya Disaster

By Dan Wright | ShadowProof | March 1, 2016

A new in-depth report from The New York Times paints a damning portrait of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US government’s involvement in the war in Libya. While there had been previous reports citing Clinton as leading the charge for the US to enter the war and overthrow former Libyan Leader Moamar Gaddafi, the Times published a play-by-play story with on-the-record comments numerous current and former Obama Administration officials.

The most prominent of those on-the-record comments came from former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who claimed that the decision to go to war in Libya was heavily influence by Clinton. In fact, Gates says she made the difference in a “51-49” decision that ultimately destroyed the country of Libya and allowed ISIS to grab new territory in the Middle East.

The breakdown of the events thoroughly supports the view that Hillary Clinton learned nothing from the Iraq War debacle. And, according to the Times, “The lessons of the Libya experience have not tempered her more aggressive approach to international crises.”

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the war candidate in 2016.

The report claims that after a meeting with Westernized Libyan exiles in what appears to be an eerie parallel to the Ahmed Chalabi con, Clinton became convinced that Libya could become a thriving democracy if Gaddafi was overthrown. She then worked tirelessly to ensure the US jumped into the war, pushing back against then-Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Tom Dolan, and Vice President Joe Biden, who wanted to stay out of the conflict.

Gates even recalled telling President Barack Obama and others in on the Libya meetings that he and the Pentagon had more than enough responsibilities with the Iraq and Afghanistan missions, saying, “I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’”

The answer was no. Though there was no solid intelligence on what exactly Gaddafi would or would not do regarding the opposition, then-Secretary Clinton began aggressively lobbying other countries to support the war effort and help the rebels in Libya. With France and the UK already on board, Clinton turned to Russia which shared President Obama’s concerns about unintended consequences.

The Times story notes Russia initially opposed a no-fly zone, even after Clinton told them the US did not want another war. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly responded to Clinton by saying, “I take your point about not seeking another war. But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.”

In the end, Russia and other countries acquiesced to Western powers and the bombing began. Initially, the bombing led to a stalemate, which Clinton reportedly found unacceptable, leading her to push for higher-level US weapons to be sent to rebel forces. Those weapons would ultimately end up in the hands of Islamic terrorists in Syria and elsewhere, something Clinton had been warned about by intelligence and military leaders, who said there were “flickers” of Al Qaeda among the Libyan rebels.

As Clinton friend and initial supporter of intervention Anne Marie Slaughter had noted during the war, “We did not try to protect civilians on Qaddafi’s side.” Nor was there any real effort to do so after the US-backed rebels took control.

With the aid of the US, the Gaddafi government collapsed and the now-unrestrained rebels went wild, including a campaign of ethnic cleansing that Clinton herself had been made aware of through private emails from unofficial advisor Sidney Blumenthal. Victorious Arab rebels began killing black Africans en mass due to the rebel’s perception that all black Africans in Libya had been loyal to Gaddafi.

Outside of the new information is something the Times brought out of the memory hole vis-a-vis Clinton and Libya. In the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of Gaddafi, then-Secretary of State Clinton did a victory lap, which included a press tour of post-Gaddafi Libya and a memo celebrating her own role in the war [PDF], which likely was designed to serve a later political purpose should she decide to run for president in 2016.

Now, with Libya as a coherent political entity arguably no longer in existence, former Secretary Clinton says it is too early to tell if the war in Libya was a success or failure, and told Congress last October that, “At the end of the day, this was the president’s decision.” So much for leadership.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Torn Apart: What Lies Behind Washington’s ‘Plan’ B for Syria

Sputnik – 02.03.2016

Syria may be divided into four parts, the Turkish conservative newspaper Yeni Safak recently reported. According to the article, such a scenario is part of a US plan B if the ceasefire agreement between government and opposition forces fails.

The first area would be controlled by Bashar Assad’s government, including southern Damascus, Homs and Tartus and to the Syrian-Turkish border. The second part is the Kurdish region, including the Kurdish-controlled line east of Aleppo. The third zone is central Idlib controlled by opposition groups. The forth projected part is Daesh-controlled areas as well as Raqqa and Palmyra.

After Daesh is defeated this area would be controlled by the international coalition fighting terrorists, the article in Yeni Safak read.

After a ceasefire deal on Syria was reached Washington announced it was considering a backup plan which should be used if the deal fails. The cessation of fire in Syria commenced on February 27.

According to Yeni Safak, among those supporting the plan B are US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, and CIA Director John Brennan. They have called for President Barack Obama to pressure Moscow and intensify support for Syrian rebel groups.

In the current context, such stove-piping activity is logic, analyst on Middle Eastern affairs Stanislav Tarasov said.

“The recent events have proved that Turkey’s actual policy toward Syria is aimed at dividing the country. What is more, it is logic in the broad context of the Arab Spring, with the gradual fragmentation of Arab states,” he told Svobodnaya Pressa.

According to him, despite the Geneva peace process, there is still a scenario to divide Syria, and some forces are pushing it now.

“One of the most serious issues is Syrian Kurds. If Assad stays in power it would have to pass a new constitution with a new form of territorial division of Syria. Syrian Kurds are now enjoying support from both the US and Russia. And they are likely to ask for more autonomy,” the analyst pointed out.

The Kurdish question is a big concern for Ankara, he added. If Kurds create their own autonomies in both Syria and Iraq, Turkey will be geographically and politically blocked. Such a prospect is also encouraging the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) to intensify its struggle against Ankara, including for a Kurdish autonomous region in Turkey. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cannot let this happen.

This is why, now the Turkish government is testing public attitudes toward this scenario.

As a result, it is clear that despite the course on preventing Syria from disintegration, there are a number of actual processes and contradicting interests in Syria, like it was in Iraq after the US invasion, he concluded.

What is more, he added, some, especially in the Middle East, have insisted that there is no need to destroy Daesh. According to them, only its radical groups should be destroyed, to establish dialogue with its “moderate wing.”

“We are witnessing a trend to legalize Daesh as a pseudo-state formation. Earlier, the US and Turkey proposed a new Sunni state in Daesh-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq,” the analyst said.

He also assumed that if Syria is divided into four parts controlled by different groups difficulties will persist in the implementation of peaceful agreements.

The autonomy of the Syrian Kurdistan is almost an accomplished fact, Semyon Bagdasarov, head of the Center for Middle East and Central Asia Studies, said.

“Syria in its current form is nearing the end. But it’s hard to predict how the country will be divided and which parts will governable and which not,” he said.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Russia is existential threat to US and allies: NATO commander

eba4ce34-c6b8-4940-a319-b1a6f43f1689

US Air Force General Philip Breedlove
Press TV – March 2, 2016

A top US military official, who is NATO’s military commander, says Russia is an “existential threat” to Washington and its European allies.

In testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, US Air Force General Philip Breedlove accused Russia of choosing to be an adversary and seeking to exert influence over its neighboring states.

“Russia has chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat to the United States and to our European allies and partners,” Breedlove said.

“Russia is eager to exert unquestioned influence over its neighboring states in its buffer zone… so has used military force to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, Georgia and others, like Moldova,” he added.

Breedlove stressed that Washington needs additional resources in Europe to counter a “resurgent, aggressive Russia.”

“Russia seeks to re-establish a leading role on the world stage. Russia does not just want to challenge the agreed rules of the international order, it wants to re-write them,” he said.

The four-star general, who also heads the US military’s European Command, said he asked for a substantial boost in resources for Europe in the budget for the 2017 fiscal year.

Relations between Washington and Moscow are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War in 1991, largely due to the Ukraine crisis.

The ties deteriorated after US-backed forces ousted Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.

The US and its allies accuse Moscow of sending troops into eastern Ukraine in support of the pro-Russian forces. Moscow has long denied involvement in Ukraine’s crisis.

Moscow says Washington is responsible for the escalating tension in Ukraine through sending arms in support of the Ukrainian army.

The US-led military buildup in NATO member states bordering Russia has drawn strong objections from Moscow, followed by warnings of a well-measured response.

The US military deployed hundreds of tanks and thousands of troops to the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in order to deter what it described as “Russian aggression.”

US-Russian ties worsen over Syria

Relations between the US and Russia further deteriorated when Moscow launched an air offensive against Daesh terrorists, many of whom were initially trained by the CIA to fight against the Syrian government.

The Russian campaign, analysts say, has broken the backbone of ISIL and other militants, and has provided the government of President Bashar al-Assad an opportunity to defeat the foreign-sponsored terrorist onslaught.

Since March 2011, the United States and its regional allies have been conducting a proxy war against Syria. The years-long conflict has left somewhere between 270,000 to 470,000 Syrians dead and half of the country’s population displaced.

In his testimony on Tuesday, General Breedlove accused Russia of helping President Assad turn the refugee crisis into a “weapon” against the West.

“Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve,” Breedlove told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | 2 Comments

GCC declares Hezbollah ‘terrorist group’

Press TV – March 2, 2016

The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have declared Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, which has been fighting terrorist groups in Syria and Israeli occupation, a “terrorist group.”

The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council officially added Hezbollah and all groups affiliated to its so-called list of “terrorist” organizations on Wednesday.

In a statement, GCC’s Secretary General Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayan accused Hezbollah and associated groups of committing “acts of aggression”, recruiting “youth” inside the Persian Gulf littoral states, smuggling “weapons and explosives”, sowing “sedition” and instigating “chaos and violence.”

The bloc, however, did not provide any evidence for its allegations.

The GCC comprises Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait.

The move by the six-member bloc is the latest measure against Hezbollah, which is fighting terrorists in Syria.

In 2000 and 2006, when Israel launched two wars on Lebanon, Hezbollah fighters gave befitting responses to the Tel Aviv regime’s acts of aggression, forcing Israeli military to retreat without achieving any of its objectives.

The GCC have taken a series of measures against Hezbollah since Saudi Arabia last month halted a $4- billion aid pledge to Lebanon’s security forces.

The aid suspension came after Beirut did not follow Riyadh’s lead and refused to endorse joint anti-Iran statements at separate meetings held in Cairo and Jeddah.

On February 26, Saudi Arabia blacklisted four Lebanese firms and three individuals over alleged affiliation to Hezbollah, and imposed sanctions on them. The kingdom also ordered its citizens not to travel to Lebanon, and is poised to expel the Lebanese citizens working on its territory.

On Tuesday, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah said Saudi propaganda against Hezbollah has led to a political conflict in Lebanon, and advised the Lebanese youth against playing into the hands of Saudi Arabia, which he said spreads lies about Hezbollah and wrongly accuses the resistance movement of sowing sectarian strife between Shias and Sunnis.

He also denounced the Arab world’s silence in the face of Riyadh’s aggression on Yemen, where over 8,000 people have lost their lives since the Saudi onslaught began in late March last year.

Nasrallah warned that there are some Lebanese groups hoping to see a war in Lebanon just like the one Riyadh has waged against Yemen.

This comes as the Persian Gulf monarchies themselves stand accused of supporting extremists and terrorists in the region.

March 2, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment