Author Topic: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring  (Read 5765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
CIA and State Looted and Killed in Burning Houses the IMF and NGOs Set Ablaze

Five years ago, the suicidal protest of a poor Tunisia fruit vendor against his government sparked his nation into a revolution that spread across a whole region of the globe. 

Ten days after the vendor’s death the leader of Tunisia would be forced into a panicked resignation from 23 years of rule and flee to Saudi Arabia. 

Ninety nine days after the fruit vendor’s death the leader of Egypt would be arrested and jailed by livid throngs of countrymen ending 30 years of ruler ship. 

289 days after the fruit vendor’s death the leader of Libya would be hunted down, tortured and executed by his countrymen ending roughly 42 years of rule. 

A firestorm of revolution had swept across North Africa and into the Levant, reigniting Iraq and sending Syria into what many ‘experts’ expressed as an inevitable continuation of revolution stricken failed states. 

A little more than a year after the Tunisian fruit vendor’s death, a series of loosely coordinated Islamist radicals had hijacked the Arab Spring:  al Qaeda had pushed into the power vacuum in Tunisia; the Muslim Brotherhood had unbanned themselves from Egyptian politics and reminded the world why they’d been banned; al Qaeda had raised their infamous black flag over Libya’s capital; the spawn of ISIS was festering in Iraq; Jabat Al Nusra was coordinating with the Muslim Brotherhood and various other branches of al Qaeda to topple Syria.  Thousands of people were dead, hundreds of thousands in flight - whatever had begun in Tunisia with a protest against government corruption had gone terribly wrong – one man’s suicide had caused the whole region to descend into flaming, bloody anarchy.  Or so the official story goes.

William James, one of the founders of modern psychology, was on to something when he said, "there's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it".

For years many of the various ‘news’ programs and political mouthpieces of the western world have repeated the narrative of the noble Arab Spring and the inevitable Civil Wars that followed.  For years we’ve been spoon fed this storyline blended with the age old boogie men from the War on Terror and continually pressed with the importance of toppling regional dictators to keep the world safe, to spread democracy and tolerant cultural values amongst the oppressed people of an illiberal world.  For years there’s been little but two tongued word smiths and cocktail-dressed succubi spinning the greatest hits of the ones that set the stage for the fruit vendor’s suicide; the ones that trained the Facebook and Twitter revolutionaries; the ones that armed and trained the usurping radical Islamists for murder and mayhem.  This was no simple organic mass reclamation of personal liberties from the iron fists of tyrannical regimes.  No.  This article will argue that this was an engineered series of war crimes and crimes against humanity used to create then capitalize on what these fire builders must have realized, and did in some circles admit, was the inevitable result of their own pyres.

There is an ancient Chinese stratagem that goes something like, “loot a burning house”.  How better for a thief or a murderer to avoid capture?
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2016, 02:01:23 pm »
The Burning Houses – Tunisia

The poverty stricken fruit vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on December 17, 2010 to protest, what was described by his close friend, as a lifetime of repression and humiliation.  "Since he was a child, they were mistreating him. He was used to it,… I saw him humiliated."  He was described as honest, hardworking, and dedicated to his family.  That same close friend explained further that, "What really gave fire to the revolution was that Mohamed was a very well-known and popular man. He would give free fruit and vegetables to very poor families”. [1]

Mr. Bouazizi’s accused assailer, Faida Hamdy, was a middle aged municipal inspector with “an unblemished record” and “a strong personality” according to her supervisor.  Kareem Fahim, writing for the New York Times, characterized her job:  “She inspected buildings, investigated noise complaints and fined vendors like Mr. Bouazizi, whose itinerant trade may or may not have been legal…” [2]

Patrick Bond of the Transnational Institute dove into the vendor’s plight in an article titled, “Africa: Chilling the Arab Spring”:

Mohammed Bouazizi was an informal street trader, and the police overturned his fruit cart a few weeks later, on December 27, presumably because he was not contributing to Value Added Tax with his survivalist business.[3]

The article sites an IMF Survey Magazine that praised President Ben Ali for his commitment "to reduce tax rates on businesses and to offset those reductions by increasing the standard Value Added Tax (VAT) rate."[3]

Mr. Bond’s article delves into the close philosophical and collaborative relationship between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Tunisia’s dictator-President at the time, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.  The IMF’s Managing Director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, effusively praised Bin Ali’s "contribution to the reinforcement of economic development at the global level," that "Economic policy adopted [in Tunisia] is a sound policy and is the best model for many emerging countries."  At least one of the IMF’s own studies reveals these to be regressive taxes in some cases, accomplishing the antithesis of their proclaimed goal.[3]

These studies generally find that VAT tax expenditures, although generally progressive (but not always), are poorly targeted and very costly. For example, a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2014) find that this is the case for low-VAT rates on food in 15 OECD countries. Interestingly, the same study finds that low VAT rates targeted to social or cultural objectives (e.g. restaurants and hotel accommodation) are regressive....

...the distributional impact of low VAT rates... and exemptions in Tunisia... are consistent with expectations... The top quintile of the income distribution reaps a much higher share (about 40 percent) of VAT tax expenditures, while the first quintile receive less than 10 percent,...

A paper published by the Journal of Urban Research elaborates on the overburdened, impoverished conditions Tunisian ‘informal traders’ bore under the weight of international economic regulations,

The growth in informal trade has a significant impact on several areas of the Tunisian economy. Fuel is cheaper, but government revenues are reduced, not only because goods are not subject to customs duties at the Tunisian border, but also because traders avoid paying value-added tax (VAT) provided they remain within the informal network….

…While some are highly visible, such as transporters carrying the goods across the border, street vendors, and ad hoc traders (known informally as “ants”), others are less so, such as wholesalers, currency changers, and officials in the relevant administrations who are willing to turn a blind eye on the practice. This kind of trade also keeps many goods within budget for Tunisian consumers.

Mr. Fahim’s NY Times article, mentioned earlier, tallied the unseen costs of an official’s ‘blind eye’,

In the world of the fruit and vegetable vendors, the bribes were small — 10 dinars, about $7, to appease the inspectors, or sometimes just a bag of fruit, the vendors said. When the municipal inspectors would arrive, the vendors had three options: to run and leave the fruit that some of them had bought on credit, to offer a bribe or to pay a fine of 20 dinars, the equivalent of about $14, or several day’s wages.[2]

The protests that followed Mr. Bouazizi’s self-immolation spiraled into riots as the Tunisian police asserted more and more brutality.  Mrs. Ryan’s Al Jazeera article, also mentioned earlier, described that hospitals saw their incoming patients double in addition to two men shot in the conflagration who died from their injuries.  Dozens of others were reportedly killed as well.[1][6] 

The streets had become dangerous and protesting perilous.  It’s no wonder that some people resorted to the relative safety indoors and engaged online: 

…Shamseddine Abidi, a 29-year old interior designer who posted videos and updates to his Facebook page. A journalist from Al Jazeera was one of Mr. Abidi’s Facebook friends, and quickly the Arabic channel, almost alone, carried the news abroad.[1]

The net became instrumental for Tunisia’s message to carry beyond the dissent suppressing crack-downs.  The message had been gaining strength for quite some time.  What started as a self-described cyber think tank, “Takriz”, had been working for Tunisians’ liberties since 1998.  John Pollock’s in depth article, “Streetbook”, covers their evolution and the birth of several other internet activist groups founded explicitly to take up the slack when the oppressive government moved to censor Takriz.  Mr. Pollock outlined the steady increase in Tunisians use of the net to counter the increase in censorship:

In Tunisia… Ben Ali’s online censorship had been growing increasingly draconian. (In 2009 Freedom House would rank Tunisia below China and Iran on measures of Internet freedom.) Dailymotion and YouTube were blocked in 2007. A technique called deep packet inspection (which is much what it sounds like) was used to stop e-mail deliveries, strip read messages from in-boxes, and prevent attachments to Yahoo mail. Reports about Gafsa on Facebook, which then included just 28,000 of some two million Tunisians online, led the regime to block Facebook itself for two weeks. By October 2009, with national elections approaching, over 800,000 were on the social-networking service. (As Ben Ali fled more than a year later, the number would reach 1.97 million—over half of Tunisians online, and almost a fifth of the total population.)[6]

This was a wonderful bulwark against the corruption of the state – an organic expression of the right of an informed citizenry to counter dictatorship with dissent.  If only their volunteerism hadn’t been corrupted by a dissembling foreign influence? 

For years multiple U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations with long standing working relations to the U.S. State Department weaseled their way into Tunisian political power circles and civil society under the guises of promoting democracy.  National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House, and the National Democratic Institute - these ironically named organizations have a long history of internationally meddlesome behavior.[7][8]

Kerry R Bolton’s insightful January 2011 article, “Tunisian Revolt: Another Soros/NED Jack-Up?”, cuts to the quick of the NED grants in 2009,

Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought (AJFFT) $131,000
To strengthen the capacity and build a democratic culture among Tunisian youth activists. AJFFT will hold discussion forums on contemporary issues related to Islam and democracy, debates between Arab scholars on societal problem, academic lectures on Islam, economic policy and international relations, and book review sessions. AJFFT will conduct leadership training workshops, support local youth cultural projects…'

Association for the Promotion of Education (APES) $27,000
To strengthen the capacity of Tunisian high school teachers to promote democratic and civic values in their classrooms. APES will conduct a training-of-trainers workshop for 10 university professors and school inspectors, and hold three two-day capacity building seminars for 120 high school teachers on pedagogical approaches rooted in democratic and civic values. Through this project, APES seeks to incorporate the values of tolerance, relativism and pluralism in Tunisia’s secondary educational system.

Mohamed Ali Center for Research, Studies and Training (CEMAREF) $33,500
To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists on leadership and organizational skills to encourage their involvement in public life. CEMAREF will conduct a four-day intensive training of trainers program for a core group of 10 young Tunisian civic activists on leadership and organizational skills; train 50 male and female activists aged 20 to 40 on leadership and empowered decision-making; and work with the trained activists through 50 on-site visits to their respective organizations….

The terminology here is not even hidden with euphemisms: “To train a core group of Tunisian youth activists…” Might one not be justified in suspecting that the intention is to create a revolutionary youth cadre for the purposes of “regime change”, following exactly the same blueprint that has orchestrated “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc and elsewhere?

Michael Posner, the assistant Secretary of State for human rights and labor, would go on to admit in an AFP article, only a few months into 2011, that the State Department had been running programs in various parts of the world training government opposition groups to utilize social media platforms and evade government prosecution.  The Assistant Secretary of State went on as if to brag about $50 million that had been spent by the US government in the last two years alone to “help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.”   AFP’s report continued,

…it has organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world.
A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.
“They went back and there’s a ripple effect,” Posner said.

January 14, 2011, 18 days after his fiery demonstration, Mohammed Bouazizi died of his injuries.  He had been visited by the former dictator-President Ben Ali (who fled Tunisia for refuge in Saudi Arabia the day Mr. Bouazizi died); he had been hailed as a national hero by fellow Tunisians and he had begun to be regaled by the international press.   Two days later he would be buried by 5000 Tunisians vowing, according to one witness, "Farewell, Mohamed, we will avenge you. We weep for you today, we will make those who caused your death weep."  Mr. Bouazizi’s uncle was quoted at the funeral march by AFP, "Mohamed gave his life to draw attention to his condition and that of his brothers,… [a] deep sorrow and a feeling of injustice felt by all."[11]
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2016, 02:04:32 pm »
Looting – Tunisia – “Somebody is stealing our revolution”, “and killing beautiful souls”

In the immediate vacuum of power trailing ex-President Ben Ali’s flight, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed the presidency.  The next day he anointed parliamentary speaker Fouad Mebazaa as President.  Then President Mebazaa bid his anointer make way for a “unity government,” decreeing a “national unity government in the country’s best interests.”[8]

Andrew Gavin Marshall’s detailed article, “Will Tunisia Transition from Tyranny into Democratic Despotism?”, details the abridgement of power wherein western interests were revealed nakedly taking advantage of the chaos a foot.

Within days, the formation of a unity government was announced, vowing “to work towards democracy,”… However, the public in the streets were not satisfied with the creation of a “unity government” containing many remnants of the Ben Ali regime, with some activists claiming, “The new government is a sham. It’s an insult to the revolution that claimed lives and blood.”…

Two days following Ben Ali’s departure, an Egyptian newspaper reported that Army Chief Rachid Ammar was in immediate contact with the American Embassy in Tunis, according to an officer in the Tunisian National Guard, and that the U.S. Embassy gave instructions to Ammar “to take charge of Tunisian affairs if the situation gets out of control.”… the military was aiming to support the “unity government,”

…U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (the U.S. Middle east envoy) Jeffrey Feltman, traveled to Tunisia the same day that General Ammar spoke to the crowds, supposedly in order to “convey U.S. support to the Tunisian people,” and assess “how the United States can help” with the ‘transition.’ Feltman “said the Obama administration could be helpful in providing support and preparations for Tunisia’s upcoming elections through American nongovernmental organizations that have helped other countries that did not have prior histories of allowing a free and fair process.” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that the unity government is “trying to be responsive,” and that, “this is a government that is trying hard to respond to the aspirations of its people.”
In other words, American officials are deeply involved in attempting to legitimize the Tunisian “unity government,”…  America is attempting to stem the ‘revolution’ and maintain and manage the ‘evolution’ into a democratic government which they would ultimately control, just as suggested by the CFR Task Force Report. As one Tunisian protester proclaimed, “Somebody is stealing our revolution.”

By May 22, 2011, the UN would report 300 people had been killed in the Tunisian uprising, “torture still continues.”[9]

The revolution overwhelmed the interim ‘unity-government’ and the subsequent Islamist one that followed.  An appointed Minister of Industry; the former employee of one of the spidering-arms of one the world largest oil and gas companies in the world - regular Bilderberg attendee and described by notable sources as a technocrat - Mehdi Jomaa, would be appointed Head of the Government, for the purposes of leading the country into a general election based on the new Constitution.  His biography, published on Columbia University’s World Leaders Forum, describes that, 

During his mandate, he reorganized the security apparatus for a more efficient response to terrorism, launched a national economic dialogue and initiated several reforms in banking, taxation and in the national subsidies system.  In September 2014, he organized a major international conference entitled "Invest in Tunisia".[11a]

The Financial Times, in early 2014, described some of this new plan that was so readily acceptable to international financiers that they were rash to throw loans at it,

The International Monetary Fund has released more than $500m in support to Tunisia, hours after a new caretaker government led by Mehdi Jomaa, a technocrat and former industry minister, was sworn in to replace a cabinet led by Islamists.

The disbursement, the second tranche of a $1.74bn loan agreed in June,...

Tunisia had reached a record low debt to GDP ratio of 40.20% in 2010.  The ratio is roughly 7% higher today and Tunisia’s value added tax rate is unchanged since Mr. Bouazizi’s suicide.  By the World Bank’s own measurements, poverty and unemployment rates also remain large problems.[11c][11d][11e]

Faida Hamdy, the ex-Tunisian council inspector who confiscated Mr. Bouazizi’s livelihood and humiliated him in public, has regretted her actions both for the fruit vendor’s sake and for Tunisia’s.  Five years later, to the day, a report carried by the UK Independent illustrated the pain of a wizened woman,

“Sometimes I wish I’d never done it… I feel responsible for everything… sometimes, I blame myself and say it is all because of me.

"I made history since I was the one who was there and my action contributed to it but look as us now. Meanwhile, Tunisians are suffering as always….”

“When I look at the region and my country, I regret it all.” she added.

“Death everywhere and extremism blooming, and killing beautiful souls.”
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2016, 02:10:12 pm »
The Burning Houses - Egypt

The fires of Tunisia leapt across the Southern Mediterranean to mingle with the burning embers of a smoldering Egypt, and January 25, 2011, Egyptians filled the streets en masse engulfing Tahrir Square to cry-out against decades of economic woe, widespread corruption, and state brutality under President Hosni Mubarak’s rule.  Earlier that winter, many asserted that the ruling party had coldly rigged the Egyptian parliamentary elections helping to swell the dissent that grew steadily alongside the wildfire that had been lit in Tunisia.[12][13]  Earlier that year, in the Summer of 2010, a young Google marketing executive, Wael Ghonim, posted an image on Facebook of another young man violently killed by police that went viral.  In the three months that followed, the page he’d created gained 250,000 followers, in what Jose Antonio Vargas, writing for the New York Times, characterized as a major cause of the protests that,   

…inevitably spilled onto the streets, starting with a series of “Silent Stands” that culminated in a massive and historic rally at Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo. “We Are All Khaled Said” helped ignite an uprising that led to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak and the dissolution of the ruling National Democratic Party. In turn, Ghonim — who was arrested during the height of the protests — reluctantly became one of the leading voices of the Arab Spring.[14]

And yet the internet activism had begun years and years before and the economic problems had been endured for even longer.  In fact the economic (and nutritional problems) had recently reached terrible levels circa 2010:  22-25% below the poverty line; 17% going periodically hungry; malnutrition so widespread that 20-30% of children had stunted growth; $160 billion in debt - 73.17% of GDP.[15]

A case study published by a UK debt watchdog group described the run up to an IMF loan that then President Mubarak was still negotiating as chaos surrounded him.

Barely a year before Egypt’s 2011 revolution exploded on to the streets the IMF were praising Hosni Mubarak’s pro-market economic reforms as “bold” and “impressive”. After all, he was cutting taxes for the rich, privatising industry, driving down wages, cutting health and education spending and attacking workers’ rights.

The revolution’s slogan of ‘bread, freedom and social justice’ was a direct response to increasing austerity, unemployment and privatisation. And much of the anger was directed at the IMF and lending institutions who were complicit in keeping Egypt’s poor facing the dire consequences of a spiral of debt and falling living standards.

Kinda Mohamadieh, Senior Policy Advisor for the Arab NGO, Network for Development in Beirut, asserted that the IMF’s 2010 proposal for Mubarak government was repeated the following year, for the interim government. 

“Overall the vision that the IMF presents to Egypt is one of deeper liberalization and deregulation, without serious assessment of the implications that such policies have reaped for the country thus far.

Focusing on inflation, fiscal deficits, and servicing debt carried forward from years of unaccountable economic policymaking—the IMF loan’s prerogative—is too narrow a view of stabilization….”

None of this was reactionary policy-making aimed squarely at the problem developing on the ground in Egypt.  Quite the contrary, this was methodical continuation of a precise and exacting plan.  Adam Hanieh’s article, “Debt and “Democracy” in Egypt: The IMF’s Deadly Economic Reforms” explored the slow-hand pickpocketing of the Egyptian people.

Egypt’s net transfers on long-term debt between 2000 and 2009, which measures the total difference between received loans and repayments, reached $3.4-billion.  In other words, contrary to popular belief, more money actually flows from Egypt to Western lenders than vice versa. These figures demonstrate the striking reality of Egypt’s financial relationship with the global economy – Western loans act to extract wealth from Egypt’s poor and redistribute it to the richest banks in North America and Europe.

Of course, the decision to borrow this money and enter into this ‘debt trap’ was not made by Egypt’s poor. The vast majority of this debt is public or publically guaranteed (around 85%), i.e. debt that was taken on by the Mubarak government with the open encouragement of the IFIs. Egypt’s ruling elite – centered around Mubarak and his closest coterie – profited handsomely from these transactions (estimated in the many billions). This is indicative of the fact that much of Egypt’s debt is what development economists call ‘odious debt’ – debt that has been built up by a dictatorial regime without regard to the needs of the population. Mubarak does not hold sole responsibility for this process. The World Bank, IMF and many other lenders continued to encourage this borrowing (and to praise Egypt’s economic direction under Mubarak) precisely because it was such a profitable enterprise.

And yet Mubarak was more than a little skeptical of any western driven reform, even if the goal was so-called ‘democracy’.  Members of Egypt’s government began raising “repeated objections” to the US Government directly funding NGOs, “since the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) began it in 2005”.  Furthermore that,

USAID and Department of State (State) guidance calls for the development of risk management plans for their programs. State and USAID have taken some steps to manage the risks of providing democracy and governance assistance in Egypt,…[19]

This same review by the US Government Accountability Office started out by citing another valuable bit of information.  The US government had not only troubled themselves with a threat assessment to their plans to “democratize” Egypt, but, “[included] the Egyptian government's likely objection to the U.S. plan to use $65 million to directly fund nongovernmental organizations (NGO) in 2011.”  What expectation of democracy was there in such meddling?

Ron Nixon’s piece, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings”, published in the New York Times is illustrative in drawing out the collusion of U.S. NGOs with the U.S. State Department in shaping the outcomes of revolutions they help to stir up.  One of Mr. Nixon’s first points is derived from a telling comparison, “The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon.”  The article reads like a leaked confession from here on out.

…as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks….

Mr. Nixon’s article does include a coy voice of denial, one Stephen McInerney, the Project on Middle East Democracy’s executive director, an “advocacy and research group” out of DC.  “We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,… “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it.”

Mr. Nixon’s article goes on to describe a 2008 tech conference in New York that, “Some Egyptian youth leaders attended”,

…where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.

“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Mr. Fathy, who attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the revolution.”

What’s perhaps most intriguing about Egypt’s network revolutionaries is that they knew they were dancing with a proverbial devil.  It seems however they didn’t understand - or perhaps they thought they could navigate - the inextricably complicit ‘democracy’ pushing NGOs and the ‘democracy’ twisting U.S. Government working in concert with numerous other international finance groups and equally complicit foreign NGOs. 

“While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us,” said Mr. Fathy, the Egyptian activist.

Interviews with officials of the nongovernmental groups and a review of diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks show that the democracy programs were constant sources of tension between the United States and many Arab governments.

The International Crisis Group was one of these NGO meddlers that angled for advantage in the aftermath of Tahrir.  Tony Cartalucci’s article, “Egypt's Revolution doing Damage Control”, touched on the sprawling connections between the NGOs and one of the people hailed as one of Egypt’s new leaders at the time - a leader of Tahrir and the revolution - the afore mentioned young Google executive, Wael Ghonim.   

…Mohamed ElBaradei sits within the US foreign policy think-tank International Crisis Group along with billionaire banker George Soros, US Army General Wesley Clark, geopolitical manipulator Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Foreign Minister of Israel Shlomo Ben-Ami, Bank of Israel governor Stanley Fischer, and current Israeli President Shimon Peres….

…ElBaradei's personal webmaster, campaign organizer, and revolutionary leader, Wael Ghonim… [attended] an IMF annual meeting in Washington to trade barbs with the IMF managing director. Ironically, Ghonim, working directly for a US stooge and with the now openly US-funded April 6 Movement, attempted to impress upon the IMF the necessity to "let the Egyptians solve their own problems.”

Mr. Ghonim was sorely mistaken about the nature of the U.S.’s involvement in Egypt as an e-mail released at 4pm on New Year’s Eve, 2015, from Secretary Clinton’s trove of classified and unclassified treasures would reveal.  The e-mail was originally sent from Robert Hormats (former assistant secretary and former undersecretary of State, former vice chair of Goldman Sachs International, currently vice chair of Kissinger Associates) to Jake Sullivan (top aide to Clinton’s 2012 campaign and her secretariat in addition to being VP Biden’s national security advisor) discussing how the IMF in collusion with the soft’ish power of the U.S. Government were pushing Egypt’s new government into deeper and deeper debt while knowing they were subverting the public opinion and democratic processes that had been at the heart of so much of the Egyptians’ angsts.

Hi Jake,

Since I am told S will be making some Hill calls tomorrow, I thought this brief background note might be helpful for her.

This past Sunday I held meetings in Cairo with the Prime Minister and other Egyptian officials to discuss Egypt's critical economic situation along with prospects for an IMF deal and U.S. assistance….

The PM and the Finance Minister plus President Morsi's foreign policy advisor emphasized that they are committed to a bold reform plan and an IMF agreement….

The President's office was focused on getting a deal done, and asked the United States to press the IMF to complete a deal in the near future. I explained that we have never gotten involved in the details of IMF negotiations.

I believe the Egyptians are trying very hard to make reforms and gain public support for them. Nonetheless, they are facing serious technical issues and fear public opposition to much of what is being discussed with the Fund….
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2016, 02:14:32 pm »
Looting and Killing - Egypt

January 25, 2011, five days before the major gathering in Tahrir, Reuters reported that President Obama “voiced support for an "orderly transition" in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians”.[22]

Five months before that President Obama had, “…thanked President Mubarak for his leadership and support for peace in the region…. [and] reaffirmed the importance of a vibrant civil society, open political competition, and credible and transparent elections in Egypt.”[23]

The Egyptian parliamentary elections that followed President Obama’s words of encouragement were detailed as having ‘some skillful rigging’ in an Economist article by the same name.  From the impish to the fiendish, “many of these infractions were captured on film, and spread in real time on the internet….”[24]

The article goes on to explain a chilling set of scenes and yet, “the government was undeterred by images of such things as thugs intimidating voters with clubs and machetes, and election officials patiently filling in piles of blank ballots.”

The elections officials undoubtedly knew there were observers, undoubtedly knew they were being observed, and undoubtedly knew that their subversion of the local democratic process would be aired globally.  The Economist article makes the stark assertion that,

“…it may not be so odd that Mr. Mubarak's government seems willing to risk damage to its legitimacy, as well as to its international reputation, from staging an election so clearly flawed even by Egypt's own dismal standards. Egypt's rulers believe the country is at a crucial juncture.”[24]

Roughly a year after the elections, and months after Tahrir, Egyptian generals ‘orchestrated’ a security raid on the offices of several US ‘democracy and human rights’ promoting NGOs.  The move was ‘deeply concern[ing]’ to the U.S. State Department.

The raids included targeting the US-government funded National Democratic Institute – founded by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright – and the International Republican Institute, whose chairman is Republican senator John McCain. Both organisations are affiliated with the two major US political parties….

"IRI is dismayed and disappointed by these actions. IRI has been working with Egyptians since 2005; it is ironic that even during the Mubarak era IRI was not subjected to such aggressive action," the group said in a statement.

Roughly a year-and-a-half after the raids, 43 NGO workers – at least 16 Americans - were convicted in Cairo of “operating without a license and receiving foreign funding.”  The raids expanded to include, “17 NGO offices across Cairo, detaining employees and seizing equipment. Forty-three workers, drawn from organizations including the US-government-funded National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Freedom House, were eventually put on trial for operating illegally in Egypt.”  For their part the NGOs claimed, “In a joint statement, the 40 Egyptian rights groups accused [then President] Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm of seeking to curb the freedom of rights groups through legal restrictions.”[26] 

In some respects this was an example of a puppet biting the hand that put it into the show.

Tony Cartalucci’s June 23, 2012 article, ‘US Struggles to Install Proxy "Brotherhood" in Egypt’ bears down on the power brokers’ proxies in Egypt relating their employment to perceptibly wider and deeper purposes. 

"Pro-democracy" movements, particularly the April 6 youth movement, trained, funded, and equipped by the US State Department, serve the sole purpose of giving the Muslim Brotherhood's installation into power a spin of "legitimacy" where otherwise none exists. Those within these "pro-democracy" movements with legitimate intentions will be inevitably disappointed if not entirely thrown under the wheels of Western machinations as regional war aimed at destroying Iran, Syria, and Lebanon's Hezbollah arch of influence slowly unfolds.”[26a]

Omar Suleiman, Mubarak’s former intelligence chief, addressed the sources of Egypt’s fall into chaos.  Sept. 14, 2011, he was questioned on several topics by prosecutors. 

Asked to explain his analysis of the conditions that led to the uprisings, Suleiman said, “There were certain people who opposed the regime who sought to provoke the people. Starting in 2005, foreign operations began cooperating with NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] based in Egypt to stir the emotions of the people against the regime.”

Suleiman named a US program called “Democracy and Good Governance” as one such operation and accused it of funding Egyptian NGOs without the regime's approval. He claimed the NGOs trained young men and women in popular organizing, staging demonstrations, “confronting police” and civil disobedience.

Suleiman even alleged that a “training session” was held in Poland in January 2011 to these ends.

The NGOs had trained some of the activists in Egypt to confront the exact form of tyranny that the NGOs had long suspected would occur during a predictably corrupt election and the activists rose to the meet the task.  The western NGOs had set the stage for these activists to become freedom fighters against a corrupt regime, corrupted in large part by western influences and deepening debt.  Yet, little that activists accomplished addressed the sources of the problems - regime change would follow regime change – puppets would replace puppets – and the show would go on.

Even by August 2012, Mubarak had been subdued but Mubarak’s loans and the banksters holding them were still causing the Egyptians to fight for control of their country.

There were mass protests against the IMF loan outside meetings between the government and Christine Lagarde, with placards declaring “no to international loans over the rights of the poor people”, “we’ll never pay Mubarak’s or Morsi’s debts” and “your money impoverishes us”. Street protests throughout November and December 2012 against a proposed new IMF deal forced the government to back down on additional planned austerity measures and tax rises, scuppering the talks.[16]

The BBC would go on to report that the early 2011 police-protestor clashes at Tahrir Square would leave “at least 846 people died and 6,000 more were injured.”[28]

The Arab Spring had nearly reached an unstoppable fervor but its death tolls were about to spiral into the tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands thereafter.  March 1, 2011, only months after Tahrir, the Wall Street Journal was reporting that, “Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.”

Western officials and rebel leaders in Libya said the U.S. has wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region.
But the U.S. stated clearly it wants Mr. Gadhafi out of power and has signaled it would support those offering help to the rebels militarily or otherwise.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2016, 02:24:10 pm »
The Burning House - Libya

In 2006, the U.S. government removed the Libyan government from the ominous list of states that sponsor terrorism.  Five years later, the U.S. government would hire, train and fund terrorists to overthrow the Libyan government.  This is not to place the onus entirely upon the U.S. – there were many other NATO nations that threw-in to achieve the over-throw of President Gaddafi.  For all of the faults and crimes that he carried to the grave untried, he had been a credit to his countrymen and women in many regards; a credit to Arabs, Africans, and Muslims alike, and he was about to attempt to use Libya’s credit and vast resources to help free many people from generations of debt and de facto slavery.  These debts were, and still are, weaponized vehicles leased out by the IMF, the World Bank, and other international banking cartels with stretched promises of lavish, elite life-styles to seduce the dumb, the wanton, and the entitled into a car whose license plate clearly reads “TIME BOMB”.

President Gaddafi wasn’t buying their explosive debts, and in the years following Libya’s removal from the terror list, Libya loaned out nearly $150 billion to the countries that would eventually invade Libya - a rather aggressive debt restructuring.  And yet these loans weren’t threats great enough to warrant breaking international law by pro-regime changing, hypocritical head-hunters.  Most of them have national monetary policies that favor debt, and while their attempt to get Libya to drink from their poisoned well fell short, it was Gaddafi’s future plans that might well have given them the most concern and ultimately given them reason enough to flood protests with weapons and foment dissent into violent rebellion.[30]

Lauded IMF, World Bank whistleblower, John Perkins described Libya’s predicament,

According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.
The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.

Mr. Perkins goes on to describe the boards structures of the IMF and World Bank as being largely controlled by the U.S. - the voting, vetoing, and major decision making processes – the President of the U.S. even appoints the President of the World Bank.  What could such a powerful group of countries have to fear from little ole’ Libya?

Dr. Jyoti Prasad Das, writing for Foreign Policy Journal, laid out an argument that should be read in its entirety.  She describes the situation into which Gaddafi had placed the ‘world economic order’ before the domestic protests that spiraled into a western proxy-rebellion.

Qaddafi was wedded to the idea of floating a ‘gold dinar’ in conducting international oil trade. He urged the OPEC members to re-price their oil in the gold dinar, instead of dollars. His view resonated well with the African petro-economies. Such a bold move could have had ‘ground-shifting’ implications for the world economic order. A country’s economic strength would depend on the gold reserves and not on its dollar assets. In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say that the sanctions and the invasion followed because the US was desperate to deter other OPEC members from toeing a similar line….

Qaddafi was a champion of African unity. His rallying cry—African resources for African development—had a mass appeal. He demanded greater representation for the AU States in international forums. His well-known contribution to the struggle for African emancipation were anathema to the West.

Based on 2009 to 2011 numbers, Libya had a well fed population, a long lived and a healthy population, a high Human Development Index, high literacy rates, and had just won round and shining praise from the United Nations Human Rights Council.[33][34]  The Libyan protests that erupted on January 14, 2011, the same day Tunisian fruit vendor Mohammed Bouazizi died from his burns, started over government subsidized housing for the poor.   Mohamed Abdel-Baky, reported for Ahram Online on January the 16th, “Last night hundreds of people broke into vacant houses and took over about 800 vacant units in Bani Walid city (180 kilometers south east from the capital, Tripoli).”

Mr. Abdel-Baky, furthermore reported that, “There are no reports of injuries or clashes with the police. Al Jazeera TV network reported that police have been instructed by the government to avoid any clashes with protesters and to only protect government buildings and contain the protesters' anger.”[35]

The protesters of the Libyan Arab Spring would also take to utilizing social networking for message amplification early on. “Several activists on social network sites reported that over 600 units in similar projects in Benghazi were taken over yesterday by protesters that have been waiting for years to move in to their homes.” [35] 

Only days before the protests started, the Libyan government had removed “all taxes on locally produced food and tariffs on imported food staples, basic necessities, and children’s milk products. The decision comes amid unrest in Tunisia and Algeria, where rising food prices serve as a trigger for protests.”[36]

Late January 2011, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a US NGO criticized by some as hypocritical, biased and funded by nefarious persons, published its annual report, one highly critical of Gaddafi’s government.[37][38][39]

Government control and repression of civil society remain the norm in Libya, with little progress made on promised human rights reforms. While releases of large numbers of Islamist prisoners continued, 2010 saw stagnation on key issues such as penal code reform, freedom of association, and accountability for the Abu Salim prison massacre in 1996.[40]

Three days after HRWs report, Reuters carried an online report that Libya’s government had opened up 29 billion dinars, roughly 24 billion dollars, “for the construction of housing projects ... as part of the development plan currently under execution in Libya”.  The announcement from the Trade Minister, Mohammed Hweji, continued - Libya’s government was going to decrease “custom and tax duties on food products and in prices of other staples”.  The Libyan government was trying to adjust to the demands of an outraged citizenry.[41]

On February 9th, a violent revolutionary group of Libyan ex-patriots based in London, the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), called for a ‘day of rage’ to coincide with the anniversary of a deadly 2006 anti-Gaddafi protest in which 14 people were reported killed.  NCLO, working out of London, had spread word via social media to protesting Libyans and the various previously organized opposition groups, giving them all a single day to mass their forces and rally on.  The previously organized groups that NCLO had spread the word to via social media were a motley crew composed of everything from human rights watchdogs to failed assassins; from ousted constitutional monarchists to routed violent revolutionaries.  These groups would supply much of the same function that the NGOs had in other countries engulfed in the proxy-wars and suffering from foreign manipulation.  Gaddafi’s government has outlawed NGOs for the most part, presumably for fear of such perniciousness.[42][43][44]

February 15th, Libyan police arrested of a young prominent attorney, human rights activist, Fathi Terbil, who with other organizers, Terbil Salwa and Idris al-Mesmari, were planning to lead rallies the following day.  His arrest was a rallying point of its own.  He was representing “relatives of more than 1,000 prisoners allegedly massacred by security forces in Tripoli's Abu Salim jail in 1996”.[45]

The arrest whipped up the ‘Day of Rage’ a touch early.  The following day, an AP report described the reaction, “In Zentan, south of Tripoli, hundreds of people are said to have marched through the streets before setting up tents in the city center. A police station and security forces premises were reportedly set on fire…. And in Beyida, east of Benghazi, police stations were also set alight by protesters.”[45]

Not long after the clashes, a senior Libyan official accused some of the protesters of being outside infiltrators trying “to corrupt the local legal process which has long been in place.  We will not permit that at all…”  He continued by calling on Libyans to return to order, “,…we call on Libyans to voice their issues through existing channels, even if it is to call for the downfall of the government.”[45]

MSNBC reported that day that, “A Benghazi resident contacted by Reuters said the people involved in the clashes were relatives of inmates in Tripoli's Abu Salim jail, where militant Islamists and government opponents have traditionally been held…. Last night was a bad night," said the witness”.

"There were about 500 or 600 people involved. They went to the revolutionary committee (local government headquarters) in Sabri district, and they tried to go to the central revolutionary committee ... They threw stones," he said. "It is calm now."[46]
The BBC’s report included a particularly interesting bit about 100 plus “members of a banned Islamist militant group freed from Abu Salim” the day before the ‘day of rage’, yet, “It is not clear if the Benghazi clashes and the release of the inmates were connected.” [45]  MSNBC, that same day reported that, “Following the rioting, a local human rights activist, Mohamed Ternish, told Reuters that the government was to release 110 prisoners jailed for membership of the banned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.”[46]  Whatever the case, LIFG, an al Qaeda ‘subsidiary’ who merged with al Qaeda in 2007 according to a 2007 West Point study, would go on to help the armed insurrection overthrow Gaddafi.  Historian and terrorism annalist, Dr. Webster Tarpley’s analysis of the study revealed the very real possibility that more than just a few of LIFG’s members had fought with/as al Qaeda against US coalition forces in Iraq and Syria then returned to Libya to be armed, trained and equipped by a slightly different US coalition to aid in the ouster of Gaddafi.[46a]

Fawaz A. Gerges, professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, described this transition,

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the confrontation between the protest movement and Gaddafi’s regime quickly became a violent life-or-death struggle that rapidly turned into a civil war.  The peaceful and spontaneous demonstrations on 15 and 16 February 2011 soon turned into an armed insurgency.  The protests in Benghazi were initiated by a small group of peaceful lawyers and university professors who had sustained the cause of freedom and human rights even during Gaddafi’s regime.  However, they were soon marginalized while other social and political forces more organized and grounded in the social fabric of the country took the lead in the revolution.[42]

February 17th - the ‘day of rage’ - not much more than a month after the protests in Bani Walid filled the streets with demonstrations against unmet subsidies and government corruption, Libya was on fire and in danger of being fully consumed by revolution.

Days later, Gaddafi in a passionate speech that ranged from passionate recitations of his bio and bona fides to a chest pounding defiance of perceived injustice, "I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired ... Muammar is not a president to leave his post…. peaceful protests is one thing, but armed rebellion is another".

Al Jazeera’s reported on the speech,

Gaddafi offered a new constitution to citizens, starting from Wednesday, but asserted that the constitution would only come into effect through dialogue.

He blamed the uprising on Islamists who wanted to "create another Afghanistan", and warned that those in Bayda and Derna had already set up an Islamic Emirate that would reach Benghazi, the country's second largest city where hundreds have been reported dead in recent violence.

Mondoweiss, February 22, carried an Al Jazeera Arabic Channel’s eyewitness testimony, “that F16 fighter jets have been spotted over Tripoli, and not Libya’s own aircraft, shooting at people. (Libya’s Air Force does not have any F16 aircraft)”.  Most of the countries invading Libya had F16s, but they hadn’t been given the UN mandate to enforce a no-fly zone or an invasion yet, and wouldn’t for nearly a month.[48]

February 25, Gaddafi rang the former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, twice.  The Telegraph UK’s Robert Mendik reported only days ago a detailed account of a prescient and accommodating Gaddafi warning Blair that,

"It’s a jihadi situation.  They have arms and are terrorizing people in the street.  Once attack them, they run away.  Not getting true image.  No foreign correspondence here.  We have asked all world reporters to come and see the truth.  They [jihadists] are armed gangs who have weapons.  They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.  Need to explain to the international community.  Reporters can come and make sure it is the truth, they are welcome.”[48a] 

Mr. Mendik went on to describe the first call, “lasting half an hour, Gaddafi insisted he was trying to defend Libya from al-Qaeda fighters. The presence of al-Qaeda would later be superseded by the rise of the so-called Islamic State.”  Gaddafi continued to describe the conflict in the starkest of terms, "We are not fighting them, they are attacking us,… I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all.”  Mendik’s description of the second call between Gaddafi and Blair, placed over four hours later, demonstrates a rapid evolution of thought within the Libyan head of state.  Gaddafi, "I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification - and we shall fight them."[48a]

February 26, Akhtar Jamal reported in the Pakistan Observer that Libya’s aggressors weren’t terribly interested in waiting for a legal process to play out,

The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over.
According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk. “American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.”

The Western forces are reportedly preparing to set-up training bases for local militias set-up by the rebel forces for an effective control of the oil-rich region and counter any push by pro- Qaddafi forces from Tripoli.
Other reports claim that efforts to “neutralize” the Libyan Air Force were also underway to limit Qaddafi’s rule in Tripoli if not fully uprooted from the country.

By the end of February 2011:  Libyan police were being accused in some of the international press of killing unarmed protesters in the street; Libyan security forces were being accused of opening prisons to use prisoners against demonstrators; Libyan military pilots were being accused of using attack helicopters and fighter bombers against dissidents; and President Gaddafi’s third eldest son was being accused of monstrous things – from ordering security forces to use heavy weapons on protestors to utilizing foreign mercenaries on domestic dissenters.  Secretary of State, at that time Hillary Clinton, even accused Gaddafi of having created military rape gangs jacked-up on Viagra.[50][51][52][53]

Most of the claims turned out to be incorrect, that is to say misinformation.  Some of the claims were more than likely simple premeditated lies.[54][55][56][57]

But it didn’t matter at the time.  Those who wanted war pushed for what they wanted with no small assistance from some of the biggest names in news.  They got their war, even if they didn’t have to call it war.  The great conceit was that war isn’t exactly war if you call it something else; bombs don’t kill as hard if they call the invasion a ‘humanitarian intervention’ and call death ‘collateral damage’.  This was having their cake, stealing their neighbor’s cake, killing their neighbor, and eating both cakes while never calling them cakes.  But, they’d cooked up the whole situation, so perhaps they felt entitled to it all. 

Over the course of the next month, heads of state from the US, UK, France, Canada, standing shoulder to shoulder with members of the US Senate, the British Parliament, NATO, the G8, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League and many others were pleading for no-fly zones and humanitarian interventions in Libya.  Many were also calling for Gaddafi to step down.  President Obama and Secretary Clinton pressed the language harder, calling Libya’s foreign fueled fires ‘violence on a horrible scale’ and ‘genocide’.

At least some members of Human Rights Watch saw the situation leading up to the NATO invasion very differently.  A Washington Times exclusive report, “Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war”, published remarks by one Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch,

“At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to genocidelike levels,…Gadhafi’s forces killed hundreds of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. There were threats of Libyan forces approaching Benghazi, but we didn’t feel that rose to the level of imminent genocidelike atrocities.”[57a]

Six months before the regime change stage of the Arab Spring, September 2010, Human Rights Watch reaped a heaping 100 million dollars from George Soros’s nefarious NGO, the Open Society Foundations, the same one that was so instrumental in so many different countries in this cascading transnational criminality for ‘democracy’.  The grant was explicitly described as part of a five year plan to promote the ironically named Human Rights Watch’s goal to, “enable it to implement a strategic plan for becoming a truly global organization”. 

“Human Rights Watch is one of the most effective organizations I support,” said Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations. “Human rights underpin our greatest aspirations: they’re at the heart of open societies.”…

“Human Rights Watch can have even greater impact by being genuinely international in scope,” Soros said. “Human Rights Watch must be present in capitals around the globe, addressing local issues, allied with local rights groups and engaging with local government officials.

March 17 the UN Security Council voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya – ten voted for it, five abstained - Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil.  France and Britain, who’d sponsored Lebanon’s proposed resolution, were ready and eager to militarily prosecute the mandate under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.  It asserted that Libya’s Air Force would have to stand down and that, “UN member states can take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force .”[58][59]

CNN carried a report of the Libyan government’s response to the UN resolution.  “Gadhafi's son Saadi told CNN Thursday evening that troops will change their tactics and take up positions around Benghazi Saturday or Sunday and assist people fleeing from the city.  CNN’s article goes on to report that, “The younger Gadhafi said there will be no large-scale assault. Instead police and anti-terrorism units will be sent into the rebel stronghold to disarm the opposition. Unspecified humanitarian groups can help with the exodus of civilians from Benghazi, Saadi Gadhafi said.”[59]

Nowhere in the UN Security Council Resolution was there a mandate for regime change.

March 17 - the same day that the UN passed its resolution - The Wall Street Journal would report that the US had been a silent conspirator to Egypt’s new military council shipping weapons into Libya rebels for days.  While President Obama played coy with a knowing media, ignoring the Constitution and deceiving the people of the US and the world at large; while he feigned reluctance at arming rebels whose intentions might back-fire on him and muss up the internationalists’ looting of Libya; while US special forces were already in country training Libyan citizens to become insurrectionists, somebody had “given the green light to the Egyptians to help… Americans don't want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn't do it if they didn't get the green light”, said Hani Souflakis, “a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began”.

The Wall Street Journal’s report included a senior US official as having said, "There's no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on,… this is something we have knowledge of.”[29]

The well mentioned Mr. Cartalucci, in an article carried by Infowars, “NATO’s Slow Genocide in Libya: Syria is Next”, detailed that one of the primary sources of moral outrage; one of the central casus belli criers was itself covering up what would have no doubt caused at least second thoughts about an invasion of Syria if not an outright backlash against the immorality of the idea.

During the initial phases of NATO’s intervention, HRW and Amnesty International were complicit in covering these facts up and instead focused on lending legitimacy to the now confirmed lies of the NTC regarding human rights abuses perpetrated against them by the Libyan government.  It wasn’t until July of 2011 that HRW would admit that Libyan rebels were carrying out systematic abuses of their own, and even then they were whitewashed and excused.  And while Human Rights Watch now admits that what the Libyan NTC is doing to the Tawargha people amounts to “crimes against humanity,” they could have just as easily drawn such conclusions backed with ample evidence before NATO intervened militarily and rendered moot the entire “humanitarian” “responsibility to protect” doctrine the entire war was disingenuously based on.

In retrospect, we are meant to believe these organizations simply made a mistake and could not have possibly known the rebels would turn out to be worse human rights violators than those they sought to replace.

But, HRW were by no means the only ones selectively attending to intelligence, HRC was as well.  The previously mentioned Washington Times exclusive centered in on the once secret recordings of top Pentagon officials and one prominent US Congressman in backchannel talks with Seif Gaddafi, Muammar’s son; the talks initiated for fear that Secretary Clinton, “had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns..”

The Washington Times report references to an “intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff [to] the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.”

Gadhafi’s son and heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi, told American officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton was using false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for war to that of the George W. Bush administration’s now debunked weapons of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade Iraq, the tapes show.

“It was like the WMDs in Iraq. It was based on a false report,” Gadhafi said in a May 2011 phone call to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving at the time. “Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators, Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli, Libyan army killed thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single evidence that such things happened in Libya.”

Seif Gadhafi also warned that many of the U.S.-supported armed rebels were “not freedom fighters” but rather jihadists whom he described as “gangsters and terrorists.”
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2016, 02:38:05 pm »
Looting and Killing – Libya – "We came. We saw. He died."

One week before the March 17th UN resolution to invade Libya, France recognized the usurping western puppet regime as the official government of Libya.  The NY Times reported on March 10th,

Moving ahead of its allies, France on Thursday became the first country to recognize Libya’s rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi and said it would soon exchange ambassadors with the insurgents…. Soon afterward, a French announcement said France recognized the council as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people.[62]

Days later, President Obama was passively aggressively addressing the need for Gaddafi “to leave”.  March 14th, Secretary of State Clinton, presumably at the bidding of the President, supped with the Group of 8 (five of whom were about to invade Libya) and met thereafter with the leader of the Libyan opposition, Mahmoud Jibril, at her hotel.  Steven Lee Meyers writing in the New York Times characterized the 45 minute rendezvous as, “the highest-level contact yet between the administration and the increasingly disorganized forces battling troops loyal to Mr. Qaddafi”.  Mr. Meyers continues, “The meeting was meant as a show of support — but it was hastily scheduled at the last minute around Mrs. Clinton’s other meetings in Paris on Monday and was conducted entirely behind closed doors.”  Madam Secretary was beginning an organizational tour under the guise of diplomacy that would include, “visits to Egypt and Tunisia, where she is expected to express support for democratic changes following the popular uprisings in those countries.”  She’d set out on a mission of praise for changes that hadn’t occurred yet; for popular uprisings that had already turned riotous with no small help from US State Department connected organizations; a mission of praise for the semblance of democracy amidst the bonfires and triumphal marches of international tyranny.[63]

March 17th, the UN passed their mandate for military intervention in Libya.  Two days later, The US and European coalition unleashed modern warfare on the semi-modern military of Libya.  The authors of a March 20th Wall Street Journal piece reported on the method as, “a calculated gamble that a rapid, and substantial attack could knock out loyalist support for strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.”

In an opening salvo, U.S. and U.K. forces on Saturday unleashed around 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan targets. U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney told reporters that the missiles, which struck Libya around 3 p.m. EDT, were aimed at more than 20 Libyan air-defense sites….

A Libyan military spokesman said 48 people had been killed and more than 150 injured in the coalition strikes against civilian and military targets in Benghazi, Misrata, Tripoli, Sirte and Zuwara….

A doctor in Misrata said allied strikes hit two locations for Col. Gadhafi's forces. The doctor said massive explosions lit up the sky.

State-media said strikes by U.S. and coalition forces hit a civilian hospital on the outskirts of Tripoli and a gas storage facility in Misrata. Neither statement could be independently verified….

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the goal of the international assault was to protect civilians.

President Obama, for his part in this spiel, stayed on the prosecutorial side of the post-invasion rhetoric, "We must be clear, actions have consequences and the writ of the international community must be enforced."[64]

Less than a week later, the White House was defending against criticism that they had lost the bearing of the UN mandate and were aimed instead at regime change, rather than any humanitarian intervention or bellicose peace-keeping.  White House mouth-man, Jay Carney at the time, tried in vain to convince a gaggle of reporters (and the rest of the world) that, "We are not engaged in militarily-driven regime change”.  The regime change was dissemblingly labeled an engagement of, ‘"time-limited, scope-limited" that CNN and others parroted as an international effort,” to protect civilians from forces loyal to strongman Moammar Gadhafi.”[65]

Some members of the US Congress, from both wings and both chambers, were not convinced; some were outraged, that Congress’ war powers had been superseded by international bodies.  Some in Congress were rightly alarmed by the murky objectives and shadowy guidance offered by a White House that would unblushingly admit a year later in a shocking Senate Committee Hearing, via Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, that, “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”[65][66]

A key part of the White House’s effort to ram war past Congress was the conceit that the invasion of Libya didn’t need legal national approval because international law rendered national law an after-thought; that its centrality effectively turned national law into a side dish.  And besides, the pro-war propaganda was slathered with ‘humanitarian’ and ‘leading from behind’ sauce, so the people of the US were being fed a daily dose of explicit lies that were supposed to fill them with enough fluff to forget about the cost of bliss.  The White House and their media stenographers cooked-up a marketing campaign of mildly skeptical critics that repeated over and over again that the US coalition’s pretexts for inhumane acts were at their core essentially humane, legal, and humble, with only the driving concern of the freedom and democracy for the people of Libya as their causes for eventually shedding the blood of Libyans. 

March 24, the day before the White House spokesman’s afore mentioned fumble at a defense for the US coalition’s humanitarian offensive in North Africa, AP reported that, “Clinton said she will travel to London next week to coordinate the strategy and military operation against Gadhafi's regime.[67] 

October 20th, Gaddafi would be tortured by a mob then shot and killed; shot by a French secret serviceman according to one report.  The former Libyan leader had been hunted down in part by al Qaeda affiliates armed and funded by the US, some of whom would go on to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US servicemen in the infamous Benghazi attack a year later.[68][69][70]

One week after Gaddafi’s murder, the UN security council voted to end military operations in Libya.  NATO would follow suit four days later.  The replacement ‘transitional’ government for Libya had already been chosen and recognized by the invaders of Libya.  What had been heralded as anything but a regime change, ended when the regime changed.[71]

CBS caught Secretary Clinton’s infamous cackling reaction to news that President Gaddafi had been killed only moments after the news had reached her.  The interview, if you have not seen it, is virtually required viewing, none the less CBS went on to report on the interview,

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC).

The death tolls in late February 2011, just prior to the UN resolution, ranged from the mid-200s to mid-500s, in a mixture of pro and anti Gaddafi supporters.  By Sept 8th that year, AP reported that the health minister of the transition government was asserting that 30,000 people had been killed and another 50,000 had been wounded since the ‘Libyan civil-war’ had begun.  And while this was the upper estimate, other sources from organizations with varying degrees of independence couldn’t agree on anything like a base or median estimate.  With ranges from 1,000 to 25,000 and above, it seems that the only thing that can be asserted with any agreement is that: civil-war plus proxy-war plus bombing campaigns still equals death no matter how ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ the bombs are.[73][74][75]

And yet, how far do we have to stretch the word ‘humanitarian’ to include the al Qaeda branches that were hired by the US to kindle this blaze as it reached across the Egyptian border.  How twisted must the claimed aid be to include al Qaeda leaders that had fought against the US coalition in Syria and Iraq that were foolishly hired to guard US lives they would later victimize in Benghazi?  What convoluted definition of ‘democratic’ was satisfied when al Qaeda raised their tragic black flag above the Benghazi courthouse one day after NATO ended the vaunted coalition no-fly zone?  The US had armed the al Qaeda rebels and the US had used the al Qaeda rebels as an invading infantry.  Now the rebels would “democratically” take what they pleased, unopposed by a NATO-UN coalition or their compassionate machines or war.[76]

The Hindustan Times, in a 2013 report, sited ex-CIA Bruce Riedel admitting, “There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition”.[77]

The UK Daily Mail carried a similar report from a similar source, ex-CIA and Citizen Committee on Benghazi member Clare Lopez doubling-down on the testimony that, 'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures”.[78]

Ex-agent Lopez singled out “the Obama administration for tacitly approving the diversion of half of a $1 billion Qatari arms shipment to al-Qaeda-linked militants.”

'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed…

'The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.'

Secret intelligence reports leaked to the Washington Times supported the veracity of these accusations and furthermore assert that Gaddafi’s supporters knew that the UN’s invaders were using his age old enemies against his governance and against Libya’s sovereignty.  Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, for the Washington Times, reported that,

Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists,…[79]

The Libyan officials couldn’t’ve been more right.  And yet, Gaddafi’s officials would be replaced by the invader’s transition-unofficials that would be replaced by the US proxy-army’s maleficials, but not until after the jihadi-mercs predictably turned on their patrons.

Ex-US Army Colonel, Tony Shaffer, CIA trained, Military Intelligence Corps, detailed the treacherous use of terrorists by the CIA, the US State Department and members of the Turkish government in the transitions of power following the UN-NATO invasion of Libya and their blown covert pivot to Syria.  Colonel Shaffer, in a revealing early November 2012 interview with Infowars’ Alex Jones, less than a month after the February 17th Brigade - an Ansar al-Sharia spin-off, themselves an al Qaeda affiliate - attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, killing Ambassador Stevens and three US servicemen, described the unthinkably cozy relationship that had evolved in the wake of various US and Turkish government officials conspiring with al Qaeda-oids to invade Libya and change the regime.  Shaffer begins with the Benghazi attack,

…this was a protracted battle.  We are talking about starting in the evening, say between seven and eight, and lasting until the next morning…. It was very clear from the moment of, I’d say about four pm, after Ambassador Stevens met with his last visitor of the day, which apparently was the Turkish representative.  That’s notable:  Turkey is partnering with us right now in a covert action to help do two things:  increase the level of intelligence we’re aware of by using the Turkish Intelligence assets on the ground in Syria, and by actually working with us to, quote-unquote, arm the friendly rebels, whoever they are.  And, I think that’s notable by the fact that Ambassador Stevens met with this Turkish representative right before the firefight. 

The next thing we know, let me be very clear about this, there was no demonstration – it was quiet, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ if you will – there in Benghazi, nothing was going on.  And, over the next few hours it became very clear, by the admissions of some of the SEALs even, that there were things going on which were peculiar:  their own guards taking photographs of their positions.  This is a huge clue to the fact that it now appears that Ansar al-Sharia penetrated, badly, significantly, the February 17th Brigade that was supporting - supposed allied to the CIA and the Department of State - an allied militia that’s supposed to be providing essentially some level of support and security outside the embassy.  Well it’s very clear now that this group was very badly infiltrated by Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda affiliate.  And so that’s where the fun begins so to speak.  You had wave after wave of attacks starting at about eight pm going until the next morning.  The culmination of which was the mortar attackwhich ended up killing the two Navy SEALs, Doherty and Woods. 

So during that entire time Alex, is what now become one of the mystery points.  Who did what; when were they notified and what was supposed to happen once the notification was given?  One of the things that has been very clear to me, based on my sources, is that the President was notified by something called a CRINIC (spelling?), a Critical Incident Report, which is handled through CIA classified channels.  That report, I’m told and this has been verified by Tom Vitter, the spokesmen for the National Security Council, that they did receive notification in a timely basis about the attack.  Well then, if that’s the case then, who did what?  What was the response?  What should have been the response is something really done by the terrorism group that the President should have assembled.

Alex Jones:
Now let’s walk through this though because this is really important, expanding on it, obviously you’ve got a bunch of embassies being attack – four of ‘em in the days before.  You’ve got an event, first they said five hours, now they say seven or eight, the point is it’s over five hours this is going on and they’re saying it’s a protest.  Break down - because you’ve worked at these levels; you’ve seen these drone feeds - what happens once this report comes in?

Colonel Shaffer:
Well first off, you could tell by the drone feed Alex, it’s not a freaking protest.  I mean people with protests show up, they gather around, they throw things, they’re in a big bunch.  This was not a big bunch of people standing around in the street.  These were armed fighters trying to breach the security of the compound.  Again, it’s a very different thing.  Yes granted, in Egypt next door there was a breaching of the compound; there was a very clear gathering of individuals with grievances.  And let me be very clear, it’s very rare for a group of rioters to gather in hours of darkness.  It kind of prevents the whole idea of seeing the protests.  So, that was right off the bat peculiar, and yeah, these feeds are being seen globally.  Everybody who has a top secret SCI feed, the highest level of system, will,… can dial into this, and when an attack is ongoing Alex, everybody tunes in.  In this case a DoD drone was loaned to CIA; put under CIA control.  From that point on, I estimate probably about ten o’clock, everything was being seen in real time, so everybody here – and keep in mind that ten o’clock there in about eight hours later here – so we’re talking about essentially all of this happening during the beginning of and during the process of a business day so people were there at work.

Alex Jones:
So it’s three o’clock in the afternoon, obviously everybody at the Pentagon, you name it, are eyes on the Ambassador being attack.

Colonel Shaffer:
Right.  So there’s no doubt, everybody is standing to because they’re at their work station - there’s no calling people in from a slumber.  So during this time that everybody’s notified, then what’s supposed to happen is you bring the people together who’ve already planned contingencies.  Alex, let me be very clear for you audience here – I don’t know why I have to say this but people seem to forget – this was a 9/11 Anniversary.  You should have had every resource in the region standing to, ready to go.  That includes special operations folks; that includes aircraft of all flavors that we have:  logistical; fighters; anything else that might be called upon, and of course, break-break, there was already riots going on in other places.  How could you… miss the clues, clue after clue that something may happen therefore you must be ready. 

So what logically should have happened is that you use those ready resources and begin planning:  you try to figure out what do I have available to me to react to this situation.  And this is where it all gets very murky, and my sources do tell me that President Obama was called in; he admitted that he got briefed on it. Further, my guys have told me, he was called in a watched the video for a while even.  And during this time, supposedly this group of National Security Experts includes Tom Donalyn, his National Security Advisor, John Brennan, the terrorism the advisor, and deputy National Security Advisor Dennis McDunnah.  All gathered, and supposedly put their brains together and started determining what they should do, and it just so happened that Leon Panetta was there apparently from meeting on some other things.  So everybody was there; the whole brain trust was there. 

The question now becomes Alex, what did they do or not do?  And this again is the mystery because this was a curtailed time period that’s measurable.  This was something that happened over hours, this was not something that happened in ten minutes and you’re done.  You actually had major decision points all throughout the evening that related to things going on the ground there.

Alex Jones:
…We’re talking about a Presidential stand-down over at least five hours.

Colonel Shaffer:
This is where it gets murky because the President says he issued an order saying, go do what’s necessary to protect our people and protect our territory.  So, Bing West, God bless him, has done an editorial on this and I support him on this, calling for the President to cough up the order….  We’re talking about 450 miles in some places, so we’re talking about still a very short amount of time.  I mean these things [drones, c-130s, and fighter jets] can move within an hour about 400 miles.  So it’s not significant that 400 miles would have slowed these people down that much and frankly helicopters – special operations helicopters – can chew up that space pretty quickly.  They can get mid-air refills so there’s any number of options…. 

This has all the hallmarks of a set-up,… CIA got set-up by al Qaeda in 2009.  They thought they were dealing with so-called ‘friendly’ elements of al Qaeda,… certain people within our government thought they could make friends with al Qaeda.  They thought that al Qaeda, for [the] purposes of Syria, may be an adequate partner, if you will, to do some of the dirty work.  And I think that’s part of the real thing they’re worried about coming out here…

Alex Jones:
And now al Qaeda has got, undoubtedly as you said, over 10,000 missiles.  They can hold the entire west hostage.

Colonel Shaffer:
Right.  That’s the huge issue here, and this is something that, let me remind your audience that this was talked about 18 months ago when we first started down this path…

Alex Jones:
When you were on my show you said they’re going to get all the high-tech weapons from Gaddafi.

Colonel Shaffer:
Right.  And this is one of the concerns we talked about.  I talked about this with you.  I talked about this with the mainstream media: that we have to be careful about how we destabilized – as much as Gaddafi was bad – the outcome of basically Balkanization of Libya would be far worse, and that’s where we’re at.  So I think there’s multiple reasons here the White House really didn’t want to talk about this going wrong, and I think in many ways, no matter what’s gonna come out, and there’s gonna be a lot more coming out, no matter how you cut it, they did not want to have a major discussion of things going wrong, and what they showed-off to be one of their major foreign policy victories....  Al Qaeda got through the wire….  We were arming and paying people - so-called friends - that we weren’t vetting….  The officers were told, don’t worry about it, don’t do those things because we want to be ‘friendly’ with them.

Secretary Clinton confirmed this conspiracy just over a month ago when some of her emails became the topic of national scrutiny in conjunction with the House Hearing on Benghazi.  Congressman Jim Jordan (R – Ohio) targeted a message Madam Secretary sent to her family the night of the Benghazi assault.  She privately let them know, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group”.  Rep. Jordan marked the stark contrast between her communications in confidence versus the story spun publicly to Americans at large.

You tell -- you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him.

"Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility."

It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group.

And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister.

You told him this, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

The now famous Department of Defense (DoD) and State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch earlier this year assert that not only was the administration officially informed the day following the attack by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that it was a terrorist attack, specifically by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR), with the blessings of the Muslim Brotherhood, but the DIA also reported that it had been planned ten days before it happened. 

The White House’s many spokespeople would flood the airwaves of the world for weeks following the attack with talk of a protest whipped into a riot by a Mohammed-movie.  Judicial Watch reported that the DIA documents had been sent to, “then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.”[82]

Another set of DoD documents also obtained during Judicial Watch’s wildly successful Freedom of Information campaign, “contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.”  Judicial Watch sites an October 2012 report:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria…

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012,… The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.  The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.

General Michael Flynn, then-head of the DIA, characterized the rejection of these warnings by the White House and others as a “willful decision”.  He made the assertion during an Al Jazeera interview hosted by Mehdi Hasan.  Mr. Hasan puzzled after the sweep of the General’s characterization, “A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?”  Flynn affirmed Hasan’s suspicions, “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing”.  General Flynn’s interview would also revisit another of Judicial Watch’s amazing discoveries: the Salafist principality.  Hasan inquired about the weapons headed to known terrorists, “In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups, why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?”[83]

The former DIA chief retorted, “I hate to say it’s not my job… but that… my job was to… was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be.”  General Flynn’s explanation, while professional, was not quite as satisfying as the statements he made in a CNN interview with Jake Tapper only a few weeks ago. 

Mr. Tapper set up a question with a reminder that not long after General Flynn had ordered his 2012 report, Obama had infamously dubbed ISIS “the JV team”.  The CNN host asked, “Do you feel as though your warnings were ignored?”  The General affirmed, “I think that they did not fit a particular narrative that the White House needed.  And I’ll be very candid with you, I have said and I believe that, people that were around the President – his kind of inner circle, were advising him - I think advised him incorrectly.”

Tapper angled quickly, “What was the narrative?” 

Flynn parried, “I think the narrative was that al Qaeda was on the run and bin Laden was dead…” 

“And the election coming”, Tapper astutely pointed out. 

The General continued,

“Yeah, and these guys were dead, and we’d beaten them.  We’ve killed more leaders in the al Qaeda, ISIS, AQI, Boko Haram; more leaders than we can say and they continue to just multiply, so we have to get more realistic about what we’re facing, and we’re not facing a bunch of criminals - these are not criminals.  These are hardcore, radical Islamist who have a deeply held belief.  They are very well organized, very well led, and they have a world vision of this world that is a complete opposite to what the vision of what you and I would want for our own families.”

Tapper redirected,

“The Pentagon, as you know; the Pentagon is looking into whether any intelligence was cooked:  that people on the ground were saying one thing and that somewhere up the line, people were finessing it to make it sound as though:  A) ISIS was weaker than it was; and B) that the airstrikes against ISIS were more effective than they were.  What can you tell us about that?” 

General Flynn outlined rather starkly that, “The role of intelligence and the importance of intelligence begins at the top; it begins at the very top of our government:  The President sets the priority.”[84]

Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, reported in 2014 that the willful decision of the Obama administration had been willfully shared by the same nefarious state actors who knew well that they were running the Arab Spring’s proxy-wars on the sly.[85]   

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida….

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria….

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding.

Perhaps the most chilling of the reports derived from the slew of Judicial Watch information requests was released so recently and received so little scrutiny that it might get lost in the current deluge of presidential campaigning, national and international news.  Judicial Watch reported on the stand-down orders that the White House and State Department passionately denied they had ordered in Benghazi.  This contradicts so many other corroborating reports by so many different sources one must wonder if their sources were born of the same contrived secrets.  Yet, there were more than mere whispers confirming the stand-down coming from the mouths of equally official sources, unendorsed of course by administration voices, about a stand down that annulled the wills of oath-sworn soldiers to do what will, oath and warrior would have done, what some did do contrary to that stand down command.  The violators of this commanded abandonment, CIA contractors, claim to have been ignominiously ordered by a furtively named “Bob”, an active CIA agent.[86][87][88] 

What reason could excuse the protracted refusal of aid to colleagues in need throughout the course of an entire night?  What restraint could explain the omission of direct and interdicting orders to those who’d stated firmly that they were ready to deal directly?  And “Bob”, it seems, was not alone.  Remember that live feed of Benghazi reported on by former DIA analyst Colonel Shaffer?  How many saw the incident start and started nothing themselves?  How many failed that day?  How many were, like CIA “Bob”, ordered to fail and to keep others from succeeding along the way?  For their part, the whole of Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s been left holding “Bob’s” bag.  Judicial Watch reports,

In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC.  The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.

Mrs. Clinton’s haughty remarks at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 23, 2013 one month before Panetta’s February testimony, would encapsulate the brazen disregard for life and law that the State Department had under her reign.  She knew the whole story and she knew that she had changed it for public consumption, but the White House has raised neither objection nor suit against her since,… for whose bidding was she doing?  What crime could she be accused of by those who gave her command to commit them?  Yet it’s those infamous and imperious remarks she shouted in that late January, 2013 hearing that should be etched into the stone surrounding Madam Secretary’s prison cell after some lengthy trials: “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2016, 02:40:44 pm »
Syria – The House That Wound Not Burn

August 18, 2011, President Barak Hussein Obama stepped up to the bully pulpit and called for more fuel upon the blazes he’d stoked.  He called for more violent regime change while calling it peaceful protest and he sealed this injustice with a lie, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.  The United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria.”  And while official U.S. Governmental plans to overthrown Syria’s government have popped up again and again since the 1950s, a WikiLeaks report that broke in the Washington Post, April 17, 2011, revealed previously classified communiques in which the US State Department confessed that it had been covertly financing destabilization operations across Syria, in favor of particular opposition forces.   Four months and a day before the POTUS’s dissembling ramble, WaPo, via Craig Whitlock, reported, “The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country.”  Mr. Whitlock detailed a small portion of the meddlesome internationalists’ pre-Arab Spring efforts, “The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad…. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria…. The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005.”

But this naked duplicity wasn’t sufficient for a ruse of this magnitude, “The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.”  And they knew all too well how their deeds would be perceived.  Their own words serve as admissions to the fact.  Whitlock further reported that the “top—ranked U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time” signed an April 2009 cable that sensibly postulated that,

“Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,… A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,…”[90][91]

The President’s August 18 speech was not a rare vintage, unfortunately.  From 2011 onward, Obama would uncork calls for regime change in Syria over and over again, until, in what seemed like an effort to be taken seriously, he floated the infamously unworthy ‘red line’ almost exactly a year after his first call for regime change - more on that in a bit.  But back to the August 18, 2011 prattle that concluded with top-shelf patronizing and more than a splash of dry irony.  The emptied sentiments from our busy bar-keep:  forcibly export watered-down democracy and label it liberty; manipulatively drip dissent into the airwaves and rant drunkenly for free speech; and insidiously ship violence incarnate into a neighbor’s house then champion the spilled villainy by casting shameless accusations at the home’s inhabitants.  “We recognize that it will take time for the Syrian people to achieve the justice they deserve. There will be more struggle and sacrifice. It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the past.”  Yet, our dear American leader was honest in this respect, there would be more ‘struggle and sacrifice’ brought more from without than birthed from within.[90]

Madam Secretary Clinton was pushing a similar brand of irony for about a month before our President poured out his Syrian hope-and-change recipes.  Her accusations, nearly devoid of proof, served-up equally bent solutions.  Secretary Clinton, lording over what seems like a career filled with examples of the illegitimate uses of power, dubbed President Assad illegitimate and decreed that, "President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power,…" 

The meddlesome Madam was not above tarring her threats with a plumage of mischaracterizations, "If anyone, including President Assad, thinks that the United States is secretly hoping that the regime will emerge from this turmoil to continue its brutality and repression, they are wrong.”  What purpose did the will of Syria’s citizens have in her schemes to give them a leader chosen by other means?  She went on record at the time with an unstayed dismissal of democratic process, "It is time for Assad to get out of the way,…”[92][93]

The Secretariat’s ambitious diktats assumed to by-pass Syrian law by decree at the same time that she feigned the part of the defender of Syrian liberty, as the New York Times covered in an August 18, 2011, article.  Steven Lee Meyers wrote,
“No outside power can or should impose this transition,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at the State Department. “It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, in a democratic system based on the rule of law and dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sect or gender.”[94]

While her remarks were sold to unsuspecting western ears as sensible democratic neo-liberalism, what she had also done was decriminalize a group of violent revolutionary Islamist Syrian ex-pats that had been outlawed in Syria since 1980 for assassination attempts and violent bloody conflicts against the government of Syria going back to the 1950s (and it’s no coincidence that it’s roughly this time frame in which the U.S. Government began drawing up plans to topple the prior Syrian Government).  The revolutionary exiles were given save harbor by a sympathetic Turkish government.  This was the notorious Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), infamous for nearly a century of nefarious dealings with even older imperial interests.  After the Second World War, they’d been the meddlers’ hand maidens in Egypt and their midwives in Syria.  These ex-pat mercs were also reportedly the recipients of the Benghazi weapons cache that cost so many lives in Libya.  They’d been the recipients of aid and safe harbor by nation states that would make use of them across the Middle East and North Africa.  The Brotherhood had been burrowing their way back into Syria in various ways, with various governments’ help, waiting for their big moment, and it had arrived, with great aid from a slice of Turkey’s elite.  Syria’s Deputy Premier, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem, described the Muslim Brotherhood's influence on the violence that erupted between two states that had been getting along well enough for neighbors, until,

“…the Syrian-Turkish dispute, al-Moallem said the reason behind this dispute was triggered in 2011 when the Syrian leadership rejected a request by Ankara to allow the Muslim Brotherhood be part of the power.”

The report from Al Masdar News went on to describe the Syrian government’s reaction to this ‘request’, a ‘request’ that was followed by violent revolution after the Brotherhood was refused.  “We said ‘no’, because the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization and it has been so since 1980,” Syria’s Deputy Premier added.  Other highly placed sources site an even earlier 2009 demand from the Brotherhood directed at the Syrian government to allow them to return to political power.[95][96]
A 2012 Reuters report by Khaled Yacoub Oweis, titled somewhat wishfully, “Syria's Muslim Brotherhood rise from the ashes”, put it very simply,

…the Syrian Brotherhood portrays itself as espousing a moderate, Turkish-style Islamist agenda. It unveiled a manifesto last month that did not mention the word Islam and contained pledges to respect individual rights.

With backing from Ankara, and following the political ascendancy of the Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya since Arab Spring revolts broke out two years ago, the group is poised to be at the top of any new governing system in Syria.

And while the Brotherhood has been one of the major vehicles of these proxy wars, they are by no means the only puppet army being used by Syria’s enemies.  Some of the Gulf States in the US coalition have backed some of the worst groups amongst a host of truly depraved Islamist jihadists – torturous, murderous, child raping, cannibals that some western media outlets have had the temerity to call ‘moderates’.  Some ‘moderates’ had even fought against the U.S. coalition in Iraq, then fought with the NATO coalition in Libya only to rejoin the fight in the Levant against the U.S. coalition in Iraq and against the Syrian Arab Army both.  Some in the “Free” Syrian “moderate” rebel Army have joined al Qaeda, then ISIS, then left to rejoin the proxy-rebels, their “moderateness” presumably intact.   And yet this is not a sufficiently specific description of the cast of villains and the misanthropic chaos set against Syria’s government and her victimized people. 

It’s not just Obama and Clinton, or Turkey’s Erdogan, or Saudi, Qatari, and or Bahraini royals using the fires of the Arab Spring to corner their prey - hunting for heads of state with borrowed armies.  No.  As we’ve seen with so much of the Arab Spring, they’re just the clean-up crew for the debt brokers, and resource pirates that capture countries with red ink.  Syria didn’t and doesn’t take out IMF loans and it occupies a critical energy market juncture between Asia and Europe, one that Syria and China had signed deals about roughly a year before proxy-parts of the Arab Spring.  The calls for an invasion of sovereign Syria under dubious humanitarian pretexts were just another invasive internationalists’ effort to do once more what had been done before to Tunisia, Egypt and Libya since the Arab Spring erupted five years ago – in the name of illiberal-liberalism and tyrannical-democracy - to protect the people from themselves.  From Mr. Meyers New York Times report mentioned earlier,

Almost simultaneously, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany issued a joint statement urging Mr. Assad “to face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people and to step aside in the best interests of Syria and the unity of its people.” Canada made a similar appeal, as did the European Union.[94]

The United Nations human rights office went on to issue a very official 22-page report filled with fiery accusations that would later be refuted by independent reporting that called into question the basis and motive for the UN’s manipulated statistics and bald-faced lies.  These fictionalized accusations became part of the anti-Assad platform that the United Nations Security Council used to assert authority over Syrian sovereignty as the internationalists moved into the initial stages of siege with sanctions and embargos, but perhaps more important than that is the fact that these same accusations are at the root of nearly every call for regime change in Syria that’s followed, and as such, they represent the first of three major accusations against Assad and the elected government of Syria – firstly, that he was a brutal dictator to have cracked-down on the peaceful protesters of the Arab Spring who simply opposed government tyranny and just wanted more democracy; secondly, that he ordered the use of questionable weapons to kill his fellow Syrians; thirdly, that he has been conspiring with Syria’s jihadist enemies against his fellow Syrians.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2016, 02:43:47 pm »
First, the protests:

One month to the day after Mohamed Bouazizi’s suicide, and roughly half a year before President Obama cried out for regime change, the New York Times published a romanticization of the Islamist protestors plight under the oppressive rule of the secular Syrian Government, February 4, 2011.  The lamentation was for another so-called ‘Day of Rage’ not unlike the ones held elsewhere during the Arab Spring, yet, this one failed to draw the flocks that would have given the Grey Lady enough to crow about.[98]
About a month later, after the second ‘Day of Rage’ protests in Syria, March 15, WikiLeaks would release an intriguing hacked Stratfor communique relative to these curiously named ‘Days of Rage’.  Much of the message echoed what the New York Times was reporting about detained activists and a second small but earnest protest like the first, but the Research Inter for Stratfor who authored the pirated memo – Startfor being called the ‘shadow CIA’ by some - was also interested in a bit of information that would corroborate the patterns of the other ‘Days of Rage’ in Egypt and Libya: foreign incitement of vibrant internet activism.  The report was referential to another report carried by Al Watan out of Syria, also carried on Ynet News out of Israel.  As Ynet put it,

The Al Watan daily on Tuesday morning quoted "an official in a Syrian communications company" as saying that "a large number of residents complained that they had received text messages on their cell phones calling on them to join the riots.

The same source was also quoted as saying that an investigation found that the messages had been sent from "a military base in Tel Hashomem (apparently referring to Tel Hashomer near Tel Aviv) in Palestine, where the Israeli army concentrates its intelligence units."

The source told Al Watan that "the Israeli enemy could not have done this without help from one of the satellite communications companies."

Days into the second ‘Day of Rage’, Time Magazine’s online portal lent a hand to the cause.  Rania Abouzeid, in an article published March 19, that should have been tagged as an op-ed or advocacy, weaves through a particular version of events that uses a single dubious and highly biased source to place much of the murderous villainy that resulted from the ‘Day of Rage’ on the government’s shoulders – a claim that would be placed into serious doubt by other reports, but more on that later.  Time’s pro-regime change piece went on to use that same dubious source as a surrogate mouthpiece.  Ayman Abdel Nour, “a prominent Syrian dissident and former political prisoner” publishing his own news out of Dubai, said more than a mouthful to Time,

"It is the start of a Syrian revolution unless the regime acts wisely and does the needed reforms," he says. "It will continue in all cities, even small groups, but the brutality the regime will use — it will show its Gaddafi face, the one it has been trying to hide for the last 30 years after the Hama massacres," Abdel Nour says, referring to the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

The Time report, carrying water for an Al Jazeera report, went on to mock and dismiss a now highly verified claim about the protests, namely that, "They are fulfilling foreign agendas, they don't represent the street, they want to manipulate the street."  The remarks were made by one, Khaled al-Abboud, a representative of Dara’a in Syria’s Parliament.  The Time article, citing representative al-Abboud in Al Jazeera again went on to place some of the blame on “Islamists” and a “foreign agenda”, a notion flippantly rejected by Time’s author herein who in essence concluded by asserting that Syria’s central News source, like Syria’s politicians, just serve as a voice for a corrupt regime; that is to say, like Time, just serving as a voice for a corrupt regime.[101]

In a sanctimonious demonstration of the echoing choir loft in the cathedrals of western propaganda, Human Rights Watch would chime in two days later with their own bellicose warbling, echoing the voice of another corrupt regime in Britain (BBC), in addition to other suspect sources that would later be roundly challenged, some soundly refuted.  “Authorities Should Halt Use of Excessive Force on Protesters”, the subtitle of HRW’s report read, but what this report doesn’t include is what a later HRW report did:  the now well-documented reports of snipers unaffiliated with the government or the pro-government protesters.   Something horrible was happening, and the actors that had been waiting in the wings for years were descending upon the stage in a symphonic repetition of theme and intent - another regime was being circled and the screeches for blood were being joined by the same scavengers.[102]

March 21, Israeli national news, Arutz Sheva, carried the story of the first deaths of Syria’s protests, “Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Dara’a last Thursday.”  The report would continue, based on an anonymous source, to accuse the police of using, “live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else."  This report would be parroted all over the planet in the days and years to follow despite having been contradicted by numerous witnesses.[103][104]

From Al Jazeera to the New York Times and others reporting the death tolls in Syria without the burden of skepticism or objectivity, very few of those reports ever mention the snipers that were so widely reported in other circles.  One mention did find its way into an HRW report that seems to have been systematically ignored by the many publications that rely on HRW for so much of their moral outrage.  Sharmine Narwani, in a hair-raising piece published by RT, drilled into HRW’s witness reports.

A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) relies entirely on 50 unnamed activists, witnesses and “defected soldiers” to set the scene for what was taking place in Daraa around that time.
HRW witnesses provided accounts of “security forces using lethal force against protesters during demonstrations” and “funeral processions.” In some cases, says HRW, “security forces first used teargas or fired in the air, but when the protesters refused to disperse, they fired live ammunition from automatic weapons into the crowds…From the end of March witnesses consistently reported the presence of snipers on government buildings near the protests who targeted and killed many of the protesters.”

The HRW report also states: “Syrian authorities repeatedly claimed that the violence in Daraa was perpetrated by armed terrorist gangs, incited and sponsored from abroad.”

Snipers and armed terrorist gangs,… and the snipers might not have been the worst of it.  Mrs. Narwani’s RT spot was primarily aimed at a little known incident that happened in March of 2011: a murderous ambush in Dara’a,… of the Syrian security forces,

Several old Russian-made military trucks packed with Syrian security forces rolled onto a hard slope on a valley road between Daraa al-Mahata and Daraa al-Balad. Unbeknown to the passengers, the sloping road was slick with oil poured by gunmen waiting to ambush the troops.
Brakes were pumped as the trucks slid into each other, but the shooting started even before the vehicles managed to roll to a stop. According to several different opposition sources, up to 60 Syrian security forces were killed that day in a massacre that has been hidden by both the Syrian government and residents of Daraa.

This incident was not singular either, that is to say, government forces were being targeted regularly.  Mrs. Narwani sites some 107 other Syrian soldiers murdered in April 2011 alone.  And just to specify, these were soldiers as opposed to Syrian police and/or security forces that had been hit in so many other incidents, soldiers that were, as the article puts it, “mostly not in the field that early on in the conflict. Other security forces like police and intelligence groups were on the front lines then – and they are not included in this death toll.”[105]

Mint Press carried a revealing report in this regard pertaining to a series of reports that would surface later from one Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistle-blower, described as "the most gagged person in the history of the United States" by the American Civil Liberties Union”.  She, “would break the story that US and NATO, accompanied by hundreds of soldiers, were operating a secret training camp in Turkey to “organize and expand the dissident base in Syria,” since April-May of 2011.”  The article continued to describe the undeclared war being waged against Syria, “Operations were conducted to smuggle US weapons into Syria, conduct psychological and information warfare, and to help funnel intelligence and military operators across the border.” [106]

Just to touch on the RT article again,

By early 2012, the UN claimed there were over 5,000 casualties in Syria – without specifying whether these were civilians, rebel fighters or government security forces. According to government lists presented to and published by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, in the first year of conflict, the death toll for Syrian police forces was 478, and 2,091 for military and security force casualties.
Those numbers suggest a remarkable parity in deaths between both sides in the conflict, right from the start. It also suggests that at least part of the Syrian “opposition” was from the earliest days, armed, organized, and targeting security forces as a matter of strategy – in all likelihood, to elicit a response that would ensure continued escalation.

The protests had become riots that had become the beginning of something else and it had quickly swelled into tens of thousands by some reports.  And yet the dramatic, myopic operetta from so many media outlets was unceasing:  Assad was a dictator, his people hated him and he had to go for the betterment of mankind.  This was all the parrots in the media canopies could squawk about.  Why would they break their song for another one out of tune with their chorus? 

After just under a year of this foreign born revolution, in early January 2012, a credible poll emerged from a country whose Emir had been calling for an invasion of Syria and boots on the ground.  The Guardian reported that it was a, “YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation.”  The report describes the unsingable song of Assad’s popularity, “The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different.  Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay,…”[106]

The death tolls were mounting on both sides of the conflict, and there was never a discussion from the network, cable, or major print media outlets about the full story going on in Syria.  As with the proxy-revolutions of Libya and Egypt, this kind of narrative controlling media coverage, full of slander and liable, half-truths and fat lies was central to the strategic success of the sorted operations on the ground.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2016, 02:51:51 pm »
Second, the use of questionable weapons to target Syrians:

The primary charges levied in this direction take two forms:  dropping barrel bombs and using chemical weapons.

The condemnation of Syrian Government deploying barrel bombs has been an issue of condemnation by nearly every pundit, foreign policy wonk, and ex-General in the news circuit.  Not surprisingly, the condemnations are also coming from the various heads of state and their respective mouthpieces who’ve been adamant about regime change in Syria since before the barrel bombs were part of the pretext for invading sovereign Syria.  While many sources contest who the bombs target and if all of the bombings reported by western and Gulf State media sources were in fact what they are reported to be.  The earliest reports were from anonymous sources, many of whom end up being highly suspect or their testimonies misappropriated.  Just this last summer NPR interviewed one of the shady western based “non-partisan organizations, not involved with any political” (save the overthrow of elected governments), the British based Syrian Network for Human Rights, an organization like many others with an anti-Assad platform based in foreign countries, that are used both by the UN and international media outlets.  The methodology statement from their website paints them in a heroic and magnanimous light, one that fits the template of the activist group being used by NGOs throughout the co-called Arab Spring,

“Founded in 2011 after the outbreak of Syrian Revolution… an independent neutrality non-governmental human rights organization, which aims to document the ongoing human rights violations in Syria, and periodically issuing reports, studies and researches by applying the highest-levels of objectivity and professionalism, as a first step in order to expose and hold perpetrators accountable, and to ensure victims’ rights…. The network works to achieve its goals via media and social websites, and connecting with human rights and civil organizations (international and Syrian).[107]

Professor Tim Anderson, took this group and many like it to task in an article titled, “The Dirty War on Syria: Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda”, published by Global Research.

The source of the ‘civilian’ death claims comes almost exclusively from the Islamist groups themselves, or ‘activists’ embedded with them. Those claims are then magnified by the western media and by some human rights NGOs which are effectively ‘embedded’ with western governments’ foreign policies. Casualty numbers are typically provided by the British-based ‘Syrian Observatory on Human Rights’ (SOHR 2015), the British-based Syrian Network for Human Rights (SN4HR 2015), or the Istanbul-based Violation Documentation Center in Syria (VDC 2015; Masi 2015). All these centres are allied to the Islamist gangs, but usually maintain some public distance from ISIL. The VDC has listed some ISIL causalities in Syria as ‘martyrs’ for the revolution (see Sterling 2015b.); but the key point is that they are all partisan voices, sectarian Islamists committed to overthrow of the Syrian state and thus highly motivated to vilify and lie about the Syrian Army.[108]

These are of course the same groups that provided many of the accounts of the Syrian Government using chemical weapons, but just a moment before we move on to the chemical weapon attacks.  It’s important to briefly visit the explicit side of the barrel bomb charges, i.e. what is a barrel bomb?

One of the earliest charges of the use of these kinds of weapons was written up by one Damien McElroy, and carried in a UK Telegraph article titled, “Syrian regime deploys deadly new weapons on rebels”.  Mr. McElroy describes the weapon and sites a ‘moderate’ rebel fighter’s account of the weapon’s effects. 

“Filled with TNT, oil and chunks of steel, the exploding barrels kill and maim across a wider area than high explosives.

"The sound was like nothing else I've ever heard. It was an almighty whoosh," said Mohammed Ibrahim, a fighter recovering from an explosion that he said was of terrifying intensity caused by such a bomb....

Like thousands of other fighters, he had been fighting on the streets of Aleppo for six weeks. The insurgents have both taken ground and lost positions in clashes that are swirling without conclusion across the once-prosperous city.

This explanation is not unlike one from another weapon sold by the U.S. to various countries around the world including the British Military, the Iraqi Military, and several others who, like the Syrian Arab Army, use similar weapons against the enemies of their governments.  While moral and sane people generally abhor warfare, the issue of which weapon causes moral outrage might have more to do with who’s using it than any particular destructive quality it might have.  As described in a 2002 BBC story detailing the newish weapon the U.S. was using in Afghanistan, “to strike at cave complexes where al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters may be hiding.”

The thermobaric weapon reproduces this situation to order, distributing a very fine cloud of explosive material throughout the target which is then ignited.
The heat and pressure effects are formidable - soldiers caught in the blast could have the air sucked from their bodies and even their internal organs catastrophically destroyed.
Thermobaric weapons are closely related to so-called fuel-air explosives - where the explosive cloud is provided by a volatile gas or liquid.
The use of chemical weapons, on the other hand, was not a matter of dicing a fine line betwixt conventional and banned weapons.  Sarin nerve gas, like most chemical weapons, has been outlawed in principle by various international legal standards since the late 1800s.  August 21, 2013, a Sarin gas weapon was used on the people of Ghouta, Syria.  Reports surfaced almost immediately that ‘forces loyal to Assad’ had been responsible.  The reports came from the expected sources:  the western backed observer/activist groups.  Reuters couldn’t independently confirm these reports, however.  Al Arabiya, a Saudi owned media broadcaster based in Dubai, carried the news of the attack that day with more passion, space and preference for the activists’ accusations than to the government’s denial.   ‘“Reports on the use of chemical weapons in (the suburbs of) Ghouta are totally false,” state news agency SANA said.’  Many inside the Syrian Government joined others outside of Syria in calling for an investigation by a UN inspection team that was already in country for other purposes.[114]
HRW couldn’t wait to stick it’s nose into the public debate before the UN investigation was complete, and they did so only weeks after the attack based upon the testimony of three anonymous doctors, their own observers, and some other anonymous arms experts.  HRW then went about making spurious conclusions that have since been carried as gospel truths by most of the world’s establishment media-churches. 

Three local doctors told Human Rights Watch that victims of the attacks showed symptoms which are consistent with exposure to nerve gas,…

Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers….

Based on the available evidence, Human Rights Watch finds that Syrian government forces were almost certainly responsible for the August 21 attacks,…

Human Rights Watch has investigated alternative claims that opposition forces themselves were responsible for the August 21 attacks, and has found such claims lacking in credibility and inconsistent with the evidence found at the scene.

The rude conceit of impartiality herein is as rich as sweet crude.  And yet, the investigations, admissions and witnesses that gushed out in the months and years that followed the attack made the issue of this attack a tar baby for those that would dare touch it as a cause for war.  As for HRW’s primary vehicle seated with claims that Syria’s Army had to have done the dirty deed because the immoderate jihadies didn’t have the firepower to deposit disaster so grand, the jihadies would strongly disagree.   

The rebels’ Hell and Hellfire Cannons, as described by Al-Akhbar news, are part of a series of improvised artillery pieces being manufactured in various places for years.

The Hell Cannon was followed by the Jahim (Hellfire) Cannon which replaced the gas cylinder bomb that weighs no more than 40 kilograms or 88 pounds (three quarters of the weight is explosives) first with an industrial oxygen cylinder then with a water-heating tank. The weight of a booby-trapped water-heating tank can reach 300 kilograms (661 pounds).

The first time Hellfire Cannon was used was in Aleppo’s Ashrafieh neighborhood [2012], causing severe damage in addition to killing and wounding dozens of civilians.

According to a Reuters report they appeared for the most part like rockets, “The canisters are packed with explosives, fitted with a guide fin and fired by large cannons.”  The many videos of the artillery being fired corroborate these descriptions.  There were widely circulated videos at the time of the Ghouta chemical weapon attack of the proxy-rebels firing what many suspected were chemical weapons warheads from these Hell Cannons.

Matthew Schofield’s groundbreaking McClatchy article detailed the discoveries of an independent team’s examination of the Ghouta site and the munitions used to deliver the deadly payload.

A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated.

Separately, international weapons experts are puzzling over why the rocket in question – an improvised 330mm to 350mm rocket equipped with a large receptacle on its nose to hold chemicals – reportedly did not appear in the Syrian government’s declaration of its arsenal…

…its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Dale Gavlak’s equally important piece carried by Mint Press, “Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack”, Mr. Gavlak relays the stories “from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families”.  “Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the [deadly] gas attack.”

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels….

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

The White House’s narrative was stubborn and resolved despite any of the reports that contradicted their willful decision-making processes; despite the well-regarded independent study mentioned earlier, “Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence,” authored by Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; despite the numerous witness pointing to Saudi royals as the suppliers and the Syrian Rebels as the culprits; despite the Belgian teacher, kidnapped by rebels, who, “said he overheard the militants acknowledging that President Bashar Al-Assad was not responsible for last month’s chemical weapons attack”; despite the footage of Syrian Rebel jihadies having vaingloriously posted videos of themselves launching a sarin gas attack into a Syrian village, firing Hell Cannons with the blue nerve gas canisters that are paraded through other jihadi videos.[119][120]
The limp ‘red line’ drawn in the Levantine dunes a year before the Ghouta false flag was dusted off and wrapped around the revitalized march to war.  The White House, many in Congress, and even more in the media were championing an effort that would lead U.S. soldiers into conflict with a sovereign country; a country that was already fighting our avowed enemy; a conflict that would ultimately cast the U.S. military into the role of ISIS, al Qaeda and Co.’s Air Force, a notion that did not sit well with many American soldiers.

They took to social media carefully posting pictures of themselves in uniform in a powerful affirmation of oath and sensibility.  They held protest signs with an inescapably common thread, “I didn’t join the Navy to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War!”, “Obama, I will not deploy to fight for your al Qaeda rebels in Syria.  WAKE UP PEOPLE!”, “I WILL NOT fight for al Qaeda in Syria”.  Infowars amplified their dissent with at least two stories, Paul Joseph Watson writing at the time, “The photos went viral, with one post alone generating over 16,000 shares on Facebook.”  The article’s subtitle spelled out the angle of the article, “Both top brass and regular service members express opposition to U.S. involvement”.  The will for war by the administration was as real as the unwillingness of the soldiers to fight it, but what matter was that to a White House so prone to unilateral executive actions.  Mr. Watson observed at the time that,

As the Obama administration prepares to present a draft resolution to lawmakers that is by no means “limited” in its scope and would in fact grease the skids for an open ended war, John Kerry and other State Department officials have signaled that Obama will simply ignore Congress if they vote no and launch the assault anyway.[121][122]

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Pentagon, General Martin Dempsey, told PBS’s Martin Smith, “Our finger was on the trigger,… We had everything in place and we were just waiting for instructions to proceed.”[123]

General Dempsey was in some ways of the same mind as his dissenting commissioned and non-commissioned officers.  When questioned by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in a Senate Armed Services Hearing, “Do you know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?”, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs answered frankly, “I know major Arab allies who fund them.”  To wit, Senator Graham, a long and vehement advocate of regime change in Syria (and just about everywhere else) had to admit, “Yeah, but do they embrace them? They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight Assad. They were trying to beat Assad. I think they realized the folly of their ways.”[124]

Even though he hadn’t refused publicly to follow the orders to invade a sovereign country, the General was honest in his admission of our allies backing our enemies, and he was not alone in making this point.  While many in Congress joined the unabashed criminality of America’s frenemies, there were others speaking more sensibly, both pointing out the two faces of American foreign policy and objecting to being a party to that particular corruption.

The outspoken former congressman, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), held precisely the same outlook as the protesting U.S. military service members.  In a 2013 interview with The Hill following the resurgence of red-line-talk, the Congressman objected to being al Qaeda’s Air Force.

“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”[125]

The article’s author, Julian Pecquet, added an important follow-up fact, namely that the Congressional protests to Obama’s complicated relationship with al Qaeda and Sons, and their financiers - our supposed allies - began more than a year before the red-line rewind.  Mr. Pecquet’s piece well notes that Congressman Kucinich’s, “comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.”

Presidential candidate, Senator Paul was dead set against arming al Qaeda, and against using the War on Terror’s 2001 AUMF as a vehicle to invade Syria, so much so that he attempted to add an amendment that forbade arming the euphemistically ‘moderate’ rebels to a Senate Foreign Relation Committee’s bill that sought to do exactly that.  Rand Paul warned, “We’re actually arming the side of al Qaeda.”  The amendment failed and the bill passed through committee in late May of 2013 with little other objection; the vote:  15 to 3.  Senators, including Presidential hopefuls Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL),in addition to 2008 GOP Presidential nominee John McCain (R-AZ) voted in favor of arming the ‘moderate’ jihadist proxy armies in Syria, that is to say further arming the rebels that had been receiving U.S. hardware since Benghazi, and before.[126][127]

Months before Benghazi, then Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), the Senator’s father, took to the House floor in a rousing rebuke of the White House’s willful policy of arming various terrorist groups in Syria.  Congressman Paul, longtime opponent of entangling alliances, had introduced H.R.5993 a week before he spoke in the House about it, the “Syria Non-Intervention Act of 2012”, introduced on June 21, 2012.  The bill, that seems to have died in committee, contained text explicitly prohibiting, “any funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) or an element of the intelligence community from being obligated or expended for supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.”  An excerpt of Dr. Paul’s floor speech,

Tragically, our political leaders show both bad judgment and short memories when it comes to the down-side of our foreign policy of mischief and intervention.  Our compulsion to engage ourselves in every conflict around the world is dangerous to our national security.  In dealing with Syria the administration pretends to pursue diplomacy and provide humanitarian assistance to the people.  In reality the U.S. government facilitates weapons transfers to the rebels who are demanding immediate regime change. 

My goal is to stop our dangerous participation in the violence in Syria, yet evidence mounts that we’re already deeply involved with no expectation that the administration will back away from military engagement.  Recent reports indicate that the U.S. is providing logistics and communication assistance to the rebel forces.  Assistance in getting arms to the rebels through surrogates is hardly a secret.  Cooperating with the rebel’s propaganda efforts has been reported and is used to prepare the American people for our coming involvement. 

There’s every reason to expect that the well laid plans to once again coordinate a favorable regime change will end badly.  Even the strongest supporters of our direct and immediate military involvement in Syria admit, the rebel forces are made up of many groups, including al Qaeda and no one is sure to whom the assistance should be given.  All they claim is for the immediate removal of Assad.  This policy is nothing new and too often in our recent history our assistance with dollars and weapons, used to overthrow a government, ends up with the weapons being used instead against us.
And this policy; this conspiracy of regime changers and weapon vendors did end up being used against us,… as it was in Benghazi; this policy of overthrowing governments, like Syria’s, leads to the war crimes of Ghouta.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2016, 02:54:39 pm »
Third, Syria’s government has been conspiring with Syria’s jihadist enemies against Syria

No seriously, this claim is being thrown around by some acclaimed outlets and has been for some time under some twisted interpretations and unsurprisingly from some suspect sources. 

As early as late 2013 Der Spiegel ran an article titled, “From Jail to Jihad: Former Prisoners Fight in Syrian Insurgency”, detailing the purported ins and outs of particular prisoners that had, by her reporting, been used by the Syrian Government, “at the beginning of the uprising, Assad vilified his opponents as members of al-Qaida, which wasn't true at the time. Some critics of the regime now claim that by releasing the jihadists from prison, Assad's intention was to quickly radicalize the opposition, discrediting it in the process.”  These assertions, excerpted from the conclusion of Raniah Salloum’s article, flew in the face of a multitude of other reports.

While the release of prisoners from Syrian jails is a highly documented event, it has also been reported as an effort by the Syrian Government to make amends with the early protesters by offering blanket amnesty to "all members of political movements" just after the violence was being introduced into the country.  Al Jazeera reported at the time,

The Syrian president has issued a general amnesty aimed at calming 10 weeks of protests against his rule and a deadly military crackdown that has rocked the nation.

Syrian state-run media made the announcement on Tuesday, saying that "President [Bashar] Assad has by decree issued an amnesty on all [political] crimes committed before May 31, 2011."

The amnesty is to include all members of political movements, including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and all political prisoners, the report said….

But it is also seen as an appeal to protesters, as one of their main demands has been the release of political prisoners, along with others such as curbing the power of Syrian security forces.

"It is one of the most important demands because people are spending many years in prison because of their demands for the human rights of our people," Anwar Al Bunni, a lawyer and human-rights activist in Syria, told Al Jazeera….

The amnesty announcement was shrugged off by Syrian opposition activists gathered in the Turkish city of Antalya to discuss democratic change and voice support for the revolt.

The charges of an Assad-al Qaeda conspiracy were whipped up again in early 2014; lifted by the claims of anonymous sources in Western intelligence agencies sited in a UK Telegraph article that was itself recited by everybody who’s anybody in the anti-Assad camps.  Ruth Sherlock had in one single article twisted the truth into such a pleasingly deceptive form that those wed to that whirlwind found it worthy of endless echoing.  The basis of her shocking claim, “Syria's Assad accused of boosting al-Qaeda with secret oil deals”, was entirely based on these anonymous intel source’s accounts of a series of events beginning in early 2013.

There is a kind of confirmation of this, yet it doesn’t satisfy the explicit charges, if it was indeed a report of the same situation being used to tar paper the whole of the Syrian government with the actions of desperate few ‘local authorities’.  Out of Reuters, in January of 2013, an article emerged about al-Nusra having captured the oil and gas field in al-Ward, southern Syria.

In the streets of Mayadin, oil can be bought at marked up prices and al-Nusra will even trade with the enemy if it means extra cash.

Residents of Mayadin said that al-Nusra has been transporting crude oil in large tankers to Deir al-Zor, 28 miles (45km) to the north, where the government still has a presence.

They say that the local authorities in Deir al-Zor are so stretched that even they will buy oil off the group Damascus says are terrorists.

Time magazine’s online edition carried a version of this charge.  They went to print with accusations from one Western ‘diplomat’ involved with negotiations that occurred in late January 2014.   “Al-Qaeda has taken control of oil producing areas and is selling oil to regime forces, indicating a relationship with the regime….  It is clear that the regime has a relationship of convenience with al-Qaeda”.  The Syrian government’s position on this meeting was described by the New York Times as, “committed to continuing the talks and that even a transition could be discussed — once “the issue of terrorism is addressed.”  Fayssal Mekdad, the Syrian deputy foreign minister was quoted at the event as having stated comprehensively, “We have to agree on a formula where all terrorist organizations should be fought by all Syrians and be expelled…. Those who are financing, supporting, arming and harboring terrorists should be made accountable.”[132][133]

The Syrian delegation had good reason for these sentiments of Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, head of Military Intelligence research for the Israeli Defense Force was correct:  80% of the Syrian Rebels have “a clear Islamist agenda”. 

The Times of Israel carried his testimony to a conference in the summer of 2014.  The IDF Intel Chief made asserted that,

...of a total of some 120,000 men fighting the Assad regime, some 50,000 are Salafists who would like to see Islam implemented in the future Syria, belonging to groups like Al-Nusra Front. Approximately 30,000 support a more moderate political Islam, akin to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. The number of global jihadists, members of organizations such as ISIS, is around 15,000, or 13 percent of the fighting body. Only 20 percent of Syria’s fighters, Brun estimated, could be categorized as “secular.”

“The Islamist nature of the [Syrian] opposition will have, I believe, a great impact on the future Syria,” Brun said.

President Assad had expressed almost the exact same sentiments almost a year before, in early September 2013.  He gave an interview to Le Figaro, translated by BuzzFeed’s Miriam Elder, in which he spoke openly about his concerns of a wider regional war even as Obama was pushing the U.S. Congress for a ‘red-line’ intervention.  Assad laid out his cards, “We are fighting terrorists,… 80-90% of those we are fighting belong to al-Qaeda. They are not interested in reform or in politics. The only way to deal with them is to annihilate them.”[135][136]

According to a September 30, 2012 report from Germany’s Die Welt newspaper, carried in a Foreign Policy Journal piece days later, “German intelligence service, BND, had concluded that 95% of the Syrian rebels come from abroad and are likely to be members of al Qaeda.”[137]
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2016, 02:58:14 pm »
Pax Mortis - “Bringing Peace…”

As the world moved into the fifth year since the hijacked revolutions of the Arab Spring, the US State Department was eager to take credit for their insidious acts of the ‘international community’ in Syria.  Their official Year-In-Review assessment for 2015, offered for our inculcation on Christmas Eve, included a wanton claim cast in the likeness of title, “Bringing Peace, Security to Syria”.  The vaingloriously bellicose author of this farce, the State Department’s spokesman, Rear Admiral John Kirby – former Pentagon Press Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense – offers his best passive aggressive interpretation of reality in reverse.  “The conflict in Syria has continued to unfold in tragic ways over the course of 2015. From the humanitarian crisis endured by refugees fleeing violence, to the reprehensible human rights violations and violence carried out by the Asad regime, the Syrian people have borne a heavy load.”  Undaunted by the horrible deeds painted over with such dishonesty, Admiral Kirby set out for their laurels, “The United States and many members of the international community have stepped up to aid the Syrian people during their time of need – the United States has led the world in humanitarian aid contributions since the crisis began in 2011.”  Four days after their grifting, grabby policy wrap, they had to apologize for the tense confusions their fallacies summoned.  "The operative word there is 'bringing,' not brought," another State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, clarified.  "So we're bringing peace and security to Syria, I think that is a truthful claim,… There has been significant process, we believe, in the past year, on both fronts."  And yet, it was still an apology of the absurd, "I mean, I think progress on a process,… I don't think anyone would say that we are there, or across the finish line. If that was conveyed in anyway, that's a mistaken impression."  They would admit as much again weeks later in regards to a ‘working paper’ reported on by RT, “written by US diplomats envisions Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ceding power to a new government by March 2017. The State Department confirmed the document was authentic, but denied that it represented official US policy.”[138][139][140]

The death toll from the proxy revolution of the Syrian Arab Spring is reported to be near a quarter-of-a-million people, with another 100,000 perhaps, buried and unburied along-side them from all over the region.   Half of Syria’s former 22 million person citizenry has been displaced according to reports, and vast portions of its eastern regions are occupied by a NATO-GCC armed and funded pseudo-state of iconoclasts, psychopaths, and Islamists.   The influx of jihadies forced an exodus from Syria, as it did from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and throughout the rest of the Middle East and North Africa.  While some of the worst violators of Syria’s sovereignty have also played host to her refugees, these states have also aided and abetted an avowed invasion of Europe, a veiled fifth column of failed proxy warriors, many of their own origins far from Syrian, but into Europe shoulder to shoulder with Syrian refugees they march.  While there’s some dispute about the exact numbers - as sited in the UK Daily Mail’s story covering Eurostat’s 2015 study of 213,000 arrivals into the EU in April, May and June - Syrian refugees accounted for only 20% of the sample, some 44,000 of the total.[141][142] 

Just over a year ago, the Guardian put out a piece that maintained that the wars in Syria, Libya and Iraq, “and spiraling instability across much of the Arab world have all contributed to the displacement of around 16.7 million refugees worldwide.”  Hungary's minister for foreign affairs and trade Peter Szijjártó, spoke candidly to the Hungarian Times, "It's a self-delusion to call this situation a migration crisis; it is a massive migration of nations, with inexhaustible reserves.  I don't think that the analysis results, stating that 30-35 million people out there could possibly become migrants, would be an exaggeration.”[143][144] 

For their part, the NATO-GCC backed Islamic State, has explicitly stated their goal to, “takeover of Libya as a "gateway" to wage war across the whole of southern Europe”.  The revelations were derived from letters attributed to an important ISIS propagandist in Libya.  The letters passed from an anti-jihadist think tank in London, Quilliam, to the UK Telegraph where Ruth Sherlock reported, “The jihadists hope to flood the North African state with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people trafficking vessels,… The fighters would then run amok in southern European cities and also try to attack maritime shipping.”  The co-founder of Quilliam and a former Islamist; a current self-described counter-extremist, Maajid Nawaz, shared his own thoughts on Fox’s Kelly File late last year.   In response to a question about President Obama’s strategy to engage terrorism and its appertaining immigrations, Mr. Nawaz maintained, "The policy since day one has been one of obfuscation, denial, and unfortunately a lack of action and a lack of strategy.  I don’t believe what we’re facing - unlike what the Pope mentioned, and what King Abdullah endorsed - I don’t think we’re facing World War III.  On the contrary, actually, what I think we’re facing is a global jihadist insurgency.” [145][146] 

On October 9, 2015, two counties in Germany declared a state of emergency due to the migrant crisis overwhelming local authorities.  The officials of Main-Taunus County west of Frankfurt released a statement that day relaying the historical point that no German county had declared emergency since World War II.  By the UK Express’ numbers, “964,574 asylum seekers arrived in Germany in the first 11 months of 2015 - putting it on course for more than a million by the end of the year.  Some 206,101 migrants arrived in November alone…”  Vatican Radio, covering the declaration of emergency in Germany added that, “At the same time in Hungary, presidents of several Eastern European countries discussed the refugee crisis, with the Czech Republic sending additional troops to its border with Austria.” [147][148][149]

October 11, the UK Independent reported on the backlash German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, received for her “welcome culture”.  The Independent sited a poll published on October 10, by the Emnid Institute:  49% of Germans disagree with Ms. Merkel’s refugee policy; 39% back it. The political costs are mounting alongside the popular ones, as per the report, “Horst Seehofer, the Bavarian prime minister and leader of the state’s conservative Christian Social Union, has banned Ms. Merkel from his party’s annual conference because of fear that she might be “booed down”.”  But what cares does a globalist like Merkel have for national sentiment, or national borders?[150] 

By late October, Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, had accused one of the arch criminals of these proxy revolutions, George Soros , a Hungarian born admitted Nazi collaborator, “of deliberately encouraging the migrant crisis.”  Prime Minister Orban gave an interview to public radio Kossuth, covered by Bloomberg’s Andras Gergely that left little to interpret regarding his feelings for Soros, "His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle…. These activists who support immigrants inadvertently become part of this international human-smuggling network."  Soros responded to Mr. Orban in an e-mail, posted by Soros’ foundation that blamed Orban for undermining European values, “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”[151]

About a month after the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 - in the Bataclan theater and elsewhere – French officials indefinitely extended the state of emergency that was erected in the wake of the initial violence.  Belgian authorities followed suit not long after, declaring their own national emergency as they raced around the Netherlands working at times with French authorities to round-up the suspects, associates and anyone even remotely connected to the suspects of the Parisian nightmare.  They had some success and some failure, but looked to all the world in need of a hand.  The President of France, François Hollande, even softened somewhat an age old, NATO aversion to Russian help fighting terrorism.  Eleven days after the attacks in Paris, President Hollande ambled over to Washington in hopes of hope, but got President Obama instead.  Seymour Hersh’s eye-popping, jaw-dropping article, “Military to Military”, delved into the duplicitous circles of the current international circus.  “At a joint press conference at the White House, Obama said he and Hollande had agreed that ‘Russia’s strikes against the moderate opposition only bolster the Assad regime, whose brutality has helped to fuel the rise’ of IS.”  A U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) advisor relayed to Mr. Hersh that, “one of Hollande’s main goals in flying to Washington had been to try to persuade Obama to join the EU in a mutual declaration of war against Islamic State.  Obama said no.  The Europeans had pointedly not gone to NATO, to which Turkey belongs, for such a declaration. ‘Turkey is the problem,’ the JCS adviser said.”[152]

The Turkish government finalized a deal with the EU on late November 2015:  three billion euro lump sum, presumably with loads more to follow, in exchange for a normalization of migration flow through Turkey to the EU, with another bit of quid pro quo on the side.  The Wall Street Journal’s take on the meeting, 

Much of that money would go directly to groups helping refugees in Turkey or to programs set up by the Turkish government to house, train and integrate migrants.

EU leaders also promised to open negotiations on a new chapter in Turkey’s bid to join the bloc—a move likely to be approved on Dec. 14—and to hold twice-yearly summits with Turkey’s leaders. They pledged to speed work on Ankara’s bid to win visa-free access to the EU for its citizens….

…EU governments are… still at loggerheads over who would pay the €3 billion Turkey is to receive for its cooperation.

The countries of the EU having had their share of financial crises over the past few years, one can see reason in their reluctance to throw money they don’t have at problems made by individuals and institutions that don’t have the best interests of Europeans in mind.  But it seems there are some ‘leaders’ in Europe that are leading based almost solely on these principles.  The same Wall Street Journal article mentioned an anecdote with just such a Judas goat.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel had organized pre-summit talks on Sunday on a proposal Berlin hopes could see tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey come legally to the bloc. Ms. Merkel said after the summit that discussions were still in their early stages, but the idea was for a voluntary program in which EU countries willing to accept migrants can receive and settle an agreed number of Syrian refugees. “We didn’t name a particular figure,” Ms. Merkel said. “I don’t think everyone would participate.”[153]

And the Chancellor’s more right now than she was then - more and more will abstain from this inane practice, especially since New Year’s Eve’s violence.  The reports began trickling in days after the rampages in Paris, France, Berlin and Cologne, Germany.  In Paris 800+ cars were set ablaze in what was, “a 14.5 per cent decrease from the previous year, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said….”  Daily Sabah Europe carried the initial reports from the German Press Agency January 2, 

Burning automobiles as a way to ring in the new year has grown into a trend in recent years, with mostly young men using it as a form of protest.  The ministry said 622 people were taken into custody by French authorities over New Year's, twice as many as a year before.  The New Year's Eve celebrations took place amid a heavy police presence seven weeks after the November 13 terror attacks in Paris.[154]

Berlin’s ‘celebrations’ were akin to riots as well, with one well mentioned journalist characterizing them in a likeness to war.  Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars described a, “Shocking video taken in Berlin on New Year’s Eve shows migrants shooting guns and hurling fireworks in scenes that resemble something out of a war zone.  The clip shows terrified women with children and prams running from the scene as fireworks explode in every direction.”[155]

Yet it was Cologne’s New Year’s Eve nightmare was the most disturbing of the lot by most measures.  It seems that public opinion has begun to lean toward this story’s tardy publication as having been restrained with intention.  The Local, a German publication, described the dissent, “Many people accused the national media of engaging in a cover-up due to the ethnic background of the criminals, with many pointing to the fact that it took days before the details of the story reached national attention.”  And this seems logical at the very least.  What would keep news purveyors from bold headlines about the infuriating story of robberies, mass sexual assaults and rapes largely allowed to occur by passive policing?  BBC eventually carried the news of 1,000 “drunk and aggressive young men… of Arab or North African appearance,… A volunteer policewoman was among those sexually molested.”  The article also included mention of women “targeted in Hamburg” too.  The Mayor of Cologne monstrously began a series of apologetics for the ‘asylum seekers’ days later.  Breitbart detailed a television spot Mayor Henriette Reker dropped as news of the event began to pop up everywhere.  “The women and young girls have to be more protected in the future so these things don’t happen again.”  She cautioned the victims without much mention of the assailants, “This means, they should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves”.  Her suggestions were not well received.  Another Breitbart report covered the massive backlash protests of members of the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (PEGIDA) as they, “rallied outside the main train station in Cologne today, the location of nearly 200 migrant sex attacks on New Year’s Eve.”  Liam Deacon, the article’s author, elaborated on events that took more than a week to transpire, “Around 1700 PEGIDA supporters and 1300 counter demonstrators turned out, as well as a contingent of around 800 football hooligans. They were met by roughly 2000 German police.  Those from PEGIDA carried banners and signs bearing slogans like “Rapefugees not welcome”, waved German and British flags and chanted “Merkel out!”[156][157][158][159]

And yet, for her part, Chancellor Merkel was right about one thing, the three billion+ euro deal with Turkey to resettle migrants from sources unknown won’t appeal to some European countries.  What leader could be excused of welcoming wanton and willful harbingers of hatred?  Especially with top Imam’s encouraging Islamists to conquer Europe with breeding, Wahabist preachers issuing fatwas for jihadies to rape Syrian women, and the various inhuman normalizations ISIS has attempted, using rape as a weapon of oppression.  So the real refugees, from places that have been caught between the regime-changing might of global military conspiracies and proxy armies, manufactured food crises, and engineered collapses of regional economies are stranded between nations; between fight and flight.[160][161][162][163][164][165]
And Turkey’s not alone in receiving a heaping helping of blame for all that’s conspired since they threw in their fez; neither the nefarious giblets of their government nor the notable Arabian royal takfiries involved in keeping their takfiri fowl well fed; neither the NATO janitors that managed both war and mass media with resounding falsehoods, nor the filthy Soros and the host of NGO’s, nor the IMF and the World Bank that set-up so many of the dominoes before the table was flipped-over; not even the various un-Syrian, Immoderate Rebel-Invaders with NATO-GCC filled pockets, weapons, and black market oil funded pseudo-statehood nor the takfiri suicide monsters whose members have cannibalized fellow humans for propaganda, raped children for fatwa, burn captives alive for film, beheading and crucifying kuffars all along the way for what seems more like psychos’ amusement than religious mandate,… though Wahabist are in some ways driven to these deeds, and many of these psychos are Wahabist, be they lowly VJ or the crowned monarchy.  No, not within any one among them shall condemnation find a solitary lair.  There’s death and destruction piled high enough for even the greediest war criminals to share, but what damned serving; what meager amount should an imperious ‘international community’ have to fear when they’ve yet to be brought to any account for all the warlike peace they’ve engineered?

“Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.” quoted from a famous anti-imperialistic Roman historian and senator, Tacitus, whose work “Agricola” in 98 AD described the desolate effects of the PAX - the Roman peace brought by the sword.  Translated roughly, he wrote:  “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”[166]
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Re: Proxy Revolutions – The Uncivil Wars of the IMF’s Arab Spring
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2016, 03:01:22 pm »

1)  “The tragic life of a street vendor”, Yasmine Ryan; Al Jazeera, January 20, 2011

2)  “Slap to a Man’s Pride Set Off Tumult in Tunisia”, Kareem Fahim; New York Times, January 1, 2011

3)  “Africa: Chilling the Arab Spring”, Partick Bond; Transnational Institute, June 15, 2011

4)  “IMF Working Paper - Tax Policy in MENA Countries: Looking Back and Forward”, Mario Mansour; IMF, May 2015

5)  “An Attempt to Estimating Informal Trade Across Tunisia’s Land Borders”, Lotfi Ayadi, Nancy Benjamin, Sami Bensassi and Gaël Raballand; Articulo – Journal of Urban Research, October 2014

6)  “Streetbook”, John Pollack; Technology Review, August 23, 2011

7)  “NED & Freedom House are run by Warmongering Imperialists”, Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer, May 15, 2013

8)  “Will Tunisia Transition from Tyranny into Democratic Despotism?”, Andrew Gavin Marshall; Global Research, February 14, 2011

9)  “UN official says 300 killed during Tunisian uprising, torture still continues”, Mustapha Ajbaili; Al Arabiya, May 22, 2011

10)  “Tunisian Revolt: Another Soros/NED Jack-Up?”, Kerry R Bolton; Foreign Policy Journal, January 18, 2011

10a)  “US Trains Activists to evade Security Forces”; AFP, April 8, 2011

11)  “Thousands vow revenge at funeral of suicide protester”; AFP, January 1, 2011

11a)  “Columbia University World Leaders Forum – His Excellency Mehdi Jomaa”; Columbia University, February 24, 2015

11b)  “IMF releases $500m loan to Tunisia as new cabinet is sworn in”, Heba Saleh; Financial Times, January 30, 2014

11c)  “Tunisia Government Debt to GDP”; Trading Economics, 2015

11d)  “Tunisia Sales Tax Rate | VAT”; Trading Economics, 2015

11e)  “Tunisia Overview”; The World Bank, 2015

11f)  “Faida Hamdy: Why a Tunisian council worker blames herself for the Arab Spring”, Ashley Cowburn, UK Independent, December 17, 2015

12)   “Egypt's opposition parties pull out of elections amid claims of fraud”, Jack Shenkar; The Guardian, December 1, 2010

13)  “Some skilful rigging”; The Economist, November 29, 2010

14)  “Spring Awakening”, Jose Antonio Vargas; New York Times, February 17, 2012

15)  “Egypt National Debt”; Country Economy, 2014

16)  “Case Study Four – Egypt”; Jubilee Debt, October 2013

17)  “Egypt & the IMF: Conditions As Usual”, Kinda Mohamadieh; Middle East Institute, June 27, 2013

18)  “Debt and “Democracy” in Egypt: The IMF’s Deadly Economic Reforms”, Adam Hanieh; Global Research, May 31, 2011

19)  “Lessons Learned from Egypt Should Inform Future U.S. Plans”, GAO Highlights – Democracy Assistance; GAO, July 2014

20)  “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings”, Ron Nixon; New York Times, April 14, 2011

21)  “Egypt's Revolution doing Damage Control”, Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer, April 16, 2011

21a)  “Clinton December E-Mail Release”; State Department, December 31, 2015 (January 19, 2013)

22)  “Obama wants "orderly transition" in Egypt - White House”; Reuters, January 30, 2011

23)  “Readout of President Obama's Meeting with President Mubarak of Egypt”, Office of the Press Secretary; The White House, September 1, 2010

24)  “Some skilful rigging”; The Economist, November 29, 2010

25)  “US 'deeply concerned' after Egyptian forces raid NGO offices in Cairo”, Peter Beaumont and Paul Harris; the Guardian, December 29, 2011

26)  “Egypt convicts US NGO workers”, Louisa Loveluck; the Guardian, June 4, 2013

26a)  “US Struggles to Install Proxy "Brotherhood" in Egypt”, Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer Report, June 23, 2012

27)  “Mubarak's main man speaks from beyond the grave”, Tom Stevenson; Al Monitor, July 13, 2015

28)  “Egypt: Cairo's Tahrir Square fills with protesters”, Jon Leyne; BBC, July 8, 2011

29)  “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels”, Charles Levinson And Matthew Rosenberg; Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011

30)  “Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed”, Michel Chossudovsky; Global Research, March 12, 2013

31)  “Libya: It's Not About Oil, It's About Currency and Loans”, John Perkins;, April 29, 2011

32)  “Why Is Libya in the Crosshairs of the West?”, Dr. Jyoti Prasad Das; Foreign Policy Journal, June 13, 2011

33)  “The Standard of Living in Libya – compilation of data, studies, articles and videos”; Global Civilians for Peace in Libya, November 9, 2011

34)  “Libya’s Late, Great Rights Record”, Tom Kuntz; New York Times, March 5, 2011

35)  “Libya protest over housing enters its third day”, Mohamed Abdel-Baky; Ahram Online, January 16, 2011

36)  “Case Studies in Economic Sanctions and Terrorism”; Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 2012 – siting AFP; January 10, 2011

37)  “Bombing for Peace: Syria strike better than nothing? (ft. Human Rights Watch CEO)”; RT, Published September 8, 2013

38)  “Soros to Donate $100 Million to Rights Group”, Stephanie Stromsept; New York Times, September 6, 2010

39)  “The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch”, Keane Bhatt; Global Research – NACLA; June 10, 2014

40)  “World Report 2011 – Events of 2010”, Libya p. 562; Human Rights Watch, 2011

41)  “Libya creates $24 bln housing fund newspaper”; Khaleej Times – Reuters, January 27, 2011

42)  “The New Middle East: Protest and Revolution in the Arab World – Libya in Transition”, p.313, Fawaz A. Gerges; Cambridge University Press, 2014

43)  “Who are the real Libyan opposition?”, Jijo Jacob; International Business Times, March 28, 2011

44)  “Libya's falling tyrant”, Larbi Sadiki, Al Arabiya, February 22, 2011

45)  “Libya protests: Second city Benghazi hit by violence”; BBC, February 16, 2011

46)  “Libya awaits ‘day of rage’ protests after rare clashes”; MSNBC, February 16, 2011

46a)  “The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq”, Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D;, March 24, 2011

47)  “Defiant Gaddafi vows to fight on”; Al Jazeera, February 23, 2011

48)  “These are Qadhafi’s final moments’”, Today in Palestine; Mondowiess, February 22, 2011

48a)  “Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal”, Robert Mendik; UK Telegraph, January 7, 2016

49)  “US UK, French forces land in Libya”, Pakistan Observer; Akhtar Jamal, February 26, 2011

50)  “Has Gaddafi unleashed a mercenary force on Libya?”, David Smith; The Guardian, February 22, 2011

51)  “Libya protests: 'foreign mercenaries using heavy weapons against at demonstrators'”, Nabila Ramdani; The UK Telegraph, February 20, 2011

52)  “Libya unleashes warplanes, gunfire on protesters”; CBS-AP, February 21, 2011

53)  “Clinton accuses Qaddafi of using rape as a tool”; The Express Tribune – International New York Times – AFP; June 17, 2011

54)  “The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya”, Maximilian Forte; Counter Punch, August 31, 2011

55)  “Human rights groups: charges against Gaddafi unsupported by evidence”, Michael Prysner; Liberation News, July 2, 2011

56)  “Libya: Another War, Another Pack of Lies”, Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer Report, March 2011

57)  “Nato invasion of Libya based on a tissue of lies”; Belfast Telegraph, April 16, 2014

57a)  “Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war”, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell; Washington Times, January 28, 2015

57b)  “George Soros to Give $100 million to Human Rights Watch”; Human Rights Watch, September 7, 2010

58)  “UN authorises no-fly zone over Libya”; Al Jazeera, March 18, 2011

59)  “U.N. Security Council approves no-fly zone in Libya”, Richard Roth; CNN, March 18, 2011

60)  “NATO’s Slow Genocide in Libya: Syria is Next”, Tony Cartilucci; Infowars, April 29, 2012

61)  “Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war”, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell; Washington Times, January 28, 2015

62)  “France Becomes First Country to Recognize Libyan Rebels”, Alan Cowell and Steven Erlanger; New York Times, March 10, 2011

63)  “Clinton Meets in Paris With Libyan Rebel Leader”, Steven Lee Meyer; New York Times, March 14, 2011

64)  “Allied Forces Attack Libya”, Nathan Hodge, Keith Johnson in Paris, and Sam Dagher; Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2011

65)  “White House defends Libya response”, Alan Silverleib; CNN, March 25, 2011

66)  “Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony”, Paul Joseph Watson; Infowars, March 8, 2012

67)  “NATO Agrees To Take Over Command Of Libya No-Fly Zone, U.S. Likely To Remain In Charge Of Brunt Of Combat”, Robert Burns and Erica Werner; Huffington Post/AP, March 24, 2011

68)  “Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim”, Peter Allen; UK Daily Mail, September 30, 2012

69)  “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links”, Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham; UK Telegraph, March 25, 2011

70)  “Hillary's killers killed Stevens in Benghazi, but why?”, Sasha Dix; Prison Planet Forum, October 25, 2015

71)  “UN Security Council votes to end Libya operations”; BBC, October 27, 2011

72)  ‘“Clinton on Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died"’, Corbett Daly; CBS, October 20, 2011

73)  “Live Blog - Libya Feb 22 – siting: The International Coalition Against War Criminals”; Al Jazeera, February 22, 2011

74)  “Re: EIPR, INTERIGHTS and Human Rights Watch v Libya”, Dr. Mary Maboreke; Human Rights Watch, February 28, 2011

75)  “Libya: Estimated 30,000 Died In War; 4,000 Still Missing”, Karen Laub; Huffington Post/AP, September 8, 2011

76)  “Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse”; UK Telegraph, November 1, 2011

77)  “Confirmed: U.S. Armed Al Qaeda to Topple Libya’s Gaddaffi”; Washington’s Blog, April 24, 2014

78)  “Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report”, David Martosko; UK Daily Mail, April 22, 2014

79)  “Secret Benghazi report reveals Hillary’s Libya war push armed al Qaeda-tied terrorists”, Jeffery Scott Shapiro; Washington Times, February 1, 2015

80)  “Attack on Stevens Was A Professional Job”, Alex Jones interviews ex-Colonel Anthony Shaffer; Infowars, November 5, 2012

81)  “Full text: Clinton testifies before House committee on Benghazi”; Washington Post, October 22, 2015

82)  “Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance”; Judicial Watch, May 18, 2015

83)  “Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T Flynn”, Mehdi Hasan; Al Jazeera, interview July 29, 2015

84)  “Former Military Chief:  ISIS Intel didn’t fit White House Narrative”, Jake Tapper; CNN, December 1, 2015

85)  “The Red Line and the Rat Line”, Seymour Hersh; London Review of Books, Vol. 36 No. 8, 17 April 2014

86)  “Full text: Clinton testifies before House committee on Benghazi”; Washington Post, October 22, 2015

87)  “Former deputy chief of mission in Libya: U.S. military assets told to stand down”, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash; CNN, May 7, 2013

88)  “Fox News Reporting: 13 Hours in Benghazi”, Bret Baier; Fox News, September 5, 2013

89)  “Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document”; Judicial Watch, December 8, 2015

90)  ‘President Obama: "The future “of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way."’, Macon Phillips; The White House, August 18, 2011

91)  “U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show”, Craig Whitlock; Washington Post, April 17, 2011

92)  “Clinton says Assad has 'lost legitimacy'”; Al Jazeera, July 12, 2011

93)  “Obama: Time for Assad to leave Syria”; CBS/AP, August 18, 2011

94)  “U.S. and Allies Say Syria Leader Must Step Down”, Steven Lee Meyers; New York Times, August 18, 2011

95)  “Al-Moallem: The Arabs quit their role towards Syria, Damascus welcomes Arab initiatives for a solution”; Al Masdar News, August 21, 2015

96)  “The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Asad Regime”, Dr. Liad Porat; Brandeis University, December 2010

97)  “Syria's Muslim Brotherhood rise from the ashes”, Khaled Yacoub Oweis; Reuters, May 6, 2012

98)  “‘Day of Rage’ for Syrians Fails to Draw Protesters”; New York Times, February 4, 2011

99)  “SYRIA - Info on the Syrian Day of Rage FB Groups”; Wikileaks/Stratfor, March 15, 2011

100)  “Syria: Israel behind anti-government rallies”, Roee Nahmias; Ynet News, March 15, 2011,7340,L-4042925,00.html

101)  “Arab Spring: Is a Revolution Starting Up in Syria?”, Rania Abouzeid;, March 19, 2011,8599,2060398,00.html

102)  “Syria: Government Crackdown Leads to Protester Deaths”; Human Rights Watch, March 21, 2011

103)  “Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests”, Gabe Kahn; Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011

104)  “Video Reporting Possible CIA/Saudi Snipers in Syria”; Land Destroyer, April 25, 2011

105)  “Syria: The hidden massacre”, Sharmine Narwani; RT, May 7, 2014

106)  “Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media”, Jonathan Steele; The Guardian, January 17, 2012

106)  “The West Created & Perpetuates The Syrian Civil War”, Steven Chovanec; Mint Press News, March 24, 2015

107)  “SNHR documenting methodology”; Syrian Network for Human Rights

108)  “The Dirty War on Syria: Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda”, Tim Anderson; Global Research, October 7, 2015

109)  “Syrian regime deploys deadly new weapons on rebels”, Daniel McElroy; UK Telegraph, August 31, 2012

110)  “Analysis: How thermobaric bombs work”, Jonathan Marcus; BBC, March 4, 2002

111)  “U.S. agrees to send 5,000 more Hellfire missiles to Iraq”, Steve Almasy; CNN, August 6, 2014

112)  “Iraq Wants Hellfires – Lots and Lots of Them”; Defense Industry Daily, October 9, 2014

113)  “Britain acquires thermobaric weapons for Afghanistan”, Julie Hyland; World Socialist Website, August 29, 2007

114)  “Syrian opposition: 1,300 killed in chemical attack on Ghouta region”, Al Arabiya; August 21, 2013

115)  “Attacks on Ghouta”; Human Rights Watch, September 10, 2013

116)  “After ‘hellfire’ and ‘hell:’ meet the Syrian rebels’ new rocket in Aleppo”, Basel Dayoub; Al-Akhbar, December 5, 2014

117)  “New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims”, Matthew Schofield; McClatchy News, January 15, 2014

118)  “EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack”, Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh; Mint Press, August 29, 2013

119)  “Kidnapped Teacher: Rebels Said Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack”, Paul Joseph Watson; Infowars, September 9, 2013

120)  “Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies”, Jerome Corsi; World Net Daily, August 26, 2013

121)  “Military Unites: We Didn’t Join to Fight For Al-Qaeda”; Infowars, September 1, 2013

122)  “Military Revolt Against Obama’s Attack on Syria”, Paul Joseph Watson; Infowars, September 2, 2013

123)  ““The President Blinked”: Why Obama Changed Course on the “Red Line” in Syria”, Patrice Taddonio; PBS Frontline, May 25, 2015

124)  “Dempsey: I know of Arab allies who fund ISIS”, Noah Rothman; Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, September 16, 2014

125)  “Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force'”, Julian Pecquet; The Hill, August 27, 2013

126)  “Senate Moves Toward Arming the Syrian Rebels”, Josh Rogin; The Daily Beast, May 22, 2013

127)  “Rand Paul: You Will Be Voting To Fund And Send Arms To The Allies Of Al-Qaeda”, Eduardo89rp; Senate Foreign Relations Committee, published May 28, 2013

128)  “McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton arming Al-Qaeda Terrorists & Suicide Bombers in Syria - Ron Paul”, iCitiz3nP0vv3R2; U.S. House of Representatives, published June 27, 2012

129)  “H.R.5993 - Syria Non-Intervention Act of 2012”, Rep. Ron Paul; 112th Congress (2011-2012), June 21, 2012

130)  “Syrian president issues amnesty”; Al Jazeera, May 31, 2011

131)  “Eastern Syrian town lives under al Qaeda rules”; Reuters, January 30, 2013

132)  “Is the Assad Regime in League with al-Qaeda?”, Aryn Baker;, January 27, 2014

133)  “After Shaky Beginning, Sides Report Progress at Syria Peace Talks”, Anne Barnard; New York Times, January 23, 2014

134)  “80% of Syria rebels are Islamist, senior IDF officer says”, Elhanan Miller; Times of Israel, June 9, 2014

135)  “La mise en garde d'Assad   la France”, Georges Malbrunot; le Figaro, September 2, 2013

136)  ‘Assad Speaks: “The Only Way To Deal With Them Is To Annihilate Them”’, Miriam Elder; BuzzFeed, September 3, 2013

137)  “Syria: The Universe Unraveling”, William Blum; Foreign Policy Journal, November 3, 2012
138)  “The Year-in-Review: Pivotal Foreign Policy Moments of 2015”, John Kirby; US State, December 24, 2015

139)  “State clarifies: 'Bringing' peace to Syria, not 'brought'”, Pete Kasperowicz; Washington Examiner, December 28, 2015

140)  “State Dept confirms ‘working document’ laid out timeline for Syria regime change”; RT, January 7, 2015

141)  “The Arab Spring that was and wasn’t”, K. P. Fabian; Institute for Defense Studies Analyses, December 31, 2015

142)  “Four out of five migrants are NOT from Syria: EU figures expose the 'lie' that the majority of refugees are fleeing war zone”, Ian Drury; UK Daily Mail, September 18, 2015

143)  “Arab spring prompts biggest migrant wave since second world war”, Patrick Kingsley; the Guardian, January 3, 2015

144)  “35 MILLION migrants heading to Europe, says Hungary as it builds second fence”, Rob Virtue and Agnes Kegl; UK Express, September 19, 2015

145)  “Islamic State 'planning to use Libya as gateway to Europe'”, Ruth Sherlock; UK Telegraph, February 17, 2015

146)  “Former Extremist: We're Not Facing WWIII, We're Facing a 'Global Jihadist Insurgency'”, as seen on the Kelly File; Fox News, November 23, 2015

147)  “The Latest: German county declares refugee emergency”; AP, October 9, 2015

148)  “Germany accepts ONE MILLION migrants this year after Merkel throws open doors”, Rebecca Perring; UK Express, December 8, 2015

149)  “German county declares state of emergency over refugee crisis”; Vatican Radio, October 10, 2015

150)  “Refugee crisis: Nearly half of Germans say Angela Merkel's 'welcome' policy is wrong”, Tony Paterson; UK Independent; October 11, 2015

151)  “Orban Accuses Soros of Stoking Refugee Wave to Weaken Europe”, Andras Gergely; Bloomberg, October 30, 2015

152)  “Military to Military”, Seymour Hersh; London Review of Books, January 7, 2016

153)  “European Union Reaches Deal With Turkey on Migration”, Laurence Norman and Emre Peker; The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2015

154)  “Over 800 cars set ablaze in France on New Year's Eve”; German Press Agency – Daily Sabah Europe, January 2, 2015

155)  “Shock Video Shows Migrants in Berlin Shooting Guns, Throwing Fireworks”, Paul Joseph Watson; Infowars, January 9, 2016

156)  “Cover-up claim over NYE mass sexual assaults”; The Local – DE, January 4, 2016

157)  “Germany shocked by Cologne New Year gang assaults on women”; BBC, January 5, 2016

158)  “Cologne Mayor: Women Should Be More Careful After Migrant Mass Rapes, Promises ‘Guidance’ So They Can ‘Prepare’”, Oliver Lane; Breitbart, January 5, 2016

159)  “‘RAPEFUGEES NOT WELCOME’: Thousands Take To Cologne Streets To Protest Migrant Sex Attacks”, Liam Deacon; Breitbart, January 9, 2016

160)  “FP: How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis”, Frederick Kaufman; Foreign Policy – CFR, April 27, 2011

161)  “Imam tells Muslim migrants to 'breed children' with Europeans to 'conquer their countries' and vows: 'We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing'”, Kate Pickles; UK Daily Mail, September 18, 2015

162)  “Saudi Wahhabi Preacher Issues Fatwa Allowing Jihadis to Rape Syrian Women”; CLIP from al-Jadeed TV without English subtitles posted by user 'Morad709, December 29, 2012

163)  “ISIS releases horrifying sex slave pamphlet, justifies child rape”; RT, December 11, 2014

164)  “ISIS make rape part of its religion: Fanatics claim that the Koran 'condones and encourages' attacking women if they are not Muslims”, Mark Duell; UK Daily Mail, August 13, 2015

165)  “Iraq: ISIS Escapees Describe Systematic Rape”; HRW, April 14, 2015

166)  “De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae”, Chapter XXX; Tacitus, 98AD
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi