Chavez: U.S Threats to Sanction Latin America Are “Absurd”
By Rachael Boothroyd | Venezuelanalysis | January 17th 2011
Caracas – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has criticised the U.S. State Department’s “absurd” decision to threaten Latin American countries with sanctions should they engage in trade with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Chavez made the comments following a State Department briefing last week, in which the body’s spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, warned Latin American countries that they would be liable to U.S. sanctions if they were to use Iranian banks or purchase Iranian oil.
”If [decisions behind closed doors] are going to take those countries in the direction of buying more Iranian crude oil and making more use of the banks, then they make themselves vulnerable to U.S. sanctions,” said Nuland, who added that the countries in question wouldn’t have “any doubt that this is not something that the U.S. would think was helpful to the overall global policy”.
“We have… with a number of these [Latin American] countries… difficulties that go well beyond this [and] that need to be worked through,” concluded Nuland.
Presidents Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Raul Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chavez all met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week as he conducted a short tour of Latin America. During his visit to Caracas the Iranian President signed various bilateral agreements with Venezuela in industry, science and technology, and politics.
Addressing viewers on state television channel VTV, Chavez criticised Nuland’s statements and cited them as proof of continued U.S. neo-colonialism in the region.
“This decision is an absurdity… it’s the same absurd history of the U.S., trying to look at us like their back yard and wanting to keep controlling the destinies of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and the whole of Latin America,” said the Venezuelan president.
“We are free countries…The United States will end up being what Mao (Tse Tung) said, they will become a paper empire and we; steel tigers,” he added.
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars.
Part I, was manifested by fabricating the Weapons of Mass Destruction trap dragging the US to do Israel’s job in Iraq. Henceforth, making US power subservient to Israel’s interest and driving a wedge between the West and a “feigned” Muslim world.
Notwithstanding, examining closely the contrived Clash of Civilization idiom exposes serious flaws in the Zioncon’s postulation. For the term Civilization denotes well defined camp with unique collective cultural identity. While the West is comparatively uniform, the ostensibly opposing Muslim side is comprised of multifarious diametrically opposed entities.
In fact, it was this very adversarial state and help from Muslim nations that facilitated US war against members of the same purported “Civilization.” Whereby, Iran abetted, arguably indirectly, the American incursion in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Pakistan played a vital role in the US war against Taliban.
With the Zioncon’s success in instigating US invasion in Iraq, the liberal wing of the house of Zion is reassembling its resources pursuing new a conflict, now with Iran for Clash of Civilization part II.
Perfecting the “victim and insecurity” role, the only acknowledged nuclear power in the region, Israel is dogged to waging war against Iran, a potential nuclear power. Appeasing Israel and to avert its threat of war, the US and the European Union have imposed drastic economic and financial measures to impede the development of Iran’s nuclear program.
Even absent an Israeli attack, the West’s progressive sanctions could eventually foment a regional war. Deflecting domestic pressure, Iranian leaders might make imprudent moves by projecting outwards their internal economic difficulties ensuing in military conflict with the West.
Likewise, in a tough election year, the US administration is disposed more than ever to Zionist blackmail. From following Republican primary debates, confrontation with Iran seems to be taking a front seat in the American election. Responding to electoral politics, the US is poised also to taking uncalculated steps triggering an open military conflict.
A new conflict with Iran will lapse the world’s economy into recession. The US economy cannot afford another war or unpredictable oil prices. Regional economies will retract with the deterioration of industrialized world economies. Israel as in Iraq invasion will come out as the only winner.
Meanwhile, Israel and its Sayanim (Zionist helpers in foreign countries, conservatives and liberals) will start inaugurating a new image for their next perpetual war: Clash of Civilization part III.
~
Jamal Kanj writes frequently on Arab World issues and the author of “Children of Catastrophe, Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America ”, Garnet Publishing, UK. Jamal’s articles can be read at www.jamalkanj.com, his email address is jkanj@yahoo.com
Voters Choice: Ron Paul or Bibi Netanyahu
By William A. Cook | Pacific Free Press | January 14, 2012
A curious glance at the current crop of presidential candidates makes it clear that Ron Paul stands alone when it comes to the issue of US engagement in foreign wars. He stands with George Washington against foreign entanglements while the rest of the candidates stand with Teddy Roosevelt and the attempted creation of America’s first empire one hundred and twelve years ago.
Mark Twain responded to that effort by creating the Anti-imperialist society while he caustically satirized the effort in his depiction of the massacre of the Moros in the Philippines. Now we have more massacres, using drones instead of canons, on equally hapless civilians who are caught unawares or hiding from the wrath of America’s righteousness as we drive to bring virtue to a primitive world.
Today America has an estimated 700 military installations in about 140 nations around the world; its bases surround Iran as does its nuclear capability, and it is engaged in executive “wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. All of this while carrying a debt that exceeds thirteen trillion dollars, cutting budgets in education, medical care and social security, and retaining a Pentagon budget that exceeds that of the 16 declared developed nations combined. And to top it all off, we are considering armed aggression against Iran that could plunge America into the biggest war since WW II. Why?
Why add Iran to the list of wars when we have succeeded in losing the “wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq? Let’s admit the truth, we do not control Afghanistan and, while we have ostensibly left Iraq, we have left it in chaos and disarray.
The question persists, why?
Why invade Iran? Ask first, why did we invade Iraq? Why did we not object to Israel’s bombing in Syria? Why didn’t we object to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon or Gaza? The world’s nations objected in UN Resolution after Resolution. But America voted to support Israel’s illegal aggression. Why? It is America’s reputation that has been placed in the gutter; it is America that is ranked with Israel as the most dangerous nations on the planet; it is America’s democracy that has been diluted, nay emaciated, as our liberties have been eroded with ever increasing draconian delusions that they are purportedly designed to protect while they make the citizen fodder for the few in control. So the question persists, why?
Not long ago, the answer may have been provided when Netanyahu was interviewed by Piers Morgan about the Iranian threat. Relative to this discussion is a comment made by Netanyahu in his interview with Morgan, a comment that I have not seen mentioned in America’s press.
When pressed by Morgan about the Iranian threat constantly broached by Israel and its U.S. supporters and what Israel intends to do about it, the repartee always returns to Iran as not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to “Europe and the United States.” Morgan asks again, “What is the answer, Prime Minister?” Having successfully avoided saying that Israel would attack Iran to rid it of this danger, Netanyahu resorts to “I’m talking about a credible military action.” “Lead by who,” asks Morgan. “Lead preferably by the United States,” replies Netanyahu. “Could you contemplate some kind of land invasion,” asks Morgan. “Well, I think the United States has proven great effectiveness and I’m going to divulge a secret to you about their capabilities. They’re greater than ours.”
So says the Prime Minister of Israel as he talks about using America’s military to take out the Iranian threat to Israel. Why not use American boys and girls to kill your enemy and save your own sons and daughters? Why not indeed. Mark the tone. It’s almost as though he is saying to this imported talk show host, “Why do you ask, Stupid, it’s so obvious.”
According to recent polls, Americans have fallen out of favor with our numerous wars in countries we neither know nor can spell: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine and Syria. This fact seems to be of little interest to the candidates who appear committed to the military-industrial complex that funds their respective campaigns. Indeed all seem committed to the addition of Iran since it appears to threaten, existentially, our aborted child, Israel. In short, if an American believes that he or she should vote to end America’s foreign entanglements, he or she has only Ron Paul to vote for. All the others have stated unequivocally their support for the state of Israel and its drive to stop Iran from gaining nuclear power. A vote for Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman means a vote for Netanyahu and his expressed desire to have American boys and girls serve Israel in this cause, or so he says.
Consider these statements by our candidates:
* Romney on Israel: “I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable… If I’m president of the United States, my first trip, my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region.” Mark that Romney makes no reference to Palestine or Palestinians; how does one resolve a conflict if one does not recognize the second party?
* Now consider Perry’s comment: “We are going to be there to support you. And we are going to be unwavering in that. So I hope you will tell the people of Israel: Help is on the way.” Perry makes no reference to Obama’s unequivocal support for Israel having outspent all previous administrations in dollars and military hardware.
* Not to be outdone, Santorum offered the following: He said more or less what Newt Gingrich stated last month, “All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. They’re not Palestinian. There [are] no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.” What can one say, Santorum needs to read some history before opening his mouth.
* “Gingrich has all but declared that under his presidency, the American position would be that of Netanyahu’s,” Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, and with his recent multi-million dollar support from Adelson, who is linked to Netanyahu by an umbilical cord, he is chained to Israel’s dictates should he be elected.
* And, finally, Jon Huntsman presented his views: “The United States should not pressure Israel to negotiate with terrorists, nor to enter into any negotiated deals that threaten Israel’s security. This is a particularly delicate moment. We are inspired by the “Arab Spring,” in which the Arab people are calling for an end to decades of dictatorial and corrupt leadership. These events also give the lie to the notion Israel is somehow the source of all problems in the Middle East.”
Note that Huntsman does not mention that Israel has occupied Palestine for 63 years, illegally according to international law and the charter of the UN that the US has agreed to. Moreover, the constantly reiterated cause of unrest in the mid-east is the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis. To say it is not so, is, to borrow Gingrich’s eloquent phrase, “baloney.”
* Since we know that our current president has bragged that his administration has outspent all previous administrations in support of Israel, there is no need to argue that he would change course now. Since we also know that Israel can count on close to 400 supporters in the House and virtually all 100 Senators, as votes in support these past twelve years attest, the choice for Americans who desire a return to George Washington’s admonition that American democracy can be destroyed by foreign entanglements have only Ron Paul as an option.
Here is what Ron Paul says about American imperialism, a voice crying in the wilderness:
· Islamists attacked us for US bases on Arab lands. (Sep 2011)
· Neither Dems nor GOP will cut one nickel from militarism. (Aug 2011)
· American Empire is big government war & militarism. (Apr 2011)
· We can’t keep troops in 135 countries & 900 bases forever. (Feb 2011)
· We’re broke and we just can’t continue to police the world. (Feb 2008)
· Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
· Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)
· 9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
· Pre-emptive war policy is a grave mistake. (Jun 2007)
· Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)
· Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
· Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries. (Jan 2006)
· Costs of war always higher than expected & go on for decades. (Jun 2005)
· Conscription is a trait of totalitarian government. (Dec 1987)
This is the choice presented to the American voter.
What we know clearly is that America has set out on a course of world domination that mocks the very concept of democracy where people are free to choose their government, not be told who will govern them by a foreign power. What we know tragically is that the American government is content to support and sometimes to create dictators that oppress their own people, if they obey America’s dictates, as the fall of Mubarak in Egypt attests.
What we also know is that our government has been bought by a foreign power to secure its own ends regardless of the consequences to the people of the United States. What we know unfortunately is that any citizen wishing to run for the office of President must kowtow to the desires of the state of Israel by declaring his or her allegiance to that state or be declared a nut case.. What we know truly is that America is no longer the nation of the free citizen, since we are now subject to the fear that resides in the gut when threatened by unsubstantiated allegations of suspicion as a terrorist that can result in indefinite detention without trial or due process.
Such is the decline of the once proud and free experiment that was the United States of America.
U.S. Expels Venezuelan Consul as “Persona Non Grata”
By Rachael Boothroyd | Venezuelanalysis.com | January 10, 2012
Hugo Chavez: Livia Acosta Noguera is a ‘dignified professional’ who has been ‘humiliated and demonised’ by US extremist groups and the Obama administration (Elmundo.com)
Caracas – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has condemned the United States’ decision to expel the Venezuelan consul general in Miami as “arbitrary and unjustified” this past Monday, and derided the move as “another demonstration of the arrogance of ridiculous imperialism”.
Venezuelan diplomat Livia Acosta Noguera had been working in the U.S. since March 2011 when she was ordered to leave last Sunday amidst claims that she had discussed the possibility of orchestrating cyber attacks against the US government whilst serving as Vice-secretary at the Venezuelan embassy in Mexico.
“She has been accused of I don’t know how many things by the U.S. government, and above all, by sectors of the ultra rightwing in Miami , including many Venezuelans who live there, counter-revolutionaries, not all of them, but a small group,” explained Chavez.
Contrary to the accounts published by many mainstream news channels, President Chavez also clarified that Noguera was already in Caracas, and had been since December.
“We already knew that this was going to happen, and so she has been in Caracas in order to avoid situations, possibly even dangerous ones,” said the Venezuelan president.
The U.S. State Department has not commented on the reasons for Noguera’s expulsion, however, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs, Roger Noriega, posted the following comment on his twitter account prior to the US government’s official announcement.
“Chavista terrorist spy consul general Livia Acosta expelled from the United States by the State Department! Acosta has 72 hours to leave the country.”
Despite the U.S. State Department’s silence on the issue, it is known that four members of Congress had previously written to US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, on December 9th expressing their “grave concern” over the “diplomatic credentials” of Noguera. In the letter the four representatives make reference to “The Iranian Threat”, a 2008 documentary filmed by the Spanish-language media corporation Univision.
The four members of congress are; Cuban-American Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican), Mario Diaz-Balart (Republican), David Rivera (Republican) and Cuban-American Albio Sires (Democrat).
In an interview with Telemundo’s Soraya Galan last week, former Venezuelan military Lieutenant, José Antonio Colina Pulido, also revealed that he too had sent a letter to Hilary Clinton in August of last year advising the Secretary of State that Noguera was illegally using her diplomatic immunity in order to gain access to classified documents.
The retired Lieutenant, who is wanted in Venezuela for his connection to the terrorist attacks carried out against the Spanish Embassy and the Consulate of Colombia in February 2002, also claimed he had proof that the Venezuelan diplomat was “actively working for Chavez’s political police”. Pulido did not elucidate as to the nature of this evidence for the benefit of Telemundo viewers.
The Documentary
Based on audio and video files obtained from “students posing as extremists” who Noguera supposedly met with at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the documentary alleges that the Venezuelan diplomat discussed the possibility of coordinating attacks against the United States’ computer systems with other Cuban and Iranian officials. According to the documentary, these cyber-attacks would be “worse than September 11th”.
The same Univision documentary has caused diplomatic altercations between the US and Venezuela before, and was cited by Congressmen such as John McCain earlier last year in an unsuccessful bid to have Venezuela placed on the US “State Sponsor of Terrorism” list. The United States government has been unable to provide evidence to corroborate the authenticity or accuracy of the New York-based company’s documentary, although the Associated Press reports that the FBI has been investigating.
Previously based in Los Angeles, Univision is the largest Spanish language network in the USA. It is partly owned by American-Israeli media mogul and close friend to the Clintons, Haim Saban, also the owner of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington.
Univision’s Executive Board includes Cesar Conde (President of Univision Networks) and Randy Falco (President and Chief Executive Officer). Conde was appointed as a White House Fellow by former U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002-2003. During this time, he served as the White House Fellow for Secretary of State, Colin L Powell.
US Trying to Press Resolute China on Iran
Al-Manar | January 11, 2012
China disappointed US efforts on Wednesday to press it on Iran sanctions.
China hopes “Iran and the IAEA will stress cooperation and earnestly carry out the safeguards and clarify pending issues in the Iranian nuclear program as soon as possible,” said foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin as US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was holding meeting with Chinese leaders on the Iranian issue.
“To place one country’s domestic law above international law and press others to obey is not reasonable,” he added.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that it will send inspectors to the Islamic Republic of Iran very soon.
The IAEA made the announcement on Tuesday, about a month after Iran renewed its invitation to the agency’s inspectors to visit the country’s nuclear sites.
Earlier in the day, the Iranian envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said that the hype created by the West over the beginning of enrichment activities at Iran’s Fordo nuclear site is “exaggerated” and “politically motivated.”
Israeli Source: Assassination of Iranian Nuclear Scientist Joint Mossad-MEK Operation
By Richard Silverstein | Tikun Olam | January 10th, 2012
An Iranian news agency reports that a fourth Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was a professor specializing in petroleum engineering at a technical university and director of Natanz’s uranium enrichment facility. Mehr news agency said he was “deputy director of the commercial department of the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility.” He was killed by a bomb attached to the side of his car by two men on a motorcycle. My own confidential Israeli source confirms today’s murder was the work of the Mossad and MEK, as have been a number of previous operations I’ve reported here.
The killing took place at or near a Teheran university. The method recalls another series of assassinations that occurred of Fereidoun Abbassi Davani (who was seriously wounded) and his colleague Majid Shahriari (who was killed). Today’s killing occurred two years to the day after the assassination of another scientist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi.
Reuters also adds this:
An [Iranian ] official [said]…”The bomb was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and is the work of the Zionists (Israelis)” Fars quoted Deputy Governor Safarali Baratloo as saying.
Witnesses told Reuters they saw two people on the motorbike stick the bomb to the car.
Time also offers a comprehensive report.
France’s right-wing Le Figaro newspaper offers (this is an English language report on the story) a window into the types of training and recruitment the Mossad engages in to prepare for such sabotage missions. It reports that Israeli agents identify Iranian Kurdish recruits who are living in exile in Iraqi Kurdistan. There they train them in “spycraft and sabotage:”
…The Iranian assets are being prepared for conducting operations inside [Iran] as part of Israel’s undercover intelligence war against Iran’s nuclear energy program. The Baghdad source told the French daily that part of Israel’s sabotage program against sensitive Iranian nuclear facilities, which includes targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear experts, is directed out of the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, “where [Mossad] agents have stepped up their penetration.” For this, “the Israelis are using Kurdish oppositionists to the regime in Iran, who are living as refugees in the Kurdish regions of Iraq”, the source told Le Figaro.
Although the article makes no mention of official or unofficial sanction of the Israeli operations by the Iraqi Kurdish authorities, it implies that the alleged Mossad activities are an open secret in Iraqi Kurdistan. This is not the first time that allegations have surfaced in the international press about Israeli intelligence activities in Kurdistan. In 2006, the BBC flagship investigative television program Newsnight obtained strong evidence of Israeli operatives providing military training to Kurdish militia members. The program aired video footage showing Israeli expects drilling members of Kurdish armed groups in shooting techniques and guerrilla tactics.
The Israeli government denied having authorized any such training, while Iraqi Kurdish officials refused to comment on the report. But Israeli security experts told the BBC that it would be virtually impossible for Israeli trainers to operate inside Iraqi Kurdistan “without the knowledge of the Kurdish authorities.”
Iraqi Kurdistan may be one of the few places in the Arab world in which an Israeli is welcome, even Israeli spies.
There also can be little doubt that the U.S. comes into this mix, as the Iraqi Kurdish authorities maintain extremely good relations with U.S. officials in that country. And it’s hard to believe that we aren’t playing a role in expediting this mischief in any way we can.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it every time something like this happens: assassinations like the one today accomplish nothing. It doesn’t fundamentally harm Iran’s nuclear program. It doesn’t deter Iran or its scientists from pursuing the research and whatever scientific goals they may have. These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.
I am not a supporter of Iran’s nuclear program. But I am even less a supporter of assassination as state policy, and that includes my own nation, whose president seems especially enamored of targeted killings, even of U.S. citizens.
Hezbollah blames US, Brotherhood lashes regime for Syria bombing
Al-Akhbar, Al-Manar, AFP | January 6, 2012
Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah condemned the deadly Damascus suicide bombing that killed at least 25 people on Friday, accusing the United States and its regional allies of perpetrating the attack.
This attack “is the second round of the evil American power and its submissive powers’ scheme in our region, and is aimed at punishing Syria for its firm supportive stance to the resistance forces against the Zionist enemy and its supporters in the West,” a statement released from Hezbollah’s press office read.
Hezbollah said the attack was aimed at undermining attempts to resolve the Syrian uprising, and were carried out by those intending to internationalize the crisis.
“It is also evidence that these forces’ [reject] any reformatory measures that could save the Syrian people from being dragged towards bloodshed,” it said.
Meanwhile, Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood – a staunch opponent of President Bashar Assad – accused the regime of orchestrating the attack, and called for an international probe into the blast.
“We hold the regime, its agents and its gangs fully responsible for this crime… they are legally responsible for every drop of blood that falls in Syria,” the Brotherhood said, adding that the “regime, its agents, its gangs and its shabiha [militias] are the only ones to benefit from this explosion.”
“They are the only ones who have the tools and are capable of doing it,” a statement from the banned Muslim Brotherhood said.
“We in the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria call for an international probe and an Arab probe into this explosion before the criminal hides the evidence of his crime,” it said.
Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has long been a nemesis of the Assad regime, having waged an armed insurrection against Bashar’s late father, former President Hafez Assad, during the 1970s and 1980s, before government forces crushed the Islamists in Hama in 1982, killing thousands.
The Brotherhood, long dormant following the crackdown in the 1980s, resurfaced when popular anti-regime protests erupted last year in March.
The Islamists have steered opposition efforts within the Syrian National Council (SNC) in an effort to topple the regime.
Hezbollah, however, has voiced support for its long-time ally Assad throughout the crisis.
