Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Mission Accomplished: Fallout Between Iran and Russia in Syria?

By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA – Strategic Culture Foundation – 20.03.2016

Since the start of 2016 the mainstream media in the US and the countries that are in Washington’s sphere of influence have been talking about fallout between Russia and Iran over the conflict in Syria. These media reports continuously talk about Russia becoming afraid of Iran or vice-versa, Iran becoming afraid of Russia. These reports constantly talk about competition and rifts between the Iranian and Russian governments over Syria.

Here are two examples. The Financial Times reported that Iran should be afraid of Russia on February 24, 2016. A few weeks later, Bloomberg reported that the Russian military downsizing in Syria risks a rift with Iran in an article by Ilya Arkhipov, Dana Khraiche, and Henry Meyer, published on March 16, 2016.

For months, however, the steady streams of reports about a Russo-Iranian split have been utterly wrong. They are part of a campaign of misinformation (wrong information and analysis) and disinformation (propaganda). The relations between Moscow and Tehran are stable, and their cooperation is strategically oriented. In fact, Russia is supporting Iran against the US initiative at the United Nations Security Council to say that Iranian ballistic missile tests are a violation of Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCAP) signed between Iran and the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia (the P5+1 or EU3+3).

By the same token, other misleading and deceiving reports have been released about Iranian and Russian tensions. Some have been over the levels of Iranian oil production exports. Others have been about fallout between Moscow and Tehran over an Iranian transfer of Russian arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Many have also been about the deal and delivery of the Russian-manufactured S-300 anti-missile system to the Iranian military.

In regards to a Russo-Iranian rift over Iranian oil production, these reports focus on demands by Saudi Arabia and Russia that Iran cut back its oil production. Moscow, however, has said that Iran is a special cases and it understands that Iran is working to regain lost energy markets. It has exempted Iran from its call to cut back global oil exports under a global output freeze as part of an initiative to raise the price of oil. While visiting his counterpart in Tehran in mid-March 2016, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak even announced that the Russian government understands and accepts the Iranian position, which demands that Iran be allowed to regain its pre-sanction output levels.

In regards to Israeli media reports that there has been fallout between Iran and Russia over Russian arms being transferred to Hezbollah, no signs of this have manifested themselves empirically anywhere. The Russian government has made no statements against Iran. Nor have the Israeli reports been verified in any substantive way.

It was reported in Kuwait that the S-300 deal had been annulled on March 9, 2016. On the same day Sputnik interviewed an Iranian military spokesperson, who rejected the claim. While, from what the public knows, the delivery of the S-300 system to Iran by Russia has been delayed, this does not automatically insinuate tensions between Moscow and Tehran. Both Iranian and Russian officials have repeatedly denied reports saying that the deal has been cancelled. Delays have taken place due to legal provisions and technical matters, according to officials in Moscow and Tehran. Rostec, the government-owned national arms manufacturer of Russia, has even announced that the first orders of the S-300 will be delivered to Iran sometime running from August to September 2016.

Russo-Iranian Cooperation in Syria

About three weeks after a cease-fire agreement for Syria officially started (on February 27, 2016), Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would begin to partially withdraw from Syria on March 14, 2016. The next day the Russian military began downsizing its presence in Syria. This began being presented as a stumbling block between Tehran and the Kremlin.

Reports were published that claimed that Tehran was upset at the Russian move. The Russian withdrawal is portrayed in these reports as a surprise to the Iranian side. The Iranian government, however, has announced that the reduction of the Russian military force in Syria is a positive sign of success, which means that Iran and Russia have achieved their key objectives inside Syria. Moreover, if the Russian move hurt Iranian interests inside Syria, it would not have resulted in Israeli President Reuven Rivlin making a request on March 16, 2016 to Moscow to ensure that Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah do not benefit from the Russian decision to reduce its military presence.

Nor was Iran caught off guard by the Kremlin’s decision to reduce its military presence in Syria. Iranian and Russian generals and officials have been shuttling back and forth from one another’s capitals for months speaking on and strategizing over the conflict Syria. It is highly unlikely that Moscow’s decision to reconstitute its military position in Syria was not coordinated with either the Iranian or Syrian governments. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus have been constantly consulting one another about the military operations in Syria.

If it was not for Iranian and Russian cooperation and resoluteness in Syria, the cease-fire agreement in Syria would not have materialized. The most recent wave of false reports about Russian and Iranian tensions in Syria are aimed at creating suspicion and managing the perception of US clients. This discourse is not only aimed at misleading people or targeting Iran and Russia, it is aimed at deceiving US clients and Syrian opposition figures in the Middle East about the reality of the situation on the ground in Syria, which is that the camps supported by the Iranians and the Russians in the Middle East are the ones on top.

Any ideas about some type of Russo-Iranian fallout are wishful thinking. Both powers are moving towards even deeper cooperation across the Eurasian landmass from the Mediterranean littoral and Iraq to the Caucasus and Central Asia. They are not only cooperating militarily together, but both Tehran and Moscow are also deepening their industrial, agricultural, financial, political, and economic ties too. This is no temporary alliance, but part of a long-term engagement and strategic partnership.

March 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian regime-change conspiracy

By Neil Clark | RT | March 21, 2016

If you’d have said a year ago that the US State Department, Google, and Al Jazeera had been collaborating in pursuance of regime change in Syria, chances are you’d have been casually dismissed as a ‘crank’ and a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

Syria was a people’s uprising against a wicked genocidal Russian-backed dictator and the West had nothing to do with the bloodshed which engulfed the country. If you thought otherwise then you were considered an ‘Assad apologist’.

However, thanks to Wikileaks, the Freedom of Information Act, and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private, non-secure email server, we can see what was really going on behind the curtain.

Overall, 30,322 emails and attachments dating from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014, including 7,570 written by Clinton herself, have been published.

They haven’t made much of an impact in the mainstream media, which is not surprising considering their explosive content.

The emails reveal how the US State Department, ‘independent’ media and Silicon Valley have worked together to try and achieve foreign policy goals.

Particularly damning is a communication from Jared Cohen, the President of ‘Google Ideas’, (now called ‘Jigsaw’), which was sent on July 25, 2012.

“Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from,” Cohen wrote.

“Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition,” he went on.

The head of Google Ideas added that his organization was partnering with al Jazeera “who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built.”

Cohen finished his email by repeating his warning: “Please keep this very close hold… We believe this can have an important impact.”

The email was sent to three top officials, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns (a former Ambassador to Russia), Alec Ross, a senior Clinton adviser on innovation; and Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.

Sullivan forwarded the email to Hillary Clinton with the message: “FYI-this is a pretty cool idea.” On August 4, 2012, Clinton sent the information to her aide Monica Handley. The title heading was: Syria Attachments: Defection Tracker.PDF.

“The Silicon Valley’s technotronic oligarchy have been exposed as a mere extension of the CIA in terms of playing a role in Washington’s state policy of regime change in Syria,” was the verdict of 21st Century Wire.

If you think it’s surprising that a top man at Google should be so interested in a ‘tool’ which could help the ‘opposition’ take power in Syria, then a closer look at Jared Cohen’s career background helps shed some light on the matter.

A Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, Cohen was a bright guy who was clearly fast-tracked for big things. After an internship at the US State Department, he became a member of Condoleeza Rice’s Policy Planning Staff in 2006 when he was just 24 years of age. That same year he had a book published on the Rwandan genocide, while a year later his ‘Children of Jihad – A Young American’s travels among the Youth of the Middle East’ was published.

In 2009, it’s claimed that Cohen personally asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey not to interrupt his company’s service in Iran for maintenance. Tehran at the time was preparing for elections and it was apparently believed that the opponents of President Ahmadinejad would be hindered without access to social media.

Since 2010, Cohen has been an Adjunct Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In 2013, Time magazine listed the then 32-year-old as one of its 100 Most Influential People in the world.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who met Cohen and Google chairman Eric Schmidt when he was under house-arrest in 2011, has written about Google’s role in assisting US foreign policy goals. “Whether it is being just a company or ‘more than just a company,’ Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower,” Assange said.

The Wikileaks founder discovered that Jared Cohen had “quietly worked” in Lebanon “to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the Higher Shia League.” In Afghanistan, Cohen had tried “to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto US military bases.”

In June 2010, when Syria was a country still at peace, Cohen traveled to the Arab Republic with Alec Ross. “I’m not kidding when I say I just had the greatest frappuccino ever at Kalamoun University north of Damascus,” he tweeted. Ross, in a more serious mood, tweeted: “This trip to #Syria will test Syria’s willingness to engage more responsibly on issues of#netfreedom”.

In an email dated September 24, 2010, entitled ‘1st known case of a successful social media campaign in Syria’, and which was later forwarded to Hillary Clinton, Ross wrote:

“When Jared and I went to Syria, it was because we knew that Syrian society was growing increasingly young (population will double in 17 years) and digital and that this was going to create disruptions in society that we could potential harness for our purposes”

Those “purposes” were of course “regime change” and break Syria’s alliance with Iran.

We already know, courtesy of Wikileaks, that Washington’s plans to destabilize Syria long pre-dated the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

A 2006 cable from US Ambassador to Syria William Roebuck discussed “potential vulnerabilities” of the Assad administration and the “possible means to exploit them”.

One of the “possible means” was to seek to divide the Shia and Sunni communities in Syria. In a section entitled PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE, the Ambassador writes:
“There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business.”

Another was listed as ‘ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING’. This would increase “the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction” from the Syrian government.

Lo and behold when the protests against the Assad government did kick off in early 2011, the US was quick to accuse the Syrian authorities of over-reacting – which is exactly what they had wanted.

The earlier Wikileaks revelations on Syria tie in with what we learn from Clinton’s emails.

While Western leaders and their media stenographers feign horror and outrage over what’s been happening in Syria, Wikileaks shows us that the possibility of the country being torn apart by sectarian conflict was actually welcomed by Syria’s enemies.

“The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies” Sidney Blumental wrote in a 2012 email to Hillary Clinton.

Blumenthal does point out that not all in Israel’s governing circles thought that way, with concern expressed that the spread of “increasingly conservative Islamic regimes” could make Israel “vulnerable”.

We must remember that if the US and UK got their way in August 2013 and bombed the Assad government, then its likely that IS and al-Qaeda affiliates would have taken control of the entire country. And the most bellicose voices calling for the bombing of a secular government that was fighting IS and al-Qaeda in 2013 were American neocons. This was the same group of hawks who had pushed so hard for the invasion of Iraq 10 years earlier and who had also propagandized for the NATO bombing of Libya in 2011.

Wikileaks confirms that – as was the case in Libya and Iraq – almost everything about the official “western establishment” version of the war in Syria was false.

Far from being an innocent bystander, the US went out of its way to destabilize the country and exploit ethnic and religious divisions.

A huge amount of weaponry was provided -via regional allies -to violent jihadists, euphemistically referred to as ‘rebels’, to try and achieve the goal of ‘regime change’. The rise of ISIS can be directly attributed to the destructive, malignant policies of the US and its allies towards Syria. Don’t forget we’ve already seen a US Intelligence report from August 2012, which stated that “the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria” was “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime”.

In 2006, the same year that Ambassador Roebuck sent his cable on how the US might exploit the “potential vulnerabilities” of the secular Assad administration, the Syrian authorities foiled a terrorist attack on the US embassy in Damascus.

You might have thought that it would have earned Syria some brownie points with the State Department and its collaborators. But as the HRC emails confirm, it counted for absolutely nothing.

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

Read more

Hacker ‘Guccifer,’ who uncovered Clinton’s private emails, to be extradited to US

What Clinton’s latest emails say about Benghazi, White House, private accounts

Benghazi, memes & more: 9 revelations from Hillary Clinton’s emails

March 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kuwait expels 14 people for links with Hezbollah: Report

Press TV – March 21, 2016

The Kuwaiti government has deported 11 Lebanese and three Iraqis on charges of having links to Lebanon’s resistance movement, Hezbollah, a report says.

The Kuwaiti Arabic daily al-Qabas quoted a security source as saying on Monday that the 14 people had been expelled on the order of the state security service.

The move came nearly three weeks after the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council ([P]GCC), under the influence of the Saudi regime, declared Hezbollah a “terrorist” organization. Arab League foreign ministers, except those of Iraq and Lebanon, later followed suit.

The [P]GCC – comprising Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait – however, did not provide any evidence for its allegation. This comes as the first three monarchies themselves stand accused of supporting extremists and terrorists in the region.

Describing the [P]GCC decision as “reckless and hostile,” Hezbollah blamed it on Saudi Arabia.

Elsewhere in its report, Qabas said that Kuwaiti security officials have prepared a list of “unwanted” Lebanese and Iraqi people, including advisers to big companies, to be expelled for “the public interest.”

The people will not be allowed to enter the [P]GCC member states after their deportation, the daily said.

March 21, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Analyst: Cuba’s Opposition Groups Are Often US-Backed

teleSUR – March 19, 2016

Opposition organizations from Cuba are anxiously expecting President Barack Obama’s visit to the island as they prepare allegations against the Cuban government and demands to the U.S. government in an effort to take advantage of the recent international attention on what has been deemed a historic visit.

“(Much of the) Cuban opposition is not legitimate because it does not seek the well being of Cubans as they claim and is led by powerful U.S.-backed groups that have always sought to overthrow the socialist government,” said to teleSUR international analyst Ramiro Galarza.

Representatives from groups of the Cuba’s most prominent opposition movements, like “the Ladies in White,” will have a meeting with Obama on Tuesday. They are expected to give him a letter in which they will demand the U.S. intervene in various issues, including the release of prisoners and unmediated access to internet.

However, some opposition leaders have started to show disappointment about Obama’s visit, underlining the same points of disagreement of the most conservative U.S. opponents to the restoration of relations between Washington and Havana.

Cuba’s opposition has never been jointly organized, says Galarza, because different factions and leaders rarely have reached agreement.

“They are only interested in their own cause,” the analyst said. “(Most) people in Cuba are not familiar with opposition leaders and their demands, not even those [who] claim refugee status with the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,” he added.

During what was known as “Cuba’s Special Period,” which lasted from the late 1980’s till the early 2000’s, the isolated country passed through one of its worst economic crisis, mainly provoked by the collapse of the Soviet Union, ally and sponsor of Cuba, but also largely caused by the U.S. blockade on the island.

Analyst Galarza said during that time, several U.S.-backed organizations, headed by groups of wealthy Cubans abroad, tried to destabilize the government of then President Fidel Castro, using the adverse situation experienced by people to sow dissent.

On August 5, 1994, there was a huge demonstration in Havana, with thousands of people in the streets demanding that the government improve their situation, clashes between protesters and police erupted, the riot became violent and then President Fidel Castro went out and gave a passionate speech to Cubans in an attempt to calm the situation.

He accused the United States of trying to provoke a “bloodbath” in Cuba.

The incident led to the reforms that softened the restrictions on dissident movements while advocating for non-violence. Those reforms have increasingly improved in recent years.

However, recently, attempts by the U.S. government to embolden Cuba’s opposition have not be unheard of.

In 2014, “the Cuba Twitter” controversy caused a stir after the Associated Press reported that the social media platform ZunZuneo, named after Cuban slang for a hummingbird, was allegedly intended to destabilize the Cuban government by advocating for Cuban users to create “smart mobs” and “renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society.”

March 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

State of Emergency in France : Salah Lamrani, another victim of war hysteria

More:

An Islamist “terrorist” in the School of the Republic: Day 1

An Islamist “terrorist” in the School of the Republic: Day 2

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Islamophobia, Video | , | Leave a comment

Rani Burnat from Bil’in

International Solidarity Movement | March 15, 2016

Bil’in, occupied Palestine – Rani Burnat is an extraordinary human being in more ways than one. He was left paralysed from an injury sustained during the second intifada, learned to live the remainder of his life in a wheelchair, fathered three children (triplets) and now continues to resist the occupation through peaceful means to this day. His story is inspiring and a prime example of the will of the Palestinian people and their ongoing resistance to an illegal occupation.

Rani Burnat

Rani Burnat

On the 30th September 2000, Rani Burnat was going to Ramallah from his home town of Bil’in for a driving lesson. When he got there he noticed a protest gathering to protest Ariel Sharon’s entry into the sacred Al-Aqsa mosque (this of course was the beginning of the second intifada). Rani spotted friends of his from Bil’in and with time to spare decided to join in.

As the protest gathered the Israeli army illegally entered the  Ramallah area and cleared the guests out of a nearby hotel, then used the hotel roof as a vantage point and placed snipers. The Israeli military claims that their illegal entry onto Palestinian land was to protect a nearby illegal Israeli settlement that the protest was nearing.

Rani and fellow friends were at the front of the protest when a sniper opened fire using a unique bullet, known as a butterfly bullet, designed to continue spinning upon impact while opening out and inflicting massive damage upon entry and exit.

The bullet entered through the left-hand side of Rani’s neck, puncturing his main artery. It continued through to the right hand side of his body, severing his spinal chord between the third and fourth vertebrae on exit.

As sniper fire continued and pandemonium erupted, Rani was left bleeding on the ground. Fortunately fellow bystanders assisted by applying pressure to the wound on his neck to limit the massive amounts of blood that he was losing. He was then put into a car and driven to the nearby hospital where he was promptly seen by doctors. Rani was the first victim of the second intifada to be treated. Anyone coming into hospital later in the intifada with his severe wounds would undoubtedly have died as staff and resources failed to cope with the influx of wounded.

The doctors applied a stint to Rani’s neck to where the artery had been severed, which remains to this day. He was put into an induced coma for two days, during which time doctors concluded that with the facilities they had they could not  keep Rani alive along with the massive numbers of victims that were now being admitted to the hospital as the second intifada  intensified.

It was decided that Rani must be transferred to another hospital  with more facilities, one capable of taking care of someone in such a serious condition, the only hospital possible was in Jordan. Given his condition he could not make the journey by land and so a helicopter was arranged from the rooftop of the parliament building in Ramallah.

On admission to hospital in Jordan, his loss of blood was so great that he required massive blood donations from a number of donors. Rani would spend the next seven months in that hospital undergoing operations and combatting repeated infections. He says ‘The most important thing for me at that time was that I was alive. The doctors in Jordan made this possible”.

After seven months in Jordan, Rani was able to come back to Palestine for rehabilitation, back at home in Bil’in seeing friends and family who had missed him, and whom he had missed so much in Jordan.

He then had to go back into hospital in Ramallah for another seven grueling months of rehabilitation. It was during this time that the severity of his situation became clear to him. “It was an extremely difficult situation to come to terms with, that I would now have to spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair, paralysed on the right side of my body.” Rani is the oldest of ten siblings with four brothers and five sisters. He had wanted to be an electrician and he talks about  the helplessness he felt at that time. But despite this he added, “The personal pain I felt was nothing compared to the pain I was feeling for my family.”  However, a huge positive in Rani’s life amidst so much trauma was when he married shortly after the intifada and became father to triplets.

As time passed, Rani learned to deal with the injuries he had sustained, but one thing that he was not ready for was what happened in his home village next as the Israeli government began to illegally confiscate villagers’ land to construct the apartheid wall and enclose illegal settlements.

At this point Rani decided to become a photographic journalist so he could report on and show the world the ugly truths of the Israeli occupation and what it does to the Palestinian people. He says he will only stop when he is dead or the occupation has ended.

Every week he is able, Rani makes the trip up the rocky road in his wheelchair, gas mask and camera at the ready. His wife worries for him every time he leaves but understands that this is what he must do. Rani himself admits that every Friday he leaves he fears he will not come home to his loving wife and children but he continues to go to show the world what is happening.

Fellow activists from Israel who come frequently to the Bil’in demonstrations have translated for Rani what the Israeli army is saying about him, things like “shoot the guy in the wheelchair” whilst laughing amongst themselves. Rani has been shot with rubber bullets, countless amounts of tear gas, had many cameras broken, two wheelchairs wrecked and has even been pulled out of his wheelchair and thrown onto the ground. “The occupying forces have no morals,” he adds.

Two months ago Rani was shot in the stomach with a foam bullet, which releases a liquid that burns the skin on impact. A month later he was shot in the knee cap and also singled out by soldiers and shot in both shoulders with tear gas canisters. Despite all this he continues moving forward.

In 2005 Rani organised a unique demonstration in Bil’in for all the people who have been injured or disabled since the second intifada. He explains that the Israeli army used the most tear gas he has ever seen used, firing directly into the group of people, many of whom were restricted to wheelchairs, and causing many of them to pass out from tear gas inhalation including himself. “This is occupation” says Rani.

He doesn’t believe Israel can continue like this and he hopes an end is near, as do all Palestinians. Rani tells of how he wishes to be able to travel to Jenin with no checkpoints and how he wants to take his children to see the sea. Every Palestinian who has been suppressed by the occupation has their own particular dreams of life without Israeli occupation.

“Palestine is a state of peace, Israelis should be able to come and live harmoniously in peace – against occupation”.

“If you come to my house in peace I will welcome you… but if you come to my house to take it from my family, I will fight until my dying breath with all means necessary to defend it”.

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Targeting of children and residents in Ni’lin

International Solidarity Movement | March 19, 2016

Ni’lin, Occupied Palestine – On 18th March 2016, Palestinian villagers of Ni’lin protested against the Israeli land-theft and illegal settlements and the continuous violence Israeli forces use to stifle the weekly non-violent protests. Villagers commemorated Rachel Corrie, an American activist killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, and Tristan Anderson, an American activist left with severe permanent physical and cognitive impairments after being shot in the head with a high-velocity tear gas canister in Ni’lin.

Israeli forces again used excessive force, inundating not only the protestors, but the whole village in tear gas. Whereas the last two weeks Israeli forces showered a public park with a playground in tear gas, causing several cases of excessive tear gas inhalation of small children playing there; this Friday they deliberately targeted civilian homes inside the village with tear gas, as well covering the public park in tear gas. The heavy iron tear gas canisters broke windows of 7 houses and the shops in the center of the village, causing civilians to suffer from the effects of tear gas inhalation. As family homes were targeted with tear gas, dozens of children and elderly had to be treated for tear gas inhalation. 8 people, including an 87-year old man had to be treated for excessive tear-gas inhalation. Throughout the West Bank, Israeli forces have increased the use of long-range tear gas canisters, that can reach up to 1000m and are silent when shot. These kind of tear gas canisters increase the risk of serious and / or deadly injuries as they can’t be heard and are iron-clad and thus extremely hard. Furthermore 2 people were treated after being hit and injured with rubber-coated steel bullets during the protest.

Medics treating an elderly man suffering from excessive tear gas inhalation

Medics treating an elderly man suffering from excessive tear gas inhalation

Luckily, no one was directly hit with one of the tear-gas canisters shot into Palestinian family homes. On the 12th of March, a 17-year old boy was shot in the neck with one of these heavy tear-gas canisters, causing a skull fracture. He had to undergo surgery and only after a week in intensive care his condition is now stable.

The continuous targeting of civilians, families and children by the Israeli forces is not only common in the village of Ni’lin, but also throughout the occupied West Bank.

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Soros Disruption: American-Style

By Wayne MADSEN – Strategic Culture Foundation – 20.03.2016

Eastern Europeans and Arabs are all-too-familiar with the political street hooliganism sponsored by global «provocateur» George Soros and his minions. Lately, middle-class Americans have had a taste of the type of violent protest provocations during the current US presidential campaign that have previously been visited upon governments from Macedonia and Moldova to Syria and Libya.

Recently, Donald Trump campaign rallies have seen highly-coordinated and well-planned political demonstrations in Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, Dayton, and other cities. The rallies were disrupted by highly-coordinated and well-planned protesters waving freshly-printed protest signs before awaiting television cameras. Such «rent-a-mob» actions are trademark signs of the involvement of George Soros and the «godfather» of political street violence, Gene Sharp, in disrupting the normal political process.

One of the favored methods proposed by Sharp and embraced by Soros-financed groups is the taunting of individuals. Sharp’s advice to taunt speakers is being played out in the US presidential campaign: «instead of predominantly silent and dignified behavior… people may mock and insult officials, either at a certain place or by following them for a period». Sharp suggests that taunting individuals, such as presidential candidates, be combined with a refusal to disperse when either asked or ordered to do so. Sharp claims that these methods are «non-violent». However, when the US Secret Service, charged with protecting presidential candidates from assassination or bodily harm, order protesters to leave a campaign venue and there is a subsequent refusal to do so, violence is a certainty.

Soros and Sharp honed their street revolution tactics on the streets of Belgrade in the Bulldozer Revolution that overthrew Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic on October 5, 2000. Two Soros-financed and Sharp-inspired groups, OPTOR! and the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS), as well as their leader Srdja Popovic, a so-called «pro-democracy» agitator, have all been unmasked as US intelligence assets. Popovic has received funding from the CIA-linked US Institute of Peace, a creation of neo-conservatives to advance the type of undemocratic political street disruptions first seen in Serbia and that soon expanded to Ukraine, Georgia, Egypt, Venezuela, Russia, Macedonia, and other countries. Today, Soros-inspired political violence has targeted Trump rallies across the United States.

Popovic first began to infiltrate American politics by ostensibly supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. As his ties to the CIA and Goldman Sachs later showed, his intent and that of his financiers were to derail the anti-capitalist popular movement.

Several veteran «agents provocateurs» of the Occupy Wall Street movement who are now part of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign have been enlisted by groups like Unbound Philanthropy, an immigrant rights group, to disrupt Trump rallies. Together with the Soros-financed group Black Lives Matter, these professional street hooligans have carefully, and in compliance with the Sharp model, staged their demonstrations to achieve maximum media coverage while achieving the maximum level of disruption to the primary election process.

Unbound Philanthropy is funded by Obama’s deep-pocketed friend and frequent vacation host in Hawaii, William Reeves, a former JP Morgan executive who now heads up BlueCrest Capital. In some cases, the political protesters masquerade as Trump supporters by wearing pro-Trump shirts and hats in order to gain access to Trump campaign venues. This methodology of disruption employs another Sharp tactic, that of using false identities. Coupled with the tactic of «non-violent harassment» of individuals, the use of employing false identities to gain admittance to Trump rallies, followed by coordinated protests in the form of placard-waving «stand-ins», are textbook examples of Sharp tactics being employed with the financial support of Soros and his gang, which includes Reeves and pro-immigration Hispanic groups and Black Lives Matter. Many of the anti-Trump street actions are coordinated by MoveOn.org, another group financed principally by Soros and the Hyatt Hotels’ Pritzker family of Chicago. One member of the Pritzker family, Penny Pritzker, serves as the Secretary of Commerce in the Obama administration.

MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Sanders, is actually using its protests at Trump rallies as a fundraising gimmick. It promises to disrupt future Trump campaign rallies and it will use every weapon in the Sharp/Soros handbook.

Another Sharp/Soros tactic employed against Trump is the «speak-in». During a Trump campaign appearance in Dayton, a pro-Bernie Sanders protester jumped a barrier and rushed the stage in an attempt to grab the microphone from Trump. The Secret Service tackled the protester who was arrested by police. The protester previously took part in a 2015 protest at Wright State University in Dayton where he dragged a US flag on the ground. Destruction of property, including US flags, is another hallmark disruption tactic proposed by Sharp.

The Sharp definition of a «speak-in» is a «special form of nonviolent intervention… when actionists interrupt a meeting… or other gathering for the purpose of expressing viewpoints on issues which may or may not be related directly to the occasion». Soros classifies the action as «social intervention», with «psychological and physical aspects». Regardless of Sharp’s definition of such actions as «nonviolent», the Secret Service does not take lightly anyone lunging at a presidential candidate, especially after the assassination of candidate Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1968 and the shooting and attempted assassination of candidate George Wallace in 1972. Soros’s operatives are dangerously playing with fire by bringing such violence-tinged street protest tactics to the American presidential political scene.

The stench of Popovic and Soros in the street operations against Trump, who has railed against Wall Street’s «free trade agreements» and neo-conservative «wars of choice», can be seen in the links between the street protest groups and corporate giants like Goldman Sachs.

Popovic and his CANVAS non-governmental organization (NGO) has received funding from a former Goldman Sachs executive named Muneer Satter.

Satter happened to work at Goldman Sachs with fellow corporate executive Heidi Cruz, the wife of Trump’s opponent for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Although Satter retired from Goldman Sachs in 2012 he continues to serve as vice chairman of the Goldman Sachs Foundation. In 2012, the year that Satter retired from Goldman Sachs, the firm loaned more than $1 million to Cruz’s Texas US Senate campaign.

Satter also happens to be close to both President Barack Obama and anti-Trump GOP operative Karl Rove. Satter has donated to both Obama and Rove’s Crossroads political action committee. Satter was also the national finance co-chair of Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

This year, Satter joined the Senator Marco Rubio campaign as Illinois Finance Committee co-chairman. Such background players, Heidi Cruz and her Goldman Sachs friend Satter, as well as Rove, Romney, Reeves, Soros, the Pritzkers, and Popovic – a Central Intelligence Agency-linked foreign interloper in the United States political system – are the actual movers and shakers behind America’s presidential election. Their jobs and those of other deep-pocketed political financiers like Paul Singer, Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Sam Zell, and Norman Braman, are to ensure that no «unfiltered outsiders» ever become the President of the United States. These and other wealthy backroom political maestros owe their undemocratic but massive political influence to insider politicians residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. They will do everything in their power to prevent an «unfiltered» candidate from becoming the next American president.

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Deception | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Immigration Policy for Cuba: A Cold War Relic

teleSUR | March 19, 2016

The Cuban Adjustment Act, passed in 1966 by the U.S. Congress, allows any Cuban who enters the United States to gain permanent residency after being present in the U.S. for one year. This law, passed at the height of the Cold War, is unique to Cuban emigrants, with no other migrant group given this special consideration.
Cubans sit aboard a homemade raft, known in Cuba as a balsa.

This Act was passed in order to encourage emigration from Cuba to the United States. After the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, there was an exodus of Cubans opposed to the revolution who fled to the United States. In his autobiography, Fidel Castro stated that in the first three years after the revolution, more than 270,000 Cubans migrated to the United States.

Many of those who left Cuba were professionals and their exit put a strain on the Cuban economy – a favorable situation for policy makers in the U.S.

Wanting to continue to promote a “brain drain” in Cuba, the Cuban Adjustment Act was passed, which further encouraged Cubans to leave the island and arrive in the U.S. Those opposed to the revolution also facilitated their arrival by providing material support for these so-called refugees.

Cuba and the U.S. did eventually negotiate a deal where the U.S. promised to issue up to 20,000 visas a year so people could migrate legally, but ultimately only some 1,000 were issued yearly.

With the allure of having the right to live and work in the United States legally upon arrival but unable to secure a visa, many Cubans continued to make the journey to the U.S. state of Florida by whatever means they could.

This led to people undertaking various means in an attempt to navigate the strait separating the island from Florida’s southern tip, including hijacking vehicles not apt for long-distance sea travel, such as tug boats. Despite this, the Cuban coast guard had strict orders not to intercept vessels in the water if they had people aboard. This also led to the phenomenon known as the balseros, people who attempt to arrive in the U.S. in homemade rafts, especially during the difficult Special Period.

The influx of Cubans led to more negotiations between the U.S. and Cuba, and in 1995 the U.S. government finally agreed not to admit Cubans found at sea headed for the U.S. Those who did reach the shores of the U.S. would be admitted and be granted residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act, hence the reference to the “wet-foot, dry-foot” rule.

The Cuban government considers this rule a provocation, while critics say the policy not only promotes dangerous forms of travel, but is also an incentive for human trafficking by criminal groups.

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

‘Turkey and EU make refugees a matter of bargaining – a violation of int’l treaties’

RT | March 19, 2016

The EU countries will receive educated and skilled people, and those who are not skilled and educated, they will remain in Turkey, Yasar Yakis, former Foreign Minister and a former ambassador to the UN Office in Vienna, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, told RT.

RT: Why do you think that the “one in, one out” Turkish-EU refugee plan isn’t feasible? Who stands to benefit from this plan? 

Yasar Yakıs: Both sides are going to benefit, but Turkey was in a position where it couldn’t do anything else but ask the cooperation of the European countries. Theoretically, one may think of a scenario whereby the EU could have closed their doors and not let any refugee come in from Turkey. Turkey, by trying to cooperate with the EU and with the initiative taken by Angela Merkel, at least they decided to share the responsibility of Turkey, open the doors, but of course with certain conditions, and this condition is “one in, one out.” But this doesn’t solve several problems that will entail such a decision. One of them is that the refugees who do not come from Syria, who come from distant countries, Afghanistan and the other countries, why on earth would Turkey accept them if they are already in European Union countries to receive also the refugees coming from the third countries… In my opinion, the deal shouldn’t have covered the refugees originating from countries other than Syria.

Second, since this Syrian crisis we do not see any light at the end of the tunnel; the Syrian crisis will continue for some time. Therefore, if there is nobody readmitted from Greece, the EU will be entitled to refuse any additional refugees coming from Turkey and going to the European Union countries, whereas Turkey will continue to receive refugees from Syria…

Third, the EU will receive refugees on the basis of a selection. That is to say, Syrian refugees having arrived in Turkey will submit their demand to be admitted as a refugee in the EU countries, and the EU countries will look at the qualification of the person. If they agree to receive, they will receive. It means they will receive educated and skilled people, and those who are not skilled and educated, they will remain in Turkey. For these reasons, it will work against Turkey’s interests in the long run.

RT: During the Brussels summit, ministers are also going to debate doubling the deal for the refugee crisis to €6 billion. Turkey was earlier accused of “blackmailing” and “holding the EU to ransom”, for example by UKIP’s Farage, Hungary’s Orban, by demanding money to stop the flood of migrants. How do you view such accusations?

YY: First of all, there are restrictions stemming from the international documents, international treaties, which forbid to make the life of the refugees a question of bargaining. What Turkey and the EU are doing is a violation of the international treaties that all the European countries have signed, and also Turkey has signed. This is one thing.

Secondly, the money that was allocated to Turkey will not be paid to Turkey. Turkey will have to submit to the EU projects. These projects will be financed by the EU – the money will not enter the Turkey’s treasury. There is another difficulty there. And if it is not spent in conformity with the EU relations, then the EU will be entitled to stop the payment.

RT: You said that certain EU member countries may find excuses not to implement the visa-free travel agreement with Turkey. Why do you think so?  Why do you think the plan has been stalling so far? Who is being insincere here, Turkey or the EU?

YY: Both sides are sincere, but there are of course always ways for not abiding by the promise. There are two reasons for that. One is the number of the conditions that the EU put in order to start the negotiations. There were 72 conditions that Turkey had to fulfill, and 19 of them were fully fulfilled until recently. And something like 7 of them there was no progress at all. Now we have to see, whether Turkey will be fully compliant with all the 72 conditions.

Secondly, many countries were reluctant and they agreed to the deal only upon the pressure coming from Germany, and they will find other excuses in order not to abide by it. Greek Cypriots may be one of them. There are a lot of EU countries that are not satisfied with Turkey’s human rights records – fundamental rights of freedom. And they say that Turkey should not be given such concessions.

Thirdly, there are countries like France, who say that a refugee deal is one thing, Turkish accession process is another thing. Both of these two things should be assessed, evolve, and should continue to function according to their own rule without interacting between themselves.

RT: Is Turkey ready to accept even more migrants in exchange for visa-free regime with the EU and some  ‎€6 billion? Or maybe Europe will see the price tag rising, as Turkey keeps asking for money?

YY: The EU is not monolith, which means that they do not speak with the same language – all of them, 28. They all have different views, which differ slightly form the others. Many countries are looking for excuses, either for not giving money, or for abiding by these international treaties, which bans making the refugee deal a question of bargaining between the sending countries and receiving countries.

Thirdly, for the political reasons, like Greek Cypriots and other countries, as well, they are looking for excuses not to let Turkey’s accession process to the EU to continue. It cannot continue forever. It will be due to the two reasons stemming from Turkey, or stemming from the EU.

RT: Turkey says it’s fighting terrorists in its Kurdish areas, but human rights groups are concerned that civilians are being killed in the crackdown. Do you think civilian causalities can be, are justified by the fight against terror?   

YY: For me no civilian causalities are justified. You have to take from the standpoint of a family, who sent their 22-year-old son to the military service, and this young man is fighting there. If you ask this family: “Do you agree that this fight against Kurds should continue, but you may also lose your son?” Most probably in many cases he will say: “No, I want my son! I want that my son’s life should not be given away in exchange of something, which is beyond my family’s concern. Of course, there are also some families in Turkey that say ‘for the security of my country I will sacrifice my son.’ But the majority will say ‘no.’  

RT: Has Turkey’s international reputation suffered due to its crackdown on Kurds in Diyarbakir, Cizre etc.? And has Erdogan chosen the right strategy here?

YY: Turkey’s human rights record is going down. Turkey lost a lot of altitude in its international relations. Erdogan’s policy on the crackdown – I have to take it from the beginning. I appreciated it very much President Erdogan’s initiative to solve this Kurdish problem – at that time it was called ‘democratization project’ – so this was a very courageous, bold decision taken by President Erdogan… It is a pity now that this process has collapsed. I wish that Turkey should find one way of resuming the negotiations and continue this process…

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Influence: Good or Bad for America?

March 20, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s ACRA to aim at breaking monopoly as Moody’s exits

The BRICS Post | March 19, 2016

Russia’s new national Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA), seen as a domestic competitor to global ratings agencies, plans to issue its first ratings this year, according to CEO, Ekaterina Trofimova.

ACRA applied for a license to operate in Russia on February 29.

On Friday, one of the “BIG Three” international ratings agencies, Moody’s, announced it has officially stopped issuing local credit ratings for Russian companies. This was widely expected after Russia said new regulations will force international rating agencies working in the country to issue local data through a Russia-regulated subsidiary and guarantee they won’t withdraw local credit ratings under outside political pressure.

“This decision was taken in light of legislative changes and other potential restrictions applicable to the business of providing national scale ratings (NSRs) in Russia,” a Moody’s statement said.

Earlier in February, Fitch Ratings also said they plan to stop issuing local ratings in Russia.

The new Russian regulations take effect in 2017.

The five BRICS heads of state during their annual summits in Brazil and Russia in the past two years have discussed the idea of establishing an independent ratings agency.

The “Big Three” global credit rating agencies, all based in the US – Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings have been criticized for their favorable pre-crisis ratings of insolvent financial institutions like Lehman Brothers.

DR Dogra, Managing Director and CEO of Indian credit ratings agency CARE, said Moscow’s homegrown credit-ratings firm is a positive step forward.

“The development in the credit rating space in Russia is interesting as it brings in local knowledge and experience while evaluating credit rating. The existence of such agencies does add value to the system and while the international rating agencies will have to take their own decision relating to the regulatory systems that have to be adhered to, the creation of ACRA in Russia is a good step,” Dogra told The BRICS Post.

“As Russia is part of the fast growing BRICS nations, we would see this very positively as we need to have more competition in the market which should also logically extend to the global space,” he added.

Russia’s ACRA, however, is not the first attempt to break the monopoly of the ratings market.

Rating agencies from China, Russia and the United States officially launched a new credit rating company in Hong Kong in 2013 to challenge the current industry leaders.

Brazil’s SR Rating, CARE Rating of India and GCR of South Africa also tied up with CPR of Portugal and MARC of Malaysia to form a new ratings agency in 2013.

Lia Baker Valls Pereira, senior researcher at Brazil’s premier, Getulio Vargas Foundation, warns that the criteria used by any new BRICS ratings agency must be well documented and transparent.

“A ratings agency must be independent to be reliable. A ratings agency controlled by the BRICS governments will face difficulties in proving its independence,” says Pereira.

March 19, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »