Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Syria’s Aleppo faces deadly water shortage after rebels block supply

RT | May 14, 2014

Islamist militants from Syria’s opposition have cut off the water supply to most parts of the city of Aleppo by targeting pumping stations. The city has now been plunged into abject misery, as the government and NGOs race to find alternative sources.

More than two million people have been affected by the resulting water shortage after two pumping stations were shut down. Water has stopped flowing not only into government-held areas, as intended, but into practically every corner of Syria’s largest city, which is presently divided in two spheres of control.

Fighters of the Al-Nusra Front and related groups were interested in keeping the water flowing to east Aleppo and prevent it from flowing into the western parts, AFP reports. But the plan backfired, and now tons of water have been squandered irretrievably in the Quqayq river.

Both government media, and the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights are condemning the act and trading blame. The rebels say it was, in fact, a campaign by President Bashar Assad’s forces to bomb the water pumps. The Al-Nusra Front made no statements following the incident.

The misery is spreading, report various journalists on the scene.

In recent pictures from Aleppo, children can be seen scooping up water from puddles along the city’s roads, as others make use of jerry cans and various containers.

The residents queue up with all manner of receptacles in front of places like mosques, wells and ancient fountains, where the water isn’t safe for consumption, Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar daily says.

Residents have been without water for over ten days now. This comes as just last month the Al-Nusra Front targeted the electrical grid distributing power to Syria’s second city and its surroundings.

The situation in western Aleppo seems somewhat more stable, with the Red Crescent working with the government to provide a modicum of water for people.

“The situation signals a humanitarian and health disaster, but we are doing what we can to avert this risk,” a source in the Syrian Red Crescent told Al-Akhbar.

The source added it is only a temporary solution, as the water provided is not of the best quality for drinking. And the overall picture is unsanitary, as trucks normally used for waste-water disposal can be seen ferrying water around the city.
Locals have been digging wells themselves just to alleviate some of the stress on government and aid organizations, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The latest news was that activists on Tuesday reported a slight reappearance of water pressure in one of the pumps. The cause of this is as yet unknown.

Aleppo has now become a key battleground once again, after the Al-Nusra Front and related gangs lost control of Homs to the Syrian army last week, and 1,200 of them escaped the fighting in a number of buses. Currently, the only area in Syria still more or less under terrorist control is to the northwest of the old battleground of Homs. But that appears to be a temporary situation, as government forces are moving in from different sides.

Before the northern city lost its water, the Syrian Red Crescent had to coordinate between the government and the rebels in sharing what water was available. The pumping station had been dependent on diesel fuel, which the government had agreed to provide in April in exchange for the insurgents turning the electricity back on. It remains unclear what caused the latest targeting of the water pumps, and whether that signaled the end of the precarious deal between the two sides.

May 14, 2014 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Possible Iranian-Saudi rapprochement to impact region

By Elie Chalhoub | Al-Akhbar | May 14, 2014

Statements by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Tuesday point to a significant development in the relationship with Iran. Saudi’s so called “hawk” and Iran’s number one enemy in the kingdom is now welcoming a dialogue with the Islamic Republic. But the implications will not be felt in Tehran or Riyadh, but in Baghdad, Homs, Beirut, and Vienna.

Saudi Arabia’s call for a dialogue with Iran is no small matter, neither in its substance, “to settle differences and make the region safe and prosperous,” or in its timing, regionally, internationally, and in relation to the nuclear issue, or the fact that it was issued by one of the kingdom’s most hawkish members.

Information from Tehran maintains “the Iranian position did not change.” It indicated that, “ever since President Hassan Rouhani reached power, [Iran] declared its openness to dialogue with the Saudis and announced the issue publicly several times.” This included statements during the recent tour of Gulf countries by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, in which he kept hoping to visit Riyadh. However, “the rejection was also coming from the Saudis, despite all the openness to reconciliation expressed by Iran.”

According to the same sources, several mechanisms were proposed to start a constructive dialogue, following negotiations through Omani mediation. Muscat was later forced to suspend its role after its relations with Saudi Arabia began to falter. However, a few months ago, Kuwait took up the mantle and became the main mediator between the two sides. The sources revealed that one such mechanism was suggested by the Saudis and entailed parallel trust-building steps. They would begin with a meeting between representatives of both countries’ foreign ministers, then between the two actual foreign ministers, and then to ultimately have a visit by Rouhani to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah.”

The information, which was obtained from circles concerned with relations between Tehran and Riyadh, maintained that the Saudis recently proposed through the Kuwaitis a visit by assistant Iranian foreign minister, Amir Abdel-Lahian, to hold talks. However, “Iran was not satisfied with the suggestion. They believed the atmosphere in Saudi and that surrounding the proposal, its mechanisms, and the position and authority of negotiators from either side would not lead to a serious breakthrough.”

So why did the invitation come now, at this particular time? And what are the motives behind it?

The sources point to the wider picture. “The Iraqi elections show that [Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki will have a larger parliamentary bloc than in the previous parliament and it is certain that he will continue through a third term. This is in addition to the latest developments in Homs, which means that the axis supporting [Syrian] President [Bashar] al-Assad now has the upper hand on the ground. There is also the situation in Lebanon, which shows beyond doubt that there will be no presidential elections, without the consent of the axis of resistance. It seems all those factors, including pressure by the US and the push by Kuwait, led the Saudis to take such a step.”

US pressure was manifested in the visit by US Defense Minister Chuck Hagel to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, meeting with the kingdom’s leadership to discuss the Syrian and Iranian files. Kuwait’s push, on the other hand, will be apparent during the visit by the Kuwaiti Emir to Tehran on June 1. He is expected to discuss bilateral relations, including disagreements concerning the continental shelf. But the essence of the meetings will be relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Saudis in particular, in addition to Syria and other matters.

The Saudi foreign minister had announced earlier that the kingdom sent out an invitation to Mohammed Javad Zarifi, “We want to meet with him. Iran is a neighbor with whom we have relations and we will conduct negotiations with Iran.”

Faisal was speaking at a press conference during the First Forum on Economy and Cooperation of Arab Countries with the Central Asian States and the Republic of Azerbaijan. “We will talk to them and if there are disagreements we will settle them in a manner that will satisfy both countries,” he explained. “We also hope that Iran would join the efforts to make the region safe and prosperous and not be part of the problem of a lack of security in the region.”

Saud al-Faisal also expressed the desire to resume contacts between the two countries as expressed by Iran’s president and foreign minister, “We sent out an invitation to the [Iranian] foreign minister to visit Saudi Arabia, but the will to make the visit has not become a reality yet. However, we will meet him anytime he wishes to come.”

Whether by coincidence or planning, Hagel’s visit and Faisal’s call coincided with the final phase of nuclear talks between Iran and the West. But it came at a time when Zarif had just arrived to Vienna to head the delegation to the nuclear talks.

What is certain, however, are the statements by Ali Khamenei on Tuesday and the several signals he gave, which aimed to provide an umbrella to the Vienna negotiations. He emphasized that the US is unable “to do anything rash, militarily or otherwise…We depend on our own powers, strengthening them and focusing our efforts on our own potential, which will defeat plans by the Americans and other powers to force the Iranian people to surrender through exerting pressures.”

Khamenei spoke in front of a large crowd of residents in the Ilam province on the anniversary of Imam Ali bin Abi Taleb’s birth. “The major powers ought to know that the Iranian people will not yield to their ambitions, because it is a living people and its youth are moving and acting in the right direction.”

These clear words are perhaps behind Zarif’s assertions from Vienna that “the difficult part” had only started and the desired deal might be aborted, even in the absence of a consensus on just “2 percent of the topics for discussion.” Iran’s negotiations with the P5+1 groups is entering a new highly sensitive phase, with the drafting of what has become known as the “final agreement.” Tuesday night, Zarif met with the EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, on behalf of the P5+1 countries, over dinner. Actual negotiations will begin on May 14 and will continue until Friday.

Unlike previous sessions, Zarif and Ashton will be heading most of the meetings.

The most contentious issue in this round is the item related to the Arak heavy water reactor, which the West wants closed, and the ability to enrich uranium, which Iran hopes to keep.

The West’s belief that it could reach some kind of nuclear deal is probably due to both sides’ need for an agreement. In addition to building his foreign policy on reaching a settlement with Iran, US President Barack Obama has his hands tied in congressional midterm elections at the end of this year. It has become clear that he needs a foreign victory to ensure the victory of his party, especially after the collapse of his project for the Arab Spring and failing to reach a Palestinian-Israeli settlement or to topple Bashar al-Assad, not to mention his crisis in Ukraine.

Rouhani, on the other hand, seems to be betting on a nuclear deal that would lift the sanctions, and thus improve the economic situation inside Iran, which would give him leverage over his fundamentalist opponents. However, he realized, albeit late, that international sanctions are linked to four files, of which nuclear power is a minor issue. The other three are terrorism, human rights, and the rockets. The sanctions would only be lifted after closing all four files. And even if that happened, Obama has to solve his problems with the US Congress, which still rejects any lifting of sanctions against Iran.

May 14, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Syria says France, Germany to bar expats from voting

Al-Akhbar | May 12, 2014

The foreign ministry said Monday that France and Germany intend to prevent Syrians living in their countries from voting in Syria’s presidential election, expected to return President Bashar al-Assad to power.

Germany and France are “preventing Syrians living in their territory from voting,” the foreign ministry said.

“France… is carrying out a hostile press campaign” against next month’s election, it said in a statement carried by state news agency SANA.

“It has officially informed our embassy in Paris of its opposition to the holding of the vote on French territory, including the Syrian embassy.”

French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal implicitly confirmed the decision.

“The organization of foreign elections on French soil is covered by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963,” he told AFP.

“As we are authorized by this convention, French authorities have the right to oppose the holding of this election anywhere on French territory.”

He reiterated France’s demand for a “political solution” to conflict in Syria as well as a transition process and Assad’s departure from office.

“Bashar al-Assad, who is responsible for the death of 150,000 people, cannot represent the future of the Syrian people,” Nadal said.

The foreign ministry said Germany had “joined the countries trying to block the presidential elections in Syria.”

It accused Berlin of “supporting, funding and arming terrorist groups in a bid to destroy Syria,” referring to the anti-Assad opposition.

“It is not surprising that these countries have taken the decision to prevent Syrian citizens living in their territory from exercising their constitutional right to vote in the embassies of their country,” the ministry added.

Damascus has set the presidential election for June 3, with expatriate voting to take place on May 28.

(AFP)

May 12, 2014 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Syrian rebels could swap 1,500 families for prisoners, food

Al-Akhbar | May 12, 2014

Syrian rebels have agreed to free 1,500 families in exchange for food and the release of jailed opponents of President Bashar al-Assad, a newspaper close to his government said Monday.

The reported agreement involves the release of families held by rebels in Adra, a pro-government town northeast of Damascus controlled by rebels and under siege by army troops.

Under the deal, food supplies would be allowed into Adra, and an unspecified number of people held in government jails would be set free, in exchange for the release of the 1,500 families held in the town, said Al-Watan.

In a first phase and as a gesture of goodwill, “a family of eight people would be released in exchange for food for civilians in Adra,” said the newspaper.

Afterwards, “the exchange would involve the release of one family held hostage in Adra per each detainee released” from government jails, it reported.

While the edges of Adra are under government control, the interior of the town is in rebel hands.

It is strategically located on the northeastern entrance to Damascus, and has in the past been used as a launching pad for attacks on the edges of the capital.

When the rebels took Adra in mid-December, they prevented thousands of people — many of them from Syria’s Alawi and Christian minorities — from leaving.

An activist in Adra told AFP via the Internet he could not confirm whether any deal was in the making, but he said the humanitarian situation for people in the town was dire.

“A kilo of rice is sold here at $8. Today, a little child died as a result of the food shortages,” said Abul Baraa.

The deal reported by Al-Watan was being discussed with religious leaders in Douma, a rebel bastion near Adra.

National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar told AFP: “I don’t want to discuss this question with the press before the talks are completed.”

At the end of December, at the height of the fighting around Adra, the government said it had evacuated more than 5,000 residents who had been blocked from leaving by rebels, according to state news agency SANA.

The rebels control Adra’s workers’ city, once home to workers of all religious groups who traveled to the Damascus outskirts for work. The army is still in control of the rest of Adra.

(AFP, Al-Akhbar)

May 12, 2014 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The “systems” effect as viewed through the Western media in Syria

By Aktham Suleiman | Al-Akhbar | May 10, 2014

At first glance, he appears like a model of high-caliber, professional journalism. The German reporter heads to the Syrian city of Aleppo, the scene of fierce battles between the two sides of the conflict, documenting everything with photos and videos on his way. Thirty seconds into his televised report, the reporter, who is wearing an ordinary jacket, says, “It’s better to wear an additional ordinary jacket over the bulletproof vest to conceal the press label. We are told the soldiers on the other side take pleasure in shooting journalists.”

Thus, the reporter showed his political, journalistic, and moral bias to one side at the outset, as he alluded to an unverifiable “fact” and a psychological state among the other side that cannot be measured, that is “taking pleasure in shooting journalists.” In truth, this is a common mistake that goes against the principles that Western journalism schools teach their students, including that professional journalists should not be biased in favor of any cause, no matter how “just” it may be. This mistake has marked nearly all Western media coverage of the Syrian crisis for at least two years, and only in the third year of the conflict did this begin to change somewhat.

The German reporter then made his second mistake when he said, “The rebels will escort us today to the battlefronts.” But he forgot to say that the “rebels” had not only escorted him to the front, as he claimed, but had been escorting him since he entered Syria and would escort him until he leaves. The reporter was therefore under the influence of those fighters, to whom he was indebted for protecting him. We can even apply the label “embedded journalist” to his case, bearing in mind that embedded journalism, apart from all the fundamental objections against it, has become a necessity in covering certain complex conflicts. Let us also bear in mind that the journalists accompanying the Syrian army can be said to be embedded too. But journalists who meet all the requirements of being embedded, for all intents and purposes, must disclose this fact.

The German reporter then made a third mistake, by not attributing information to sources; he said, “The victims are mainly civilians who were killed in Syrian army airstrikes or shelling, or after being captured by regime forces.” But he failed to mention that this information came from rebel sources. This is not to doubt the validity of the information, but information should be sourced properly in the interest of accuracy and for the sake of a history that will one day be written based on the archives of the press and the media.

It would be easy to accuse the Western reporter mentioned above of being part of a global media war on the Syrian regime. But – away from accusations and speculations – how can serious professional errors in a report by a supposedly professional reporter working for a reputable media outlet be explained? How and why do such errors take place, and what are the political and non-political climates that facilitate these slips?

In the following paragraphs, we will attempt to answer these questions by applying the ideas of Systems Theory, which holds that everything consists of systems, and that analysis should address systems as a whole not just their individual parts. According to this theory, separate analyses of journalists, recipients, or the press are incomplete. The press – including reporters, recipients, and mediums – is a system consisting of smaller standalone systems, such as the newsroom for example. But this system is not isolated from other complex systems, such as the economy, politics, culture, ideology, and religion, not to mention the linguistic and technical systems, and other systems. Together, these form a larger system, which in turn is part of even larger systems.

So beyond the person and biases of the individual journalists, their often-vague understanding of their role, and editorial or public opinion pressures on them – all possible causes for errors – there is another hidden source for blunders that cannot be determined without analyzing the systems that prevail in a given moment. This can be clarified in the context of the German reporter in Syria, by changing some variable related to the “system” surrounding him.

Let us imagine the same correspondent was escorted by a group of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the same manner, instead of Syrian fighters in Aleppo, and that the German reporter relayed their ideas, statements, and sentiments. It’s hard to imagine this happening, but why? What is the difference between Afghanistan and Syria? Should professional journalism not maintain a professional distance from the issues it covers, with standards that apply regardless of the place and the affiliations of the reporters? The answer is yes on the surface, but not if we adopt the approach of Systems Theory.

Journalists, applying this theory, regardless of how professional they may or may not be, are part of a system; they are not extraterrestrial beings completely detached from the world. If these journalists are producers of information, opinions, and sentiments, then they are also their recipients. In order for a German reporter to propose escorting a group of Taliban fighters to the editorial board in his or her institution, he or she would have had to spent the period between 2000 and 2014 in hibernation, not hearing about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, or the subsequent war on terror that brought German soldiers all the way to Afghanistan. In other words, the reporter would have to be detached from political, ideological, and historical systems to which he or she belongs, and which define the Taliban as an enemy, and the invasion of Afghanistan as an operation to promote democracy.

The two cases of Afghanistan and Syria appear different on the surface, but they are not in the standards of Systems Theory. The prevailing political and ideological – and by extension, journalistic – system in the West put forward definitions and shaped attitudes at a very early stage in both Afghanistan and Syria, bearing in mind that the media is not only a system that can be influenced, but is also a system that can equally influence other systems. In the fall of 2001, then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that the attacks on New York and Washington were an assault on civilization. In the summer of 2011, French President Francois Hollande said that Assad should step down, repeating the same mantra spoken by other Western leaders that Assad was a ruler killing his own people. In between the two events, the Western cultural system concluded that the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean were witnessing an “Arab Spring,” seeking to achieve democracy and promote human rights.

The Western media absorbed all this information and then recycled it. The validity or invalidity of the narrative above is not important in the context of Systems Theory, because the latter belongs to a critical-analytical approach that does not recognize the existence of reality or fact to begin with, as much as it addresses the perceptions of this supposed reality, its representations in the consciousness of observers, and its influence, consequently, on their direct and indirect behavior at a given moment.

Therefore, Western reporters cannot accept to be escorted by a group of Taliban fighters. By the same token, according to the systems influencing their attitudes and work, they cannot accept to escort “our valiant soldiers,” as the opposing political and ideological System designates the soldiers of the Syrian regime army. This army, after all, according to the prevailing system in the West, is the army of the “dictator Assad,” and those fighting it are “revolutionaries” or “rebels.”

Let us assume the following scenario: a Western reporter overcomes the prevailing systems and succeeds in convincing the editorial board at his or her institution of allowing him or her to escort a unit of the Syrian army in combat. The Syrian army command, which does not know the features of the reporter’s System, agrees. The reporter then returns safely from his or her trip, with a full report. (For the sake of political balance, we can similarly imagine a scenario where a Syrian state television reporter escorts a group of Free Syrian Army fighters). How professional would the report of the Western journalist in question be?

Most likely, the report will stick to the letter to the rules of professional journalism. Opinions will be separated from facts, and facts will be properly sourced, with full disclosure about the circumstances of being embedded with a Syrian army unit. It is unlikely that the reporter would conjecture about what goes on in the head of unseen fighters from the other side, such as that “they take pleasure in shooting journalists,” or to endorse wholesale claims made by Syrian soldiers about the “civilian victims of terrorist gangs.”

In conclusion, we have to say in the context of answering the original question of the article about the source of journalistic blunders and professional slips, away from the political characterization of all of the above, that reporters in general tend to pursue accuracy and a cautious approach, and a higher degree of professionalism, whenever they feel they are “swimming against the current.” By contrast, reporters who feel they are swimming in “friendly waters,” culturally, politically, and ideologically speaking, like the German reporter mentioned in the beginning, will tend to make more blunders as long as their work will be accepted in advance by the editorial System first, and the prevailing cultural system second, and then the political and ideological Systems at higher levels.

We must also note – away from the behavior of a journalist and the quality of his or her work – another no less important result: Influencing the press in today’s world no longer involves simple methods as was the case in the previous century. Rather, this plays out in other places and through systems that, at first glance, appear far removed from the media, before the influence slowly reaches the media that believes itself to be independent and free, when the reality is far different.

Aktham Suliman is a Syrian journalist and researcher based in Germany.

May 10, 2014 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

USA insulting world’s intelligence

By Kevin Barrett | Press TV | May 10, 2014

“They must really think we’re stupid.” That is what people all over the world are saying about the American government and media’s portrayal of world events.

Several weeks ago, an interviewer said to Russian President Putin: “NATO claims the missile shield was not built against you but against Iran.” Putin broke out laughing. When the laughter finally subsided, Putin said: “You really make me laugh. God bless you because it’s almost time to finish the day… indeed it’s already time to go to sleep. At least I get home in good humor.”

No sane person could seriously assert that NATO’s missile shield circling Russia is intended to protect the West from Iran. Yet, that is exactly what NATO – the imperial American occupation army in Europe – tells the world. How stupid do they think we are?

Governments lie. Imperial governments construct vast empires of lies. But in the past, most official lies carried at least a thin veneer of plausibility. Today, the US government and its media echo chamber do not seem to care whether their lies are even slightly credible.

The Ukraine crisis has been a non-stop festival of American lies, each one more ridiculous than the last.

First they told us that the protestors against Ukraine’s legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, were heroes who love democracy and hate corruption. In fact, the protestors were an oversized rent-a-mob led by Nazi thugs and Zionist crime oligarchs, bought and paid for by the five billion dollars the US spent undermining Ukraine’s democracy.

Then they told us that the “heroic protestors” were being gunned down by Yanukovych’s forces. In fact, it was NATO’s Operation Gladio snipers who were doing the false-flag shootings.

They claimed that Yanukovych “fled” the presidency. In fact, he was overthrown by a typical CIA putsch while traveling; since he never stepped down, Yanukovych is still the legitimate, democratically-elected president of Ukraine.

They claimed that Putin was “intransigent” for refusing negotiations. In fact, the US insisted that Russia recognize the illegitimate Nazi putsch government in Kiev as a precondition for negotiations – which would have made negotiations moot.

They claimed that Putin was an aggressor in Crimea. The truth is that the people of Crimea voted by a 97% landslide to join the Russian Federation – as was their right under the principle of self-determination, a cornerstone of international law.

They claimed that the anti-Kiev protests in Eastern Ukraine are some kind of Russian plot. The reality is that the people of Eastern Ukraine are up in arms because they have no desire to be governed by an illegitimate regime of NATO terrorists, IMF austerity looters, Zionist crime oligarchs, and Nazi thugs.

They claimed that the anti-Kiev forces were forcing Jews to register themselves. In fact, the “Jews must register” leaflets were another Operation Gladio style false-flag provocation by NATO.

They claimed that last week’s Odessa Massacre was somehow Russia’s fault. In fact, NATO’s neo-Nazi thugs chased pro-Russia protestors into the Trade Unions Building, burned them to death, and strangled survivors trying to escape – the result, intentional or not, of another Operation Gladio false flag provocation.

Here is how the New York Times concealed the truth about the Odessa Massacre: “Violence also erupted Friday in the previously calmer port city of Odessa, on the Black Sea, where dozens of people died in a fire related to clashes that broke out between protesters holding a march for Ukrainian unity and pro-Russian activists.”

As an English teacher at three major American universities, I always instructed students to begin sentences with a specific subject and verb that clearly express “who does what.” In this case, “NATO-backed Nazi thugs” are the who, and “chased pro-Russian protestors into a building and burned and strangled them to death” are the what.

Instead, the New York Times begins its sentence with an abstraction, “violence,” that just somehow “erupted.” We are told that “dozens of people died in a fire,” but we are not told who killed them, simply that the fire was “related to clashes.”

George Orwell, author of “Politics and the English Language,” must be rolling over in his grave.

Does anyone in the world really believe anything John Kerry and the US mainstream media are saying about Ukraine? Expressions like “credulous dupe” do not even begin to describe the type of person who would be taken in by such brazen falsehoods.

Fortunately, there are signs that the world is not as stupid as the American establishment thinks it is. The people of Eastern Ukraine are united in their refusal to kowtow to the criminals in Kiev, and much of the world supports them. At the end of the day, the most economically advanced and strategic part of Ukraine is likely to become a fervently anti-NATO, anti-New World Order bulwark.

US-NATO lies are failing in Ukraine just as they failed in Syria, where President Assad is expected to win re-election on June 3rd and preside over an ever-more-united, ever-more-peaceful nation. The turning point in Syria was the failure of the al-Ghouta false flag in August, which the US and its Zionist lobby unsuccessfully tried to blame on Assad. More recently, another false flag plot by Turkish leaders, who were scheming to attack their own country and blame it on Assad, was exposed.

As in Ukraine, the American narrative about Syria has completely collapsed. The US and its puppets always insisted that the Syrian opposition was peaceful, democratic, and committed to human rights, while Assad’s government was the source of all atrocities. But as the smoke clears, it has become apparent that Syria, like Ukraine, was destabilized by NATO and its Operation Gladio minions.

The trouble in Syria began in the same way as in Ukraine: A mob of NATO hirelings and their deluded followers was sent into the street to be shot at by Operation Gladio false-flag snipers. The shootings were falsely blamed on the government; civil war was incited; and NATO-backed thugs and extremists went to war against the legitimate government – all according to plan. This is what the CIA has been doing all over the world since it overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh in 1953 and Guatemala’s Guzman in 1954.

Today, more and more people around the world are waking up to the manipulations and deceptions of the mainstream US narrative. Yet rather than reining in their falsehoods – the sane response to today’s interconnected hyper-mediated world – our US-NATO imperial masters keep pumping up the lies till they explode.

They must really, REALLY think we’re stupid.

Then again, if they can convince us that 19 debauched pseudo-Muslims led by a terminal kidney patient in a cave in Afghanistan could outwit the world’s most advanced air defense systems and blow up three buildings with two planes, they have good reason to think we are stupid enough to believe almost anything.

May 10, 2014 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

International Justice, Empire Style

Interventions Watch | May 8, 2014

The New York Times is today running an article on France’s attempt to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court, via a U.N. Security Council Resolution.

The article reports that the Resolution has been tailored ‘to address American sensitivities, according to several people who have seen the text’.

What are those sensitivities? Well, according to the article:

In Syria, it faces another quandary: the Golan Heights, disputed territory that is claimed by both Syria and Israel. The United States has long worried that any referral to the court could implicate Israel, a close ally, and bring it before the tribunal.

The draft text, which could be circulated to all 15 members of the Council next week, gets around the problem by defining the conflict narrowly, as involving the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, its allied militias, and armed opposition forces between March 2011 and the present. It proposes to refer that “situation” to the court in a carefully worded bid to save Israel from becoming ensnared.

So, one ‘sensitivity’ is that any referral to the ICC could open up Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights to legal review. This is obviously unacceptable to the U.S., and so France has worded the resolution in such a way that Israel will be immune from any kind investigation.

Here’s the second ‘sensitivity’:

The second way in which it addresses American concerns is that it exempts “current or former officials or personnel” of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute — except Syria. That way, if American soldiers are ever involved in the Syrian conflict, they would be immune from prosecution.

So the Resolution will  see to it that U.S. troops and political leaders would also be immune from prosecution if they are ‘ever involved’ – never mind that they are involved *now*.

There is a certain kind of liberal who places great faith in the ICC as a means of resolving conflicts and holding war criminals and human rights abusers to account. Personally, I think that faith is quite badly misplaced.

The ICC in it’s current incarnation is far too open to political manipulation and pressure from the stronger states of the world to be considered a neutral arbiter. This potential Resolution, which grants the U.S. and Israel immunity from prosecution, demonstrates that clearly.

(Incidentally, if it’s vetoed by Russia and or China, watch certain liberals scream about how Russia and China don’t care about accountability, while remaining totally silent about the fact that the Resolution would grant certain parties to the conflict total immunity)

You can look at Libya circa 2011-2014 as another example of this.

In February 2011, during the early stages of the civil war there, the situation was referred to the ICC by the U.N. Security Council,  under pressure from the U.S., Britain and France. Many of us at the time suspected this referral was less about securing justice for victims than it was about further delegitimising the Gadaffi regime as a prelude to military ‘intervention’.

What has happened since has only reinforced that idea.

The only people indicted by the ICC so far have been former Gadaffi regime officials. This is despite the fact there is copious evidence from bodies like the U.N. that rebel forces also committed war crimes and Crimes against Humanity.  In May 2012, the post-Gadaffi Libyan authorities even passed a law which essentially granted those accused of war crimes from within the rebel ranks immunity from prosecution.

You would think, then, that because the Libyan authorities can’t or won’t investigate rebel crimes themselves, that the ICC might issue indictments. But to date? Nothing.

The Libyan authorities have also refused to hand over former Gadaffi regime officials wanted by the court.

As Sarah Leah Whitson from Human Rights Watch put it in 2012, ‘it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that the NTC merely used the ICC as a political tool against Qaddafi, rather than as a tool of justice for the citizens of a nation long deprived of independent courts’.

The same is undoubtedly true of those in the ‘international community’ who pushed for the referral, in my opinion. It was simply a means to an end, the end being regime change. I see no reason to believe that their motivation in attempting to refer Syria is any different.

There could even be grounds for the ICC to investigate NATO over their conduct in Libya.

One of the worst rebel crimes in Libya was the attack on Tawergha in August 2011, in which people were systematically murdered, tortured and displaced on a mass scale. It was  an attack that was heavily coordinated with NATO forces, according to Al Jazeera.

NATO also deliberately bombed media outlets, targeted schools, and even – potentially –  civilian homes. All of which could be war crimes.

The ICC won’t be investigating these potential crimes any time soon, of course. Why? We return to today’s New York Times article for the answer:

Because Syria was also not a party to the statute, the International Criminal Court can open an investigation only with a Security Council referral. It did so with Libya in 2011. That resolution also had language that specifically protected American soldiers from potential prosecution.

It’s because the U.S. granted themselves immunity from prosecution in that conflict as well, as part of their ‘push for international justice’, Empire style.

May 9, 2014 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama regime offers $27 million in additional help for Syrian rebels

RT | May 5, 2014

The Syrian Opposition Council’s offices in the US will become formal diplomatic missions after receiving approval from the Obama administration on Monday. This comes ahead of high-level talks between the US and opposition leaders in Washington.

The administration first recognized the Syrian Opposition Council as the legitimate representative of Syria in December 2012, but did not suspend the Syrian embassy – representing the Assad government – until this March. The opposition offices were considered informal liaison offices until Monday’s announcement, where they will become “foreign diplomatic missions” under US law, the Associated Press reports.

“This is an important step in the path toward a new Syria, its recognition on the international stage, and its relations with Syrian nationals in the US,” Ahmad al-Jarba, head of the Syrian National Coalition, said in a statement. “The new status provides a diplomatic platform for the Coalition to advance the interests of the Syrian people at all levels. This is a diplomatic blow against Assad’s legitimacy and demonstrates how far the opposition has progressed.”

“It’s a reflection of our partnership with the coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters.

Jarba is embarking on his first official visit to Washington as the head of the SOC, CBS News reports. He will be joined by the new chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Brigadier General Abdelilah al-Bashir, his office told AFP, but State Department officials would not confirm.

The SOC president made the announcement of the change in status via Twitter.

The move comes as Syrian President Bashar Assad runs for reelection in June. A senior US administration official denounced the election as “a parody of democracy,” AFP reports. Assad’s decision to hold the elections “rings particularly hollow given that the regime is continuing to attack and massacre the very electorate that is purporting to represent,” the official said.

The formal recognition of the diplomatic missions is largely symbolic, as the two offices will not become the embassy in DC or the consulate in New York, AP reports. But the move was a key request by the Syrian opposition, who believe it will give them greater presence and credibility among Syrian expatriates in the US. It will allow the US government to assist the missions with banking and security services.

There are key differences between a foreign diplomatic mission and an embassy or consulate. People working in the missions will not be granted diplomatic immunity, nor will they be allowed access to the assets or properties that belong to the Assad regime, CBS News reports. Even with its embassies suspended, the Assad’s government is still officially recognized by the US.

During his visit, Jarba will meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry and members of the National Security Council and from the Treasury Department, according to CBS News. Al-Bashir is scheduled to meet with US officials “to discuss the supply of sophisticated weapons to the FSA to enable it to change the balance on the ground,” his office told AFP.

Along with the recognition, the administration promised an additional $27 million aid to the opposition council, as well as promising to step up its non-lethal assistance to moderate commanders in the Free Syrian Army, AP reports. The additional aid will bring the total US assistance to opposition groups to $278 million, according to the Guardian.

The coalition is battling against Assad in the country’s civil war, which began with peaceful protests in March 2011. More than 150,000 people have been killed and millions more have been displaced in the three years since fighting began. Assad’s forces are backed by Lebanese Hezbollah militants and pro-government militias, and have made recent battlefield gains, AP reports. In February, a second round of peace talks between the opposition, representatives of the Assad government, the US and Russia failed to reach an agreement.

May 6, 2014 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

With Washington’s Syria Gambit in Tatters, Iran’s ‘Smart Power’ Strategy Working

By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett | Going to Tehran | May 4, 2014

One of the more persistent tropes in Western discourse about the Syrian conflict is that, by “siding with” the Assad government, the Islamic Republic of Iran has marginalized itself in regional affairs and squandered much of the soft power it had accumulated as the champion of regional resistance to Western and Israeli abuse. From the outset of the Syrian conflict, we have been critical of this view (and of the Western approach to Syria more generally). For three years, we have argued that Iran is an indispensable player in any serious effort to negotiate a political settlement in Syria—and that such a settlement will necessarily be reached between the Syrian government, headed by President Bashar al-Assad, and those elements of the opposition who understand that they cannot defeat Assad either on the battlefield or at the ballot box.  In other words, a political settlement may reform Syria’s current political order—but it won’t overturn that order.

Now, events of the ground are providing ever more abundant evidence that our analysis is correct.

Late last week, the Syrian government and opposition fighters in the city of Homs reached agreement on a ceasefire. Beyond a ceasefire, the agreement is drawn to let opposition fighters leave Homs for other rebel-held areas, effectively surrendering Syria’s third-largest city back to the government. Yesterday, the New York Times and other media outlets reported that, while the evacuation of opposition fighters had not yet occurred, the ceasefire in Homs is holding. If the agreement is fully implemented, the departure of opposition fighters from Homs would constitute another significant military advance by the government in its campaign against rebel forces—helping set the stage for Syrian presidential elections on June 3, with President Assad standing for a third term. 

One of the more striking things about this story is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the talks between the Syrian government and opposition fighters that produced this agreement were “brokered by the United Nations and the Iranian Embassy in Damascus.” Western discourse about Syria wants to limit any discussion of a “peace process” in Syria to the Geneva process—but the United States and its Western partners have rendered the Geneva process utterly dysfunctional by their continued insistence on Assad’s departure as an essential precondition for a political settlement. By contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran, by having a clear political strategy of supporting elections and by being willing to deal with all relevant players—even “a hard-line Sunni Muslim rebel group,” as the Wall Street Journal describes its interlocutors in Homs—is actually able to accomplish things on the ground in Syria.

So, which parties are in fact marginalizing themselves in regional affairs by unreservedly aligning themselves with one side—and refusing to have anything to do with the other side—in the Syrian conflict? At this point, it seems that the Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing a much smarter and more effective strategy in Syria than the United States and its partners.

May 5, 2014 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Turkey gave Syria militants anti-tank missiles: Report

Press TV – April 28, 2014

Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) provided foreign-backed militants in Syria with US-made anti-tank missiles, a local daily reports.

The Turkish daily Aydinlik said in a report that the former commander of the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), Salim Idris, acted as a middleman in the transfer of the TOW anti-tank missiles from Turkey to the militants in Syria.

About a dozen militants have been trained in Turkey on how to use the weapons, the report said.

The decision for the transfer of the missiles reportedly came after a meeting between Idris and US Republican Senator John McCain last year.

Militants fighting against the Syrian government are also seeking to recruit new militants in the Turkish city of Istanbul.

On March 30, Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said the Turkish government was facilitating the entry of foreign militants into the Christian town of Kasab in northwestern Syria near the Turkish border.

Zoubi added that Ankara’s move was in violation of international resolutions as it constitutes involvement in terrorism.

Earlier in March, an audio recording uploaded on YouTube revealed a plot by top Turkish officials to conduct a false-flag attack as a pretext to invade Syria.

The recording contained the voices of Turkey’s intelligence chief Hakan Fidan, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Deputy Chief of Military Staff Yasar Guler and other senior officials discussing the possible assault.

April 28, 2014 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia

By Robert Parry | Consortium News | April 27, 2014

Now that the demonization of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is in full swing, one has to wonder when the neocons will unveil their plan for “regime change” in Moscow, despite the risks that overthrowing Putin and turning Russia into a super-sized version of Ukraine might entail for the survival of the planet.

There is a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme.

If the Palestinians and Lebanon’s Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with “regime change” – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your “regime change” in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

Just when you think you’ve cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear program.

So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.

When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you’ve succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin’s resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of “regime change.”

Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin “group think” is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts – is fine.

In just the past week, the New York Times has run two such lead stories. The first, last Monday, trumpeted supposed photographic evidence proving that Russian special forces had invaded Ukraine and were provoking the popular resistance to the coup regime in Kiev. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Another NYT-Michael Gordon Special?”]

Two days later, the Times buried deep inside the paper a grudging retraction, admitting that one key photo that the Times said was taken in Russia (showing the supposed troops before they were dispatched to Ukraine) was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the whole premise of the earlier story. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

vladimir-putin-russia-300x224Then, on Sunday, the Times led the paper with a lengthy report on the “Search for Secret Putin Fortune” with the subhead: “U.S. Suggests Russian Leader Has Amassed Wealth, and That It Knows Where.” Except the story, which spills over to two-thirds of an inside page, presents not a single hard fact about Putin’s alleged “fortune,” other than that he wears what looks like an expensive watch.

The story is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s propaganda campaign against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for wearing “designer glasses,” a theme that was picked up by the major U.S. news outlets back then without noting the hypocrisy of Nancy Reagan wearing designer gowns and Reagan’s beloved Nicaraguan Contra leaders profiting off arms sales and cocaine smuggling.

Spreading suspicions about a target’s personal wealth is right out of Propaganda 101. The thinking is that you can turn people against a leader if they think he’s ripping off the public, whether he is or isn’t. The notion that Ortega’s glasses or Putin’s watch represents serious corruption – or that they are proof of some hidden fortune – is ludicrous, but it can serve a propaganda goal of creating divisions.

But what would it mean to destabilize Russia? Does anyone think that shattering the Russian political structure through a combination of economic sanctions and information warfare will result in a smooth transition to some better future? The Russians already have tried the West’s “shock therapy” under drunken President Boris Yeltsin – and they saw the cruel ugliness of “free market” capitalism.

Putin’s autocratic nationalism was a response to the near-starvation levels of poverty that many Russians were forced into as they watched well-connected capitalists plunder the nation’s wealth and emerge as oligarchic billionaires. For all Putin’s faults, it was his push-back against some of those oligarchs and his defense of Russian interests internationally that secured him a solid political base.

In other words, even if the neocons get the Obama administration – and maybe its successor – to ratchet up tensions with Russia enough to generate sufficient political friction to drive Putin from office, the likely result would be a dangerously unstable Russia possessing a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. Putin loyalists are not likely to readily accept a replay of the Yeltsin years.

But the neocons apparently think the risks are well worth it. After all, the end result might finally let them kill off that pesky fly, Israel’s near-in threat from the Palestinians and Hezbollah. But we might remember what happened to the little old lady in the ditty, when she swallowed the horse, she was dead, of course.

~

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

April 27, 2014 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Bomb Syria… For Ukraine’s Sake!’

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | April 23, 2014

Anna-Marie Slaughter demonstrates that you need not scratch a “humanitarian interventionist” much to uncover the warmongering neoconservative just below the surface.

In an essay today, titled, “Stopping Russia Starts in Syria,” she argues that “the solution to the crisis in Ukraine lies in part in Syria.” President Obama must “demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations,” she writes.

Translation: to get Putin back for his supposed actions in Ukraine, Slaughter calls for President Obama to bomb Syria.

Slaughter recognizes the view of “Assad as the lesser evil compared to the Al Qaeda-affiliated members of the opposition” and admits that “the Syrian government does appear to be slowly giving up its chemical weapons, as it agreed last September to do.”

Nevertheless, she writes, “it is time to change Putin’s calculations, and Syria is the place to do it.”

“It is impossible to strike Syria legally so long as Russia sits on the United Nations Security Council,” she writes, so her solution is simply to do it illegally. She suggests that the US should begin bombing Syria to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 2139, even though that is not a “Chapter VII” resolution authorizing force.

It is ironic and highlights the cruel depravity of Slaughter that she suggests the bombing of Syria to enforce UNSC 2139, which was drawn up to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief to the war-ravaged Syrian people.

Using a humanitarian relief UN resolution as a cover for the most anti-humanitarian of all acts — dropping bombs — reveals the true colors of the “humanitarian interventionist” and “responsibility to protect” crowd.

Anne-Marie Slaughter embodies the disturbing trend of US government operatives (she was Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department from January 2009 until February 2011) who move into the “non-governmental” sector while directing public-private “non-profit” resources toward the promotion of US government foreign policy.

In her current position as president of the New America Foundation, she is in active partnership with the US government to develop new tools to help promote regime-change overseas. According to the New York Times, the New America Foundation has been awarded a three year contract by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop a kind of underground Internet system for Cuba.

Readers recall that USAID was recently embroiled in controversy when it covertly developed a “Cuban Twitter” platform whose purpose was to foment regime change in the Caribbean island nation.

Does anyone doubt that Slaughter’s New America Foundation is developing USAID’s “Cuban Internet” program for any reason other than to use it to further US regime change policy?

Anne-Marie Slaughter ends her preposterous “bomb Syria” essay with a phrase that could have been — and perhaps was — uttered by the likes of Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham:

Obama took office with the aim of ending wars, not starting them. But if the US meets bullets with words, tyrants will draw their own conclusions.

Bombs for peace. That is the neocon/humanitarian-interventionist war cry.

April 25, 2014 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »