http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/06/noam-chomsky-obama-runs-biggest-terrorist-operation-that-exists-maybe-in-history-2452908.html
Scholar Noam Chomsky told GRITtv this week that Obama is “running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history,” and that this is “understood at the highest level.”
The Obama administration is “dedicated to increasing terrorism throughout the world,” Chomsky said, agreeing with an article last week by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.
Chossudovsky said last Friday in an article about Obama and Syria, “Obama is a liar and a terrorist.” (See video below.)
Referring to Obama accusing Syria of weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. has supplied as it has done other terrorist groups, Chossudovsky provided documentation showing this to be true.
“A WMD saga modeled on Iraq based on fabricated evidence is unfolding,” he wrote. ”The Western media in chorus relentlessly accuse the Syrian government of premeditated mass-murder, calling upon the “international community” to come to the rescue of the Syrian people.”
Chomsky explained, “You are generating more terrorist operations.”
How are we doing that?
“People have a reaction” when they lose a loved one to an American drone strike, Chossudovsky said.
“They don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ They become what we call terrorists. This is completely understood from the highest level.”
“People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them,” Chomsky concluded. “That’s not a surprise. Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to acts of terror.”
Watch the interview with Noam Chomsky here.
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-un-105/
The rebellion has relied on foreign jihadists to do heavy lifting almost from the start, when al-Qaeda openly endorsed them, and with the Egyptian government giving its own imprimatur, Egyptian Salafists are now planning to head to Syria to join the war.
http://www.debka.com/article/23066/US-troop-buildup-in-Jordan-after-Turkey-shuts-US-NATO-arms-corridor-to-Syrian-rebels-
Against this background, the US President informed Congress Friday, June 22, that 700 combat-equipped American military personnel would remain in Jordan at the end of a joint US-Jordanian training exercise. They would include crews of two Patriot anti-aircraft missile batteries and the logistics, command and communications personnel needed to support those units. The United States is also leaving behind from the war maneuver a squadron of 12 to 24 F-16 fighter jets at Jordan’s request. Some 300 US troops have been in Jordan since last year.
Erdogan’s decision will leave the Syrian rebels fighting in Aleppo virtually high and dry. The fall of Qusayr cut off their supplies of arms from Lebanon. Deliveries through Jordan reach only as far as southern Syria and are almost impossible to move to the north where the rebels and the Hizballah-backed Syrian army are locked in a decisive battle for Aleppo.
The Turkish prime minister told Obama he is afraid of Russian retribution if he continues to let US and NATO weapons through to the Syrian rebels.
Since the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland last week, Moscow has issued almost daily condemnations of the West for arming “terrorists.”
That battle was lost after 16 days of ferocious combat; Aleppo is expected to fall after 40-60 days of great bloodshed.
President Obama reacted by topping up the US deployment in Jordan by 700 combat-equipped troops to 1,000. Patriot missile interceptors and F-16 fighter jets are left behind from their joint war game for as long as the security situation requires. DEBKAfile: The joint US-Jordanian maneuver was in fact abruptly curtailed after two weeks although it was planned to continue for two months until the end of August.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Next_Phase_of_Syrian_Invasion_Begins_--_The_Central_Bank_Connection/26817/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/8000-troops-from-19-countries-join-jordan-war-games-in-readiness-for-spreading-syria-conflict-8665343.html
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/20/syrian-rebels-demand-heavy-weapons-and-no-fly-zone/
This week’s meeting in Doha was no different, with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) using it as an opportunity to demand massive influxes of “heavy weapons” as well as an internationally-imposed no-fly zone and designated safe zones from which to launch attacks.
But those familiar with the past shipments say the rivalries are only worsened by the arms shipments, with every faction feeling they were unfairly short-changed because of another group.
Lebanon is feeling the most immediate effects, with Syrian rebels openly promising to invade Lebanon outright, and the Hezbollah militia sending large numbers of fighters to Syria to fight the rebels there. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has urged Hezbollah to withdraw, fearing that if they continue their involvement it will just suck Lebanon even deeper in.
Noam Chomsky: Obama Runs ‘Biggest Terrorist Operation That Exists, Maybe In History’
Friday, June 21, 2013 18:19
Scholar Noam Chomsky told GRITtv this week that Obama is “running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history,” and that this is “understood at the highest level.”
The Obama administration is “dedicated to increasing terrorism throughout the world,” Chomsky said, agreeing with an article last week by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.
Chossudovsky said last Friday in an article about Obama and Syria, “Obama is a liar and a terrorist.” (See video below.)
Referring to Obama accusing Syria of weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. has supplied as it has done other terrorist groups, Chossudovsky provided documentation showing this to be true.
“A WMD saga modeled on Iraq based on fabricated evidence is unfolding,” he wrote. ”The Western media in chorus relentlessly accuse the Syrian government of premeditated mass-murder, calling upon the “international community” to come to the rescue of the Syrian people.”
Chomsky explained, “You are generating more terrorist operations.”
How are we doing that?
“People have a reaction” when they lose a loved one to an American drone strike, Chossudovsky said.
“They don’t say, ‘Fine, I don’t care if my cousin was murdered.’ They become what we call terrorists. This is completely understood from the highest level.”
“People hate the country that’s just terrorizing them,” Chomsky concluded. “That’s not a surprise. Just consider the way we react to acts of terror. That’s the way other people react to acts of terror.”
Watch the interview with Noam Chomsky here.
Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks
‘A large fleet named “Mol Comfort” carrying Arms for FSA from the U.S. has crashed in the Indian Ocean as it made its way from Singapore to Jeddah, on board were 4,500 containers loaded with arms for the Syrian rebels’
‘MOL Comfort sank due to yet unclear reasons, sailing from Singapore to Jeddah and after that to North Europe, leaving behind hundreds of drifting containers and a huge aftershock hitting liner sector and all of the maritime industry.
Even the scale of the consequences is hard, impossible, to estimate, not to mention consequences themselves. This is the 1st case in liner sector, when modern ocean-going liner container vessel (built in Japan!) sank in the ocean after breaking in 2 parts, like a poorly built and managed bulk carrier or over aged coaster. Nothing like this ever occurred, and no one believed it was possible, even theoretically. It just could not happen, but still, here it is.’
‘They are killing each other’: Western weapons for Syrian rebels will intensify war
Published time: June 21, 2013 09:26
The US decision to arm the Syrian rebels fighting government troops has sparked feuds among various rebel factions dominated by radical Islamist fighters. RT contributor Afshin Rattansi warns against the move, as internal schisms among the rebels deepen.
A power struggle may also be brewing in the rebels’ ranks: Fighters from the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front have reportedly assassinated a large number of officers of the Free Syrian Army.
RT: The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front is now said to be targeting Free Syrian Army (FSA), but these two share a common goal – to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. Is there some sort of power struggle we are seeing within the rebel ranks?
Afshin Rattansi: The rebel ranks were in Istanbul recently, where they could make no type of agreement between themselves. Now they are actually killing each other. This power struggle has been going on for months and months.
And presumably President Obama and the NATO powers are saying that they will give weapons to the Free Syrian Army. Well, if Al-Nusra Front is murdering members of the Free Syrian Army, then presume they take some of those arms and use them. Disunity in the rebel ranks is high, and is now extending to attacking Kurds in the northern part of Syria.
RT: Reports say that many FSA fighters are leaving more modern brigades for hard-line groups. What are the dangers of that, and why are they doing it?
AF: The dangers are everywhere to be seen in neighboring Iraq and Lebanon, as the Al-Nusra Front becomes the lead faction in the opposition. No amount of arming the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ is going to work against the hundreds or thousands, millions or billions – we don’t know – coming from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the American allies in the Persian Gulf.
So, the dangers are everywhere to be seen. Another danger is the blowback that is occurring even now, with some of those militants returning to their home countries in Europe and perhaps to the US to fight their jihad on European and American soil.
RT: Any clearer about who or what is actually making up the FSA?
AF: The Free Syrian army seems to have deposed some of the initial leaders, but rather like the pre-Iraq-War time, we don’t really know. It isn’t stopping the Americans. They seem to know exactly who the Free Syrian Army is, and they have 2,000 marines over the Jordanian border putting in Patriot missiles and getting ready for war. They were flying F-16s over the past 48 hours.
France does not seem to know who the FSA is either, as Paris is saying “no more arms, no more weapons, until we find out who the personnel really are in this rebel movement.”
RT: What is the right way forward here with the rebels calling on Western backers to send in weapons?
AF: The right way of going about it in Syria is keeping money on the humanitarian groups that are going to help the refugees. The US should be bombing Syria not with weapons, but with airlifts of medicine and urgent medical care for all of these millions of refugees.
Syria already had a refugee crisis in the fallout of the Iraq war, and it has its own one now. So the way forward is to pour humanitarian aid into the country, and of course get those talks going in Geneva. Hopefully, all sides will be talking soon without the preconditions of this loose coalition of rebels.
Russia:”Syria Will Be Armed With Weapons That Have Never Been Seen Before In the Middle East”
Last week, Noble Peace Prize winner President Barrack Obama advised that his administration would be arming the Free Syrian Army with weapons to resist the armies of Syria’s President Bashar Assad.
Furthermore, they would look to implement a Libya-style no-fly zone over the country, which like Libya, would likely involve widespread carpet bombing of suspected military strongholds and control centers.
With boots on the ground around Syria’s borders, the United States is without a doubt preparing for widespread engagement across the region yet again, with the aim of the new U.S. supplied weapons being more killing and destruction in a civil war that has left tens of thousands dead in the last year.
It is the assumption of the Obama administration that these weapons will tip the scales of power in favor of the rebels, many of whom have been identified as members of America’s arch enemy, Al Queda.
But Russia’s KGB-hardened President Vladimir Putin has other ideas.
This week, according to a British intelligence report, Putin reportedly passed on a diplomatic communique to the United States and France using British Prime Minister David Cameron as the intermediary.
According to the report from Syrian-based Dam Press and the Dyar Newspaper, the Russians aren’t backing off their Syria policy and they are getting ready to double down by supplying Assad’s military with weapons the have never before been seen in the middle east.
If and when Western forces engage the Syrian army you can be assured that it will be nothing like the 1991 conflict in Iraq when a hundred thousand of Saddam Hussein’s soldiers surrendered without firing a shot. Nor will it be a no-fly zone free-for-all where air forces will be able to target military assets as they did in Libya without being challenged.
No, this time will be different.
This time, Russia and America may well being playing with fire. The kind that leads the people of this planet head first into World War III.
In his documentary Strategic Relocation Joel Skousen suggested that one of the most critical threats facing the world right now is the real possibility that Russia and America will engage in a future nuclear exchange.
While the weapons being supplied to Syria by both sides are a far cry from nuclear meltdown, the current policies of both nations can very quickly metastasize into a much more direct confrontation.
Vladimir Putin comes from the old world of Soviet leadership; one that believes in Russian military superiority and rules with an iron fist. He has no qualms about going to war if he finds it necessary to the long-term interests of Russia.
In the United States, President Barrack Obama is embroiled in numerous scandals and is presiding over an economy on the brink of collapse, giving him ample motivation to divert the attention of the public.
Neither of these leaders, given their past, would give pause to the thought of killing millions of people if they believe it was in their interest, or in the interest of their globalist handlers.
Wars in the 20th century, most democidal in origin, claimed the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Just statistics in the history books to leadership circles in the upper echelons of our governing apparatus.
The lives of innocents have been sacrificed on the alters of power, greed and corruption since the dawn of man.
The 21st century is no different.
What IS different is that we have never before had weapons capable of killing every single person on this planet with the press of a button.
War is coming in this century – just as it came to the good people of earth in every century before.
Watch – ”The Last Day” - What the first few minutes of World War III will look like:
Furthermore, they would look to implement a Libya-style no-fly zone over the country, which like Libya, would likely involve widespread carpet bombing of suspected military strongholds and control centers.
With boots on the ground around Syria’s borders, the United States is without a doubt preparing for widespread engagement across the region yet again, with the aim of the new U.S. supplied weapons being more killing and destruction in a civil war that has left tens of thousands dead in the last year.
It is the assumption of the Obama administration that these weapons will tip the scales of power in favor of the rebels, many of whom have been identified as members of America’s arch enemy, Al Queda.
But Russia’s KGB-hardened President Vladimir Putin has other ideas.
This week, according to a British intelligence report, Putin reportedly passed on a diplomatic communique to the United States and France using British Prime Minister David Cameron as the intermediary.
According to the report from Syrian-based Dam Press and the Dyar Newspaper, the Russians aren’t backing off their Syria policy and they are getting ready to double down by supplying Assad’s military with weapons the have never before been seen in the middle east.
If and when Western forces engage the Syrian army you can be assured that it will be nothing like the 1991 conflict in Iraq when a hundred thousand of Saddam Hussein’s soldiers surrendered without firing a shot. Nor will it be a no-fly zone free-for-all where air forces will be able to target military assets as they did in Libya without being challenged.
No, this time will be different.
This time, Russia and America may well being playing with fire. The kind that leads the people of this planet head first into World War III.
Global Research reports:
The Patriot Missiles will be hit and repealed with S 300 SAM [already installed in Syria]. Putin also threatened to deliver the more advanced S400 anti-aircraft missiles (see image below) far superior to the Patriot missiles and ranked as the World’s most advanced air defense system.
He added that Russia will also supply Syria with state-of –the-art 24-Barrell rocket launcherswhich have a range of 60 km ranked as the most developed artillery weapon of its kind.(see video below)
He added that Russia will supply 400 of these launchers which will be able to destroy all targets around Syria’s borders.
…
The British intelligence site stated that Putin threatened to send other secret Russian made weapons to Syria which would tip the balance of power even further in favour of Syria and re-iterated that these weapons will not be used against Israel on condition that Israel will not participate in the war within Syria and neighbouring countries. {Lebanon, Jordan]
…
Putin’s response came just over 24 hours after Obama’s statement on Saturday that he was going to arm the Syrian resistance.
Putin clearly stated that the Middle East is going to witness a significant change. Syria will be armed with weapons that have never been seen before [in the Middle East] including computer guided smart missiles that never miss their target.
He also added that Russia will supply Syria with Skean 5 ground -to-sea missiles that are capable of hitting and sinking any target up to 250 km off the Syrian coast.
Full report: Global Research
In his documentary Strategic Relocation Joel Skousen suggested that one of the most critical threats facing the world right now is the real possibility that Russia and America will engage in a future nuclear exchange.
While the weapons being supplied to Syria by both sides are a far cry from nuclear meltdown, the current policies of both nations can very quickly metastasize into a much more direct confrontation.
Vladimir Putin comes from the old world of Soviet leadership; one that believes in Russian military superiority and rules with an iron fist. He has no qualms about going to war if he finds it necessary to the long-term interests of Russia.
In the United States, President Barrack Obama is embroiled in numerous scandals and is presiding over an economy on the brink of collapse, giving him ample motivation to divert the attention of the public.
Neither of these leaders, given their past, would give pause to the thought of killing millions of people if they believe it was in their interest, or in the interest of their globalist handlers.
Wars in the 20th century, most democidal in origin, claimed the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Just statistics in the history books to leadership circles in the upper echelons of our governing apparatus.
The lives of innocents have been sacrificed on the alters of power, greed and corruption since the dawn of man.
The 21st century is no different.
What IS different is that we have never before had weapons capable of killing every single person on this planet with the press of a button.
War is coming in this century – just as it came to the good people of earth in every century before.
Watch – ”The Last Day” - What the first few minutes of World War III will look like:
Friends of Syria pledge to arm rebels | ||
Friends of Syria group agrees to give rebels everything they need, and calls for Iran and Hezbollah to end their roles.
Last Modified: 22 Jun 2013 17:12
     | ||
| Western and Arab countries have agreed to give urgent military support to Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad, and to channel that aid through a Western-backed rebel military command. In a statement following talks in Qatar on Saturday, ministers from the 11 main countries of the Friends of Syria group agreed "to provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground". Their final statement also condemned "the intervention of Hezbollah militias and fighters from Iran and Iraq", demanding that they withdraw immediately from Syria. The ministers said the growing sectarian nature of the conflict and the foreign interventions "threaten the unity of Syria [and] broaden the conflict" across the region. They also expressed strong concern at the increasing presence of "terrorist elements" and growing radicalisation in Syria. James Bays, Al Jazeera's diplomatic editor, said the group's statement allowed nations to do “as they wish” to support the rebels, but also showed that there was no agreement on what that should be. 'Political settlement' US Secretary of State John Kerry had earlier said that the group was committed to increasing aid to the rebels through the Supreme Military Council (SMC) of the Free Syrian Army to address the imbalance of the conflict. "The United States and other countries, in their various ways - each choosing its own approach - will increase the scope and the scale of assistance to the political and military opposition. That is why we are working with our allies gathered here today to coordinate our support to the Syria [National] Coalition and the Supreme Military Council." However, he added : "We do so not to seek a military solution. Both sides should be able to compromise. Both sides should come to the table", to find a political settlement.
The Friends of Syria group comprises Britain, France, the US, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt. Qatar's Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani said "force may be the only way to enforce righteousness and supplying weapons to the opposition may be the only way to reach peace in Syria". "As we know there are international and regional interventions, especially by Hezbollah, that led to bloodshed, especially in Qusayr and the same thing is being arranged in Aleppo." Sheikh Hamad spoke later of "secret decisions about practical measures to change the situation on the ground in Syria". He said "most countries, except for two, are agreed on how to provide assistance to the rebels through the military council," but did not name the two dissenting states. Weapons flow Supreme Military Council commander General Salim Idriss, speaking to Al Jazeera, gave his word that weapons would go to the right people. "I can give them any kind of guarantee they need and that the weapons and ammunition will go to the right hands, to the hands of the defected officers in the army," he said, referring to soldiers who had left regime forces to fight for the rebels. "I am going to build technical groups to discuss in details with every country what kind of guarantees they need." Russia, an ally of Syria, has warned that weapons provided to rebels could fall into the hands of groups like Jahabat al-Nusra, which the US has branded a terrorist organisation. | ||
http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-un-105/
The UN is still unable to determine which side used chemical weapons in Syria’s conflict, the organization’s investigative committee has said. The statement came as reports of Syrian rebels being armed intensify and fears of more bloodshed mount.
Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN commission’s inquiry into rights violations in Syria, refused to comment on evidence received from the US, UK, and France which, they claim, shows Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces using chemical weapons.
"We are not able to say who has used chemical agents or chemical weapons and we are very worried about the chain of custody of the substances," Pinheiro told reporters after an informal meeting with UN Security Council ambassadors.
UN experts investigating the use of chemical weapons say they need to access Syria to determine where the alleged chemical weapons have been used. But Syria has thus far refused to grant them entry, citing concerns for their safety and doubts about their impartiality, as neither China nor Russia were allowed to participate.
Pinheiro's commission said in a report published this month that there were "reasonable grounds to believe that chemical agents have been used as weapons".
"Allegations have been received concerning the use of chemical weapons by both parties," said the commission, adding that "the majority concern their use by government forces."
Pinheiro believes that a "diplomatic surge" is needed to resolve the long-standing conflict, which has left more than 93,000 dead, according to UN figures.
However, just before foreign ministers from the "Friends of Syria" group met in Doha on Saturday, the main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), told the AFP that it had new weapons that could beat President Bashar Assad's regime.
"We've received quantities of new types of weapons, including some that we asked for and that we believe will change the course of the battle on the ground," FSA media spokesman Louay Muqdad said.
"We have begun distributing them on the front lines, they will be in the hands of professional officers and FSA fighters," he said.
These reports come after the US decided to arm the Syrian rebels, which reportedly sparked feuds among various rebel factions dominated by radical Islamist fighters.
President Barack Obama said on Friday that the US will leave about 700 combat-equipped troops in Jordan after a training exercise there, which would increase the number of US troops stationed there to almost 1,000. The US announced earlier that it will leave Patriot missiles and warplanes in the country.
The Qatari foreign minister supported and encouraged the idea of arming the Syrian opposition fighters during the foreign ministers’ meeting in Doha.
The EU lifted its arms embargo on Syria last month, and the UK and France spoke favorably about arming the rebels, though no decisions have been due to increasing concerns about the Islamist element within the Syrian rebel forces.
Risks of arming Syria
There are fears that a power struggle may be brewing in the rebels’ ranks, with fighters from the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front reportedly assassinating a large number of officers of the Free Syrian Army.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the West against arming Syrian rebel forces, which he said included "terrorist" groups.
He reiterated that weapon supplies to the Syrian rebels would violate international law and threaten to further destabilize the war-torn state.
"Why supply weapons to militant forces in Syria when we are not sure of the composition of these groups?” he said Friday at the Economic Forum, adding that it remains unclear where these arms will end up.
"If the United States ... recognizes one of the key Syrian opposition organizations, al-Nusra, as terrorist ... how can one deliver arms to those opposition members? … Where will (those weapons) end up? What role will they play?" Putin said, arguing that a quick exit by President Bashar Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum.
Earlier on Friday, Pinheiro warned that sending more weapons into Syria would lead to more war crimes."States that provide arms have responsibilities in terms of the eventual use of those arms to commit ... war crimes or crimes against humanity," Pinheiro said.
Putin also defended Russia’s contract to deliver advanced S-300 long-range air defense systems to Damascus, saying that Moscow maintains that all arms supplies to Syria are being carried out under a contract signed with the country several years ago.
"Russia, in the framework of existing international law, in open and transparent contracts, supplies weaponry to the current and the legitimate government of Syria," Putin said.
Putin has supported Pinheiro’s idea of a “diplomatic surge”, and insisted that an international peace conference is the right way to proceed to solve the Syrian conflict, referring to the earlier proposed peace conference in Geneva on June 25.
But the conference has been continually postponed. After the clash of G8 leaders with Russia over the nature of transitional government, the conference may be delayed until late August or early September.
Battleground Syria: Foreigners Flock to Fight in Sectarian War
'Civil War' Is Increasingly About Religious Divide, Not Syria
by Jason Ditz, June 21, 2013
As the ongoing Syrian Civil War continues to get bloodier and more religious in tone, foreign fighters, who have been a real part of the conflict for a long time, are flocking to the nation in droves for a war that is less and less about Syria, and more about the age-old Sunni-Shi’ite schism.
The rebellion has relied on foreign jihadists to do heavy lifting almost from the start, when al-Qaeda openly endorsed them, and with the Egyptian government giving its own imprimatur, Egyptian Salafists are now planning to head to Syria to join the war.
As the rebellion becomes more religious and more foreign, regional Shi’ites are taking notice too which large numbers planning to take up arms and head to Syria to defend the Assad government from the “savages.”
Syria is the pretext, and Syria is the battleground, but a religious dispute that dates back to 632 and the death of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, is front and center in the conflict. The fate of Syria is increasingly an afterthought.
| Lavrov: US Actions May Derail Syria Peace Conference |
| Thousands of Shi'ites Ready to Fight in Syria: Iraq MP |
| Thousands of Shi'ites Ready to Fight in Syria: Iraq MP |
| Rocket Strike Near Beirut Brings Syrian Civil War Closer |
| |
http://www.debka.com/article/23066/US-troop-buildup-in-Jordan-after-Turkey-shuts-US-NATO-arms-corridor-to-Syrian-rebels-
The US decision to upgrade Syrian rebel weaponry has run into a major setback:DEBKAfile reveals that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan phoned President Barack Obama in Berlin Wednesday, June 19, to report his sudden decision to shut down the Turkish corridor for the transfer of US and NATO arms to the Syrian rebels.
Against this background, the US President informed Congress Friday, June 22, that 700 combat-equipped American military personnel would remain in Jordan at the end of a joint US-Jordanian training exercise. They would include crews of two Patriot anti-aircraft missile batteries and the logistics, command and communications personnel needed to support those units. The United States is also leaving behind from the war maneuver a squadron of 12 to 24 F-16 fighter jets at Jordan’s request. Some 300 US troops have been in Jordan since last year.
Erdogan’s decision will leave the Syrian rebels fighting in Aleppo virtually high and dry. The fall of Qusayr cut off their supplies of arms from Lebanon. Deliveries through Jordan reach only as far as southern Syria and are almost impossible to move to the north where the rebels and the Hizballah-backed Syrian army are locked in a decisive battle for Aleppo.
The Turkish prime minister told Obama he is afraid of Russian retribution if he continues to let US and NATO weapons through to the Syrian rebels.
Since the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland last week, Moscow has issued almost daily condemnations of the West for arming “terrorists.”
Rebel spokesmen in Aleppo claimed Friday that they now had weapons which they believe “will change the course of the battle on the ground.”
DEBKAfile’s military sources are strongly skeptical of their ability - even after the new deliveries - to stand up to the onslaught on their positions in the embattled town by the combined strength of the Syrian army, Hizballah troops and armed Iraqi Shiites. The prevailing intelligence assessment is that they will be crushed in Aleppo as they were in Al Qusayr.
That battle was lost after 16 days of ferocious combat; Aleppo is expected to fall after 40-60 days of great bloodshed.
The arms the rebels received from US, NATO and European sources were purchased on international markets – not only because they were relatively cheap but because they were mostly of Russian manufacture. The rebels are thus equipped with Russian weapons for fighting the Russian arms used by the Syria army. This made Moscow angrier than ever.
Until now, the Erdogan government was fully supportive of the Syrian opposition, permitting them to establish vital command centers and rear bases on Turkish soil and send supplies across the border to fighting units. He has now pulled the rug out from under their cause and given Assad a major leg-up
This about-turn is a strategic earthquake – not just in terms of the Syrian war but also for the United States and, as time goes by, for Israel too.
Ten years ago, Erdogan pulled the same maneuver when he denied US troops passage through Turkey to Iraq for opening a second front against Saddam Hussein.
President Obama reacted by topping up the US deployment in Jordan by 700 combat-equipped troops to 1,000. Patriot missile interceptors and F-16 fighter jets are left behind from their joint war game for as long as the security situation requires. DEBKAfile: The joint US-Jordanian maneuver was in fact abruptly curtailed after two weeks although it was planned to continue for two months until the end of August.
The widening disruptions of the surging Syrian war are on the point of tipping over into Jordan and coming closer than ever to Israel.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Next_Phase_of_Syrian_Invasion_Begins_--_The_Central_Bank_Connection/26817/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
As the secular Syrian government continues to mop up the mobs of death squads made up of mercenaries, religious fanatics, and the criminally insane (as well as cannibals), the second phase of destabilization is quickly taking shape - that is, the establishment of “no-fly zones”and the arming of the death squads by the West with even heavier weapons than they have previously been given. The destruction of Syria is thus apparently scheduled to take exactly the same form as that of Libya.
It is important to remember that, in the case of the latter country, the Anglo-Americans also funded terrorist death squads to cause a civil war inside the country, engaged in a propaganda campaign against Ghaddaffi’s government, and established “no-fly zones” inside Libya.
The rest, as they say, is history. After the establishment of a “no-fly zone,” air strikes began against Libyan military, governmental, and civilian targets. Death squads were simultaneously empowered further and assisted by the presence of Western intelligence, special forces, and military boots on the ground inside Libya.
Yet, while many have become aware of the fundamentalist and fanatical nature of the death squads which have run rampant in Syria over the last two years -- and some are even aware of the nature of their funding -- a very common question that confronts these observers is, simply, “why?”
When one analyzes past acts of conquest and aggression as well as current and future imperialist moves, it becomes clear that there is rarely only one reason for the implementation of any aspect of an agenda on any level.
Although Anglo-American imperialism, by no means, began on September 11, 2001, overt acts of aggression, destabilization, and invasion have increased both in frequency and intensity since that time. Ever since 9/11, however, the people of the Western world and the American public in particular have been provided with “reasons” for these military adventures and, thanks to the alternative media and a small minority of courageous researchers, activists, etc., they have also been provided with the “real” reasons.
Taking several of the targets into consideration, these reasons include vast oil reserves, oil pipelines,[1] opium fields, strategic positioning, no-bid contracts for the defense industry andmilitary-industrial complex, and mineral deposits.
In the proper context of the specific nations being discussed, each and every one of the above-listed justifications are both valid and accurate.
Still, in the context of Syria, it is important to understand the impetus of invasion specific to the imperialist quest against the Middle Eastern nation.
While fuel for the military-industrial complex and no-bid contracts doled out to multi-billion dollar military defense firms to rebuild what was destroyed in the conflict is no doubt on the list of reasons for the destruction of Syria, it is well known that Syria represents a strategic stronghold for Russia in terms of influence in the region. Because a confrontation with both Russia and China appear to be in the cards of the Anglo-Americans, the weakening of a strategic position of Russia in the Middle East (with Iran to be the next target) would not only be considered quite the geopolitical coup, it is a virtual necessity if one is determined to engage a nation as powerful as Russia in the long run.
Yet there is one more underlying reason for Western military intervention in Syria that is rarely discussed publicly, even among many alternative media outlets - the goal of total domination by the private central banking system.
It is true that both debt and the control of currency is one of the most effective means of enslaving an entire population without their knowledge. Continually chasing financial freedom with no ability to pay off debt and save for the future ensures that a sizable majority of the population will not have the means, time, or energy to resist the totalitarian methods imposed upon them.
Likewise, it is true that by controlling a nation’s currency, one essentially controls the nation. Governments who are beholden to third parties and private banks for their money are not governments at all – they are receiverships existing solely at the pleasure of the controlling oligarchy. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild once stated, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”
Thus, when one takes a look at the worldwide banking system and, in particular, the amount of countries with government-owned, non-Rothschild affiliated central banks, one easily sees a monopolistic system coming into view. In addition, when one takes a closer look at those countries with government-owned central banks, independent of Rothschild and major financier control, it becomes even clearer that maintaining a government-mandated structure of currency and central banking places a nation on a very dangerous list.
Enter Syria.
Existing as one of the last nations on the face of the earth that has not allowed itself to become subservient to a privately-owned central bank, Syria now finds that national financial independence does not come without the price of presenting oneself as a preferred target for the banking cartels and the nations they control.
All in all, the Syrian banking system largely consists of four state-owned banks and fourteen private banks, mostly foreign banks providing services to the private sector inside Syria. For at least forty years, the state itself has maintained a total monopoly on the Syrian banking system. Even when that total monopoly was broken, it was not in the form of the privatization of the central bank, it was merely allowing private banks to operate commercially inside the country at all.
As CountryStudies.Us writes,
Nevertheless, the process of government control over banks began in 1958 when the Syrian government began to “Arabize the commercial banking system.” In 1961, that process morphed into “limited nationalization.”
By 1966, the Syrian government completed its nationalization of the bank by merging all of the existing commercial banks into one entity which came to be known as the Commercial Bank of Syria. The government then created subsidiary banks of the Commercial Bank of Syria for the purposes of economic development such as the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Industrial Bank, the Real Estate Bank, and the Popular Credit Bank.
Not surprisingly, international bankers have been vocal enough among their own circles regarding their disdain for Syria’s government-owned central bank. In fact, in 2006, the IMF actually published its annual Article IV Consultation Report regarding Syria’s economic developments. Among the recommendations made by the IMF in the report were suggestions of changes to the Syrian banking system. The report reads:
Thus, the Article IV Consultation Report and the suggestions contained therein provide a blueprint for turning Syria’s central bank from that of a government-owned entity which serves the government (and theoretically the people) into an entity which directs it.
If the CBS (Central Bank of Syria) is allowed to “have the authority to evaluate and approve banks' policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment,” even if the government is able to choose the board and management, the CBS then becomes the sole independent force responsible for the extension (or refusal) of credit, inflation/deflation, bailouts, and the inevitable implementation of austerity measures. In other words, if the CBS is privatized from its current state, it will become the equivalent of the Syrian version of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a fate no nation should ever willingly inflict upon itself.
Nevertheless, Syria has not existed free and clear of economic distress simply because of the existence of a government-owned central bank. Over the years, the Middle Eastern nation has had to battle with inflation and high unemployment. However, dependency on imports, rationing systems, political unrest, rebellions, natural disasters, and war have all contributed greatly to Syria’s economic difficulties.
Most notably, the ridiculous sanctions imposed upon Syria by the Western world have acted as a major obstacle to true economic growth. These sanctions, while imposed recently, have been levied against Syria for some time with the United States sanctioning the Central Bank as far back as 2001 under the liberty-shredding PATRIOT ACT which ironically turned America into nothing more than a paranoid police state, even as it criticizes other nations for their human rights records.
Although a more stable environment would have produced a much greater possibility of successful implementation of economic programs and better management of the central banking system would have undoubtedly produced better economic results, the fact remains that the Syrian banking system, Central and Commercial, belong to the government and (theoretically) the people of Syria. These institutions are independent of the Rothschild international banking cartel. Thus, one may add yet another reason Syria has come under the fiery eye of the Empire.
Although currently facing the brunt of Anglo-American operations, Syria is not the only country to find itself in the crosshairs of destabilization and direct military confrontation with Western powers where the presence of a government-owned central bank may stand as a significant deciding factor for invasion. Cuba, North Korea, and, notably, Iran all maintain such government banking systems. Coincidentally, all three of these nations, particularly Iran, have become major targets of Western imperialism as of late.
While one may be tempted to ignore the presence of government-owned central banks as a contributing factor toward the decision to destabilize and/or invade sovereign nations, it is interesting to note that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan have all fallen victim to NATO-backed invasions, and/or destabilization campaigns ever since the push for the New American Century took off in 2001.
“Coincidentally,” these nations all held government-owned central banks prior to the intervention.
After the conflict had ended, or at least subsided, all of these nations were presented with a new banking system which was privately owned; another “strange coincidence” for those unwilling to acknowledge the existence of a pattern.
Thus it now appears that “Democracy” and “private central banking” stand as the only thing the West is capable of exporting.
[1] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink Publishing Group. 2004.
Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.
Activist Post
As the secular Syrian government continues to mop up the mobs of death squads made up of mercenaries, religious fanatics, and the criminally insane (as well as cannibals), the second phase of destabilization is quickly taking shape - that is, the establishment of “no-fly zones”and the arming of the death squads by the West with even heavier weapons than they have previously been given. The destruction of Syria is thus apparently scheduled to take exactly the same form as that of Libya.
It is important to remember that, in the case of the latter country, the Anglo-Americans also funded terrorist death squads to cause a civil war inside the country, engaged in a propaganda campaign against Ghaddaffi’s government, and established “no-fly zones” inside Libya.
The rest, as they say, is history. After the establishment of a “no-fly zone,” air strikes began against Libyan military, governmental, and civilian targets. Death squads were simultaneously empowered further and assisted by the presence of Western intelligence, special forces, and military boots on the ground inside Libya.
Although Assad has proven more capable than Ghaddaffi of withstanding the initial onslaught set in motion by the Anglo-Americans than Ghaddaffi and has demonstrated better political connections with other powerful nations, the fate of Libya awaits Syria if something is not done to derail this war machine.
Yet, while many have become aware of the fundamentalist and fanatical nature of the death squads which have run rampant in Syria over the last two years -- and some are even aware of the nature of their funding -- a very common question that confronts these observers is, simply, “why?”
When one analyzes past acts of conquest and aggression as well as current and future imperialist moves, it becomes clear that there is rarely only one reason for the implementation of any aspect of an agenda on any level.
Although Anglo-American imperialism, by no means, began on September 11, 2001, overt acts of aggression, destabilization, and invasion have increased both in frequency and intensity since that time. Ever since 9/11, however, the people of the Western world and the American public in particular have been provided with “reasons” for these military adventures and, thanks to the alternative media and a small minority of courageous researchers, activists, etc., they have also been provided with the “real” reasons.
Taking several of the targets into consideration, these reasons include vast oil reserves, oil pipelines,[1] opium fields, strategic positioning, no-bid contracts for the defense industry andmilitary-industrial complex, and mineral deposits.
In the proper context of the specific nations being discussed, each and every one of the above-listed justifications are both valid and accurate.
Still, in the context of Syria, it is important to understand the impetus of invasion specific to the imperialist quest against the Middle Eastern nation.
While fuel for the military-industrial complex and no-bid contracts doled out to multi-billion dollar military defense firms to rebuild what was destroyed in the conflict is no doubt on the list of reasons for the destruction of Syria, it is well known that Syria represents a strategic stronghold for Russia in terms of influence in the region. Because a confrontation with both Russia and China appear to be in the cards of the Anglo-Americans, the weakening of a strategic position of Russia in the Middle East (with Iran to be the next target) would not only be considered quite the geopolitical coup, it is a virtual necessity if one is determined to engage a nation as powerful as Russia in the long run.
Yet there is one more underlying reason for Western military intervention in Syria that is rarely discussed publicly, even among many alternative media outlets - the goal of total domination by the private central banking system.
It is true that both debt and the control of currency is one of the most effective means of enslaving an entire population without their knowledge. Continually chasing financial freedom with no ability to pay off debt and save for the future ensures that a sizable majority of the population will not have the means, time, or energy to resist the totalitarian methods imposed upon them.
Likewise, it is true that by controlling a nation’s currency, one essentially controls the nation. Governments who are beholden to third parties and private banks for their money are not governments at all – they are receiverships existing solely at the pleasure of the controlling oligarchy. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild once stated, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”
Thus, when one takes a look at the worldwide banking system and, in particular, the amount of countries with government-owned, non-Rothschild affiliated central banks, one easily sees a monopolistic system coming into view. In addition, when one takes a closer look at those countries with government-owned central banks, independent of Rothschild and major financier control, it becomes even clearer that maintaining a government-mandated structure of currency and central banking places a nation on a very dangerous list.
Enter Syria.
Existing as one of the last nations on the face of the earth that has not allowed itself to become subservient to a privately-owned central bank, Syria now finds that national financial independence does not come without the price of presenting oneself as a preferred target for the banking cartels and the nations they control.
All in all, the Syrian banking system largely consists of four state-owned banks and fourteen private banks, mostly foreign banks providing services to the private sector inside Syria. For at least forty years, the state itself has maintained a total monopoly on the Syrian banking system. Even when that total monopoly was broken, it was not in the form of the privatization of the central bank, it was merely allowing private banks to operate commercially inside the country at all.
As CountryStudies.Us writes,
The primary legislation establishing a central bank and control of the banking system was passed in 1953, but the Central Bank was not formed until 1956. Its functions included issuing notes, controlling the money supply, acting as fiscal agent for the government, and controlling credit and commercial banks. It was also to act as the country's development bank until specialized banks were established for various sectors. The Central Bank had considerable discretionary powers over the banking system but was itself responsible to and under the control of the Council on Money and Credit, a policy group of high-ranking officials.Country Studies continues by stating that “The general philosophy was that the banking system should be an agent of government economic policy.” No doubt such a concept is a novel idea in 2013, perhaps even more so than it was in 1953.
Nevertheless, the process of government control over banks began in 1958 when the Syrian government began to “Arabize the commercial banking system.” In 1961, that process morphed into “limited nationalization.”
By 1966, the Syrian government completed its nationalization of the bank by merging all of the existing commercial banks into one entity which came to be known as the Commercial Bank of Syria. The government then created subsidiary banks of the Commercial Bank of Syria for the purposes of economic development such as the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Industrial Bank, the Real Estate Bank, and the Popular Credit Bank.
Not surprisingly, international bankers have been vocal enough among their own circles regarding their disdain for Syria’s government-owned central bank. In fact, in 2006, the IMF actually published its annual Article IV Consultation Report regarding Syria’s economic developments. Among the recommendations made by the IMF in the report were suggestions of changes to the Syrian banking system. The report reads:
Progress toward this medium-term goal should start by having the central bank gain full control of existing direct instruments. The central bank should have the right to decide on credit ceilings and credit policies of banks with a view to ensuring a pace of credit and monetary expansion consistent with maintaining price stability while fostering economic activity and employment. Banks have to abide by all prudential regulations. Beyond this, the role and responsibilities of the central bank and the ministry of finance in exercising oversight on the banks should be clearly defined. While the government could play a lead role in choosing the board and the management of public banks, the CBS should have the authority to evaluate and approve banks' policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment.Clearly, if these are the responsibilities the IMF believes the Syrian Central Bank should have, then it logically follows that they are responsibilities it does not have currently. Thus, the Central Bank is at least kept in check by the refusal to allow it unbridled control over monetary policy as a private “independent” institution.
Thus, the Article IV Consultation Report and the suggestions contained therein provide a blueprint for turning Syria’s central bank from that of a government-owned entity which serves the government (and theoretically the people) into an entity which directs it.
If the CBS (Central Bank of Syria) is allowed to “have the authority to evaluate and approve banks' policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment,” even if the government is able to choose the board and management, the CBS then becomes the sole independent force responsible for the extension (or refusal) of credit, inflation/deflation, bailouts, and the inevitable implementation of austerity measures. In other words, if the CBS is privatized from its current state, it will become the equivalent of the Syrian version of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a fate no nation should ever willingly inflict upon itself.
Nevertheless, Syria has not existed free and clear of economic distress simply because of the existence of a government-owned central bank. Over the years, the Middle Eastern nation has had to battle with inflation and high unemployment. However, dependency on imports, rationing systems, political unrest, rebellions, natural disasters, and war have all contributed greatly to Syria’s economic difficulties.
Most notably, the ridiculous sanctions imposed upon Syria by the Western world have acted as a major obstacle to true economic growth. These sanctions, while imposed recently, have been levied against Syria for some time with the United States sanctioning the Central Bank as far back as 2001 under the liberty-shredding PATRIOT ACT which ironically turned America into nothing more than a paranoid police state, even as it criticizes other nations for their human rights records.
Although a more stable environment would have produced a much greater possibility of successful implementation of economic programs and better management of the central banking system would have undoubtedly produced better economic results, the fact remains that the Syrian banking system, Central and Commercial, belong to the government and (theoretically) the people of Syria. These institutions are independent of the Rothschild international banking cartel. Thus, one may add yet another reason Syria has come under the fiery eye of the Empire.
Although currently facing the brunt of Anglo-American operations, Syria is not the only country to find itself in the crosshairs of destabilization and direct military confrontation with Western powers where the presence of a government-owned central bank may stand as a significant deciding factor for invasion. Cuba, North Korea, and, notably, Iran all maintain such government banking systems. Coincidentally, all three of these nations, particularly Iran, have become major targets of Western imperialism as of late.
While one may be tempted to ignore the presence of government-owned central banks as a contributing factor toward the decision to destabilize and/or invade sovereign nations, it is interesting to note that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan have all fallen victim to NATO-backed invasions, and/or destabilization campaigns ever since the push for the New American Century took off in 2001.
“Coincidentally,” these nations all held government-owned central banks prior to the intervention.
After the conflict had ended, or at least subsided, all of these nations were presented with a new banking system which was privately owned; another “strange coincidence” for those unwilling to acknowledge the existence of a pattern.
Thus it now appears that “Democracy” and “private central banking” stand as the only thing the West is capable of exporting.
[1] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink Publishing Group. 2004.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/8000-troops-from-19-countries-join-jordan-war-games-in-readiness-for-spreading-syria-conflict-8665343.html
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/20/syrian-rebels-demand-heavy-weapons-and-no-fly-zone/
Syrian Rebels Demand ‘Heavy Weapons’ and No-Fly Zone
Insists They Need Western-Imposed Safe Zones
The “Friends of Syria” meetings have become a regular ritual across the nations in favor of regime change in Syria, with officials from a number of nations getting together every week or two to make new pledges of aid for rebel factions, while rebels insist that whatever they are promised is insufficient.
This week’s meeting in Doha was no different, with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) using it as an opportunity to demand massive influxes of “heavy weapons” as well as an internationally-imposed no-fly zone and designated safe zones from which to launch attacks.
FSA spokesman Louay Meqdad insisted that the rebels vitally need shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft weapons, anti-tank missiles, mortars and other arms, while saying they needed to ensure that Syria’s military wasn’t going to “use Scud missiles with unconventional warheads” against them.
Though there seems to be more momentum to send arms unquestioningly to the FSA, their past promises to attack civilian aircraft if given the opportunity likely casts a wide shadow over giving them anything too advanced.
Arms Smuggling Fuels Syrian Rebel Infighting
Rivalries Slow Shipments, as Shipments Grow Rivalries
by Jason Ditz, June 20, 2013
Arming the Syrian rebels is a complicated process, in no small part because of just how many different rebel factions there are, and how many of them are in open conflict with one another.
But those familiar with the past shipments say the rivalries are only worsened by the arms shipments, with every faction feeling they were unfairly short-changed because of another group.
Smuggling the weapons in relies on cooperation from several different groups, and every time more weapons come in, those groups are more and more at odds. And this was just with the arms from Saudi Arabia and others.
As the US looks to dramatically increase the flow of heavy weapons into the country, the problem will just grow all the more serious. Far from being a rallying point for the divided rebels, the US arms will just further divide them.
Iraq, Lebanon Alarmed at the Spread of Syria’s Civil War
Iraq FM: War Tearing the Region Apart
by Jason Ditz, June 20, 2013
As the fighting in Syria’s endless civil war continues to escalate, fear of the conflict turning regional has been replaced with a recognition that the conflict is already spreading across the border, and it’s only going to get worse.
Lebanon is feeling the most immediate effects, with Syrian rebels openly promising to invade Lebanon outright, and the Hezbollah militia sending large numbers of fighters to Syria to fight the rebels there. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has urged Hezbollah to withdraw, fearing that if they continue their involvement it will just suck Lebanon even deeper in.
Iraq is feeling it on both sides too, with its own sectarian fighting straying back and forth across the border and both Shi’ite and Sunni militias head to Syria to get in on that war, in between fighting one another in Iraq. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warns the war is tearing the whole region apart, while reiterating his government’s attempts to stay neutral.
In both cases, the government’s desire to stay neutral is not universally shared, with Syria remaining a big “prize” that is up for grabs in the region, and the results of its war bound to have long-term, dramatic effects on its neighbors and everyone else in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment