Syria Psy-ops

.
.
.
.
There is absolutely no sense in "al-CIA-duh" coming to power in Damascus. Nobody wins.

John Kerry who is crypto-Jewish of Czech familial descent, but outwardly moderate, can personally push for a more rational path for the USA, and the world.

The Alawite Assad regime was never a threat to the USA, or indeed Israel with its small $105 billion PPP economy, 22 million population, and a multi-ethnic millennial old state.

_____________________________

NATO Turns Up Heat in Syria Psy-War

NATO tells tales of recently launched "Scud missiles" to retroactively justify Patriot missile deployment months in the making.

By Tony Cartalucci  

  In a recent bid to psychologically break Syria's government and military leadership, producing long sought-after defections, US-led NATO has decided to place Patriot missile systems along the Turkish-Syrian border. The announcement was made as far back as November with  NATO Source Alliance News Blog reporting:

"Turkey plans to officially request NATO deploy a Patriot missile defense system in its territories as a security precaution against a potential large-scale military offensive from Syria as Syrian shelling on the border raises tensions."

As this threat's credibility diminishes, NATO has retroactively justified their November decision with a new tale of "Scud missiles" landing "fairly close" to the Turkish border, according to Reuters. Within the same report, "Scud missiles" would be downgraded to "Scud-style ballistic missiles," in what appears to be immediate backpedaling that casts doubt on the entire narrative.

Syria has denied the accusations, and in response, no evidence has been provided by NATO, with the claims emanating apparently from unnamed "US officials" claiming to cite undisclosed "intelligence information." It is very likely that more fabricated incidents will be announced as the missiles are put into position.

Within the pages of the March 2012 Brookings Institution Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," it was stated explicitly that Turkey and Israel would coordinate with one another to apply pressure along Syria's borders, in turn putting pressure on Syria's leadership, forcing panic and defections while reducing pressure on NATO-armed militants operating inside the country. The report states on page 6:

In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. -(page 6), Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution. 

Apparently Turkey has not produced a sufficiently credible threat, and the deployment of 400 US troops manning Patriot missile systems under the NATO flag is meant to give "teeth" to this strategy.

It may also be a means to ensure that if an incident is staged, as US Senator John McCain advocates, where in if the Patriots are used to engage Syrian aircraft operating within Syrian borders to create a defacto "no-fly zone," the presence of US troops will deter a Syrian counter attack and allow the no-fly zone to remain in effect - providing cover for terrorists operating in northern Syria, including the now admitted Al Qaeda faction, Jabhat Al-Nusra.

NATO Wages a Psychological War

The actual threat Syria poses to Turkish territory is non-existent. Syria gains nothing strategically by attacking Turkey despite numerous intentional provocations. And despite Turkey's support for intentional terrorists seeking safe haven within its territory, receiving arms, equipment, and cash from NATO, and more specifically the United States CIA, Syria has still successfully ground down these terrorists as they enter and attempt to establish footholds across the country.

The placement of Patriot missiles is a necessary escalation for NATO, who is otherwise losing both time and credibility daily. The clock is also ticking for the inevitable collapse of its newly created opposition "coalition," which is filling the already collapsed footprint of the recently abandoned "Syrian National Council" (SNC).

Despite a concerted effort by the Western media to portray the Syrian government as on the perpetual verge of collapse, no precise details have been given of actual terrorist gains. The psychological campaign was heightened when the Western media attempted for several news cycles to claim Russia was abandoning Damascus, another unsubstantiated claim Russia itself has since denied. 

A force on the verge of real victory does not need to fabricate gains to psychologically diminish the strength of its opponent - real gains, even if embellished, have significantly greater impact. Despite claims made by the Western media - much of what is said by analysts are best guesses.

The actual tactical and strategic lay of the battlefield is privy to a select few within Syria, and amongst its adversaries and allies. To make any meaningful impact on the Syrian government's leadership and supporting factions, real gains will need to be made - gains that have thus far failed to materialize after 2 years of NATO aggression against the nation.

Much can be garnered however, by the measures taken by those who do understand the actual strategic and tactical factors at play. The Western media's repeated attempts to portray the Syrian government as taking increasingly desperate "defensive" measures have turned out to be false, betraying not only the image of weakness the West attempts to project upon Damascus, but betraying the image of strength the West attempts to project upon itself and its proxy forces.

Unity is Still Syria's Best Option 

As stated many times before, the West has extended itself too far, its credibility and operational capacity is waning by the day. It has no choice but to continue pushing forward in hopes that all before it lacks the fortitude to stand up and fight. An essential component of its strategy is creating division and defections amongst its targeted adversaries while fallaciously multiplying its own forces to expedite an otherwise untenable and unsustainable military campaign.

In nations like Vietnam or Afghanistan, where the population absolutely refused to submit to foreign occupation and internal subversion, the West has been repeatedly defeated. The West will not stop until either Syria is divided and destroyed or the West itself crumbles in the midst of its untenable foreign conquest.

Image: General Abdul Fattah Younis' reward for accepting offers to "power share" with the Libyan rebels was his assassination. Capitulation, division, and defecting are not real options.

....

Furthermore, defection, capitulation, and failure are not options. In Libya, a campaign NATO is attempting to scale up and repeat in Syria, otherwise superior forces folded in the face of psychological operations. A failure to adapt to NATO's military tactics and a lack of leadership or understanding as to the consequences of losing the country to bands of genocidal terrorists has cost Libya the ultimate price.

Syria has shown remarkable resilience in contrast. It must continue to do so. Syria's fate will be that of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or worse if it falls. Unity is Syria's only option.
___________________
 

The Afghan Opium can be effectively managed by the USA trained Afghan dogs

.
.
.
.
As with SE Asia and the Vietnam War of 10 years the supply routes for Opium from that region were fixed.....from Myanmar and so forth, so this is a practical example where the Pentagon/CIA don't need to be in the scene to ensure supply of drugs to the world, and the proceeds laundered in Wall Street.

As with South America it has been shown that the Pentagon/CIA don't have to be in these countries to ensure supply of drugs to the world, and the proceeds laundered in Wall Street.

Karzai is anxious about his second and last term as Major of Kabul, oh sorry President of Pakistan. For him and his political survival he wants to show that he can run the country, well before ALL foreign troops leave his country. From his perspective this is pragmatic and practical. Despite the American security detail, and persistent rumors that he cried childlike in front of berating British officials, he is truly the Afghan peoples man.

An essential interim step along that paths requires that the USA troops mainly, cease village ops.....in their fake effort to find "al-CIA-duh" and the Taliban....which after all is managed by the ISI for the CIA....to give the image that there is in fact a war going on.....when in fact all the USA/UK soldiers are doing is harvesting Afghan Opium for Wall Street and the The City.

The Question is do the departing America, in good faith want a viable Afghan national unity government that has a chance? Or will the ghastly ISI/CIA run Taliban be allowed back into power?

________________________________________

Foreign forces must leave Afghan villages: Karzai

By Presstv.com

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called on US and NATO troops to immediately leave the country, saying security transition to local forces should take place as soon as possible, Press TV reports.

"We are working to make this transition of security happen sooner. We want all the foreign forces to come out of the villages and go to their bases so the Afghan forces can carry out the security," said Karzai during a Saturday conference on Afghan foreign policy strategy in Kabul.

"I'm completely sure that the withdrawal of international forces in 2014 will give us more opportunity to provide more security,” he added.

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001 as part of Washington’s so-called war on terror. The offensive removed the Taliban from power, but the country is still plagued with insecurity.

Foreign forces are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and hand over responsibility for the country’s security to the Afghan government. The US intends to maintain some forces in Afghanistan for “training and counter-terrorism operations.

"From our vision, the fight against terrorism is not in Afghanistan …That is why we do not want military operations in our villages, in our houses," the Afghan president said.

"We are the owners of this country. We should really show that we are the owners of this country,” Karzai added. 

Opium in Afghanistan

.
.
.
.

Foreign forces support drug business in Afghanistan

By Presstv.com

Reports say foreign forces are supporting the drug business in Afghanistan by facilitating the illegal import of preparatory materials into the country.

Iran’s anti-drug police announced in early December that about 700 tons of heroin are produced in Afghanistan every year, which requires an annual import of 13,000 tons of preparatory materials.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also reports that narcotics production and drug smuggling have increased in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion of the country in 2001.

The office announced in a recent report that some 95 percent of the drugs are cultivated in the southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan which are mainly controlled by American and British forces.

Official statistics indicate that the largest amounts of illicit drugs are produced in the five provinces of Badghis, Farah, Helmand, Kandahar, and Uruzgan, which are also the most insecure regions of Afghanistan.

UNODC Executive Director Yuri Fedotov said in May 2012 that Afghanistan achieved only “modest” success in eradicating the drug and Afghan officials should make “meaningful efforts” to tackle drug production in the country. 

The Sassoons, Opium and HSBC.....and the criminal UK State.

.
.
.
.

HSBC: Flagship Bank Of Britain’s Dope, Inc

By Executive Intelligence Review China, Published by Lyndon LaRouche. 

It should come as no surprise that British banking giant HSBC was caught laundering money for drug cartels and terrorist groups. HSBC, as we shall show, is the kingpin bank of the global drug trade, a bank which, since its founding in 1865, has been devoted to financing drug crops and laundering the proceeds.  HSBC is, in fact, one of the key controlling institutions of the global illicit drug cartel we call Dope, Inc.

If you think that is an outlandish claim, consider the fact that EIR, through its book Dope, Inc., and in its affilicated War on Drugs magazine, published in the early 1980s by the National Anti-Drug Coalition, have made this charge for over 30 years, and have never been sued or challenged by the bank.

For years, when banks have been caught laundering drug money, they have claimed that they did not know, that they were but victims of sneaky drug dealers and a few corrupt employees. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that a considerable portion of the global banking system is explicitly dedicated to handling the enormous volume of cash produced daily by dope traffickers. This banking apparatus is essential to the functioning of Dope, Inc.—without it, the drug cartels would quickly choke on their own cash.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not “demand” from the world’s population which creates the mind destroying drug trade. Rather, it is the world financial oligarchy, looking for massive profits and the destruction of the minds of the population it is determined to dominate, which organized the drug trade. The case of HSBC underscores that point. The banks—not all of them, but most of the big international ones—are an integral part of Dope, Inc.  Serving as the central bank of this global apparatus, is HSBC.

The Bank of Opium

HSBC was founded in Hong Kong in 1865 as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company by a consortium of British opium, silk, and tea-trading companies which themselves were the spawn of the notorious British East India Company. Leading members of the consortium included Jardine Matheson, Dent & Company, David Sassoon & Company, James Innes, and Boston’s Russell & Company. Also supporting the new bank was the Peninsular and Orient Steam Navigation Company, which itself has a sordid history in the dope business.

The opium trade began in the early 1700s as an official monopoly of the British East India Company, which conquered India, and ran it on behalf of the British Crown and the financiers operating through the City of London. Indian-grown opium became a key component in the trade for tea and silk in China.  The East India Company had a thriving business selling British textiles and other manufactured products in India, and selling Chinese silk and tea in Britain. But the Company ran into problems with the opium end of the trade. The influx of opium caused major problems for China, and led the Emperor to issue an edict in 1729 prohibiting opium consumption. Then, in 1757, the Emperor restricted all foreigners and foreign vessels to a trading area in the port city of Canton. A stronger edict in 1799 prohibited the importation and use of opium under penalty of death.

None of this stopped the British from continuing to flood China with opium, creating millions of addicts, but it did cause the East India Company to protect its tea and silk trade by shifting its Chinese opium operations to nominally independent drug runners who bought opium legally from the East India Company in Calcutta, and smuggled it into China. The most prominent of these drug-running firms was Jardine Matheson & Co. It was founded in 1832 by two Scotsmen, William Jardine and James Matheson.  Jardine had been a ship’s surgeon with the East India Company, while Matheson was the son of a Scottish baronet. The firm today is controlled by the Keswick family. In 1839, the Chinese Emperor launched an anti-opium offensive, which included the confiscation of all opium stocks in the hands of Chinese and foreign merchants. The merchants put up a fight, but were ultimately forced to concede, turning in their opium stocks after being indemnified against losses by British officials.

In response, however, the British launched a propaganda campaign against China, accusing it of violating Britain’s right to “free trade.” Britain sent its fleet to China, to force the Chinese to capitulate to the opium trade. The action, known as the First Opium War, resulted in the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, under which China not only capitulated to the opium trade, but also agreed to pay reparations to the opium runners and gave the British control of the island of Hong Kong. However, the treaty did not specifically legalize opium, so the British launched a second Opium War, which resulted in the 1856 Treaty of Tientsin, which legitimized the opium trade and opened China up to foreigners even more.

As the opium and other trade with China expanded, Britain’s new territory of Hong Kong became a major imperial commercial center. The opium dealers gathered together to form a bank, the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, as the financial flagship of the British opium trade. Over time, the bank—now known as HSBC—would extend its reach into the drug fields of the Middle East and Ibero-America, as befitting its role as the financial kingpin of Dope, Inc.

Invading America

In 1978, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, commonly known as the Hong- Shang, announced its intention to move into the U.S. with the purchase of Marine Midland Bank of Buffalo, New York. The U.S. dope trade had expanded significantly over the past decade, and the British were determined to grow it even further.

The move touched off a major political fight, which we describe in the accompanying article on the LaRouche movement’s battle to destroy Dope, Inc. Ultimately, however, HongShang succeeded in getting a national  charter. In July 1979, the Lehman Brothers partner who chaired Marine Midland moved to convert the bank to a national charter. Despite Comptroller of the Currency rules which stated specifically that a bank may not change its charter merely to circumvent state regulation—and over the expressed opposition of the State of New York—the charter change was approved, clearing the world’s most notorious dope bank to take over a top-rank American bank.

HSBC extended its tentacles into America with the establishment in 1995 of a joint venture in California with Wells Fargo, the Wells Fargo HSBC Trade Bank; the same Wells Fargo, we should add, which took over Wachovia after that bank’s offices in Miami were raided by Federal law enforcement officials after it was caught laundering large amounts of dope money. Marine Midland also expanded, buying a large thrift  institution.

HSBC took a another significant step in 1999, with the purchase of Republic New York Corp., and its Republic National Bank. Republic was founded and controlled by Edmond Safra. Republic had a large gold bullion operation, and also a large “bulk cash” business which was featured in a 1996 exposé in New York magazine, detailing how Republic was sending hundreds of millions of dollars a week in $100 bills to Russia to finance the expansion of the Russian mob.

Today, HSBC’s U.S. arm, HSBC North America Holdings, is the ninth-largest bank holding company in the country, with over $340 billion in assets. It is the sixth-largest U.S. derivatives bank, with over $4.4 trillion in bets outstanding.

Global Criminal Menace

Thanks mostly to its thriving dope business, HSBC has become one the biggest banks in the world. Among its leading acquisitions internationally: It took over the Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China, and the British Bank of the Middle East in 1959; and in 1992, it completed a slow takeover of England’s Midland Bank. In 1981, it made a bid for the flagship of the Inter-Alpha Group, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which was blocked by the British Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

In 1997, it made a major expansion into Ibero-America, buying parts or all of banks in Mexico, Argentina, Peru, and Chile, and founding a new bank in Brazil.

From the Far East to the Middle East to Ibero-America, everywhere the drug trade is flourishing, you will find HSBC. It may not handle the dope, but it does handle the money, making sure that the “citizens above suspicion” who run Dope, Inc. from places such as the City of London get their cut of the proceeds.  Now HSBC has been caught red-handed laundering money in the U.S. It’s time we set an example and revoke its charter to do business here. This is a bank which has abused us, assaulted our people, and violated the law with abandon. Revoke its charter and shut it down. Now.

 

____________________________

Money Laundering For Drug Cartels

Max Keiser: HSBC Too Big To Jail

Video

In this episode, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert look at HSBC being fined rather than criminally charged in order to avoid destabilizing the system, while JP Morgan and others are being sued for about a trillion in bad mortgages investors were duped into buying. They also look at "1001" under which bankers who lied to the federal housing authorities could be criminally tried for lying to a federal official. In the second half, Max Keiser talks to Kyra Maya Phillips of MisfitEconomy.com about democracy aboard pirate ships of the 18th century on which No Plunder, No Pay was the name of the game and innovation happened on the fringe. Max proposes banksters walk the plank in a specially built platform in Trafalgar Square.



 

  ____________________________

 Its GETS BETTER...............!!!!!!!

HSBC Couldn't Track $60 Trillion in Suspicious Activity?

 

_

 

_________________________

Matt Taibbi: How Did HSBC Executives Avoid Jail?

The banking giant HSBC has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda

Democracy Now!

Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the U.S. Department of Justice has allowed the bank to avoid prosecution and pay a $1.9 billion fine. No top HSBC officials will face charges

Taibbi says. "Here we have a bank that laundered $800 million of drug money, and they can’t find a way to put anybody in jail for that. That sends an incredible message, not just to the financial sector but to everybody. It’s an obvious, clear double standard, where one set of people gets to break the rules as much as they want and another set of people can’t break any rules at all without going to jail."

 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, let’s go on to HSBC. The banking giant has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda. The bank reportedly supplied a billion dollars to a firm whose founder had ties to al-Qaeda and shipped billions in cash from Mexico to the United States despite warnings the money was coming from drug cartels. Earlier this year, a Senate investigation concluded that HSBC provided a, quote, "gateway for terrorists to gain access to U.S. dollars and the U.S. financial system."

 

CIA Morsi is calling out for "al-CIA-duh" to maintain him in power....SHALOM Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri where are you my CIA brother?

.
.
.
.
CIA Morsi's power is waning, and therefore all manner of disrespectful rumors are circulating that he is hiring thugs to reinforce his power over 85 million Egyptians.

Among the allegations is that he is hiring thugs to attack and rape female protestors....tactic the mullahs of Iran ACTUALLY use against male and female protestors......and children.....especially in 2009, during the Green Revolution to oust Ahmedinejad.

Now in final desperation he is calling on foreign Jihadis to come to his aid.

The Egyptian military should remove him from power lest the 'dark tunnel' gets worse, declare martial law, then initiate new elections WITHOUT the CIA run Muslim Brotherhood.


INSIDE TOP SECRET INFORMATION: SHALOM Ayman Mohammed al-Rabbi al-Zawahiri is coming to Egypt, please everybody welcome him!


The Jihadi Hordes are coming to Egypt!

Guess what Egypt needs now is a NATO/USA/Israeli intervention to protect ISRAEL from the Islamo-facists.

Right?

If you understand the plot, honk for yes once.
__________________________________

Morsi Calls “Al-CIA-da” for Help–Jihadis from Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia and Afghanistan To Arrive Tomorrow

Peter Chamberlain of Therearenosunglasses.com

[Morsi has allegedly asked the Muslim Brotherhood to gather an Islamist force and reports claim that "Islamist" fighters are coming from every war sponsored by the Saudis and "Al-CIA-da."  It will be interesting to see whether Chechens  and Bosnians really do answer the call.  The timing of this jibes with Voltaire's report of 10,000 jihadis about to enter southern Syria.  Possibly the ones coming to Egypt have been diverted there from this group, by the Saudis.]

3,000 Foreign Jihadis to Terrorize Egyptian Opposition?

The title of a recent Al Khabar News report declares: “Morsi summons 3,000 jihadis from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Iran to be an Islamic army to strike the police and army forces” of Egypt.

(Jew number 3, Hmmmmmmm)


According to the report, Ibrahim Ali, a lawyer of various Islamic groups, said that 3,000 leaders and members of the Jihad Groups and the notorious Islamic Group—including the brother of Khaled al-Islambouli, the army officer who planned and participated in the assassination of President Anwar Sadat—will arrive in Egypt in a few days.
Ali added that most of these leaders are coming from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, Kenya, Iran, and even London. 

Similar reports had appeared earlier, in November: these seasoned jihadis may already be in Egypt. Moreover,back in August, days after Morsi assumed Egypt’s presidency, he released jihadi convicts from the nation’s two most notorious terrorist organizations, Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group—including several held under tight security and on death row for committing especially heinous acts of terror in Egypt.
 
It is often forgotten that Morsi himself, Egypt’s president, was a former convict in Egypt, imprisoned for his designs to impose Sharia on the social order—precisely what he is doing now unfettered, including by summoning and releasing jihadis to subdue his fellow Egyptians who oppose the Islamization of Egypt—which has millions of Christians and liberal Muslims.

(Resist resist resist, Fight this CIA dogs!)
 
At the very least, one can argue that, at the time of the elections, half the nation was against Islamization, as the vote between Morsi and the secularist Ahmed Shafiq was split down the middle (some authoritative sources even say that Shafiq won). 

Now, even more Egyptians are going against Morsi, as evinced by these popular revolts. A recent talk show on El Balad TV expressed the popular resentment being felt by the average Egyptian, when a Muslim woman called in saying to the MB official on the show:

You people [Muslim Brotherhood] must give people and their ideas some room, you can’t always get angry and fight—it’s unacceptable…. Come on you guys, what’s the deal? We have come to hate the world. I swear to God, if there is an empty mountain for me to live in, I would take my children and go there! You’ve made us hate our lives! Let me tell you something: I voted for Morsi. May God have paralyzed my hand! May a car have run me over when I went to the voting booth!

In other words, Morsi needs all the help he can get, and it is certainly not far fetched to believe that he would summon the aid of foreign jihadis. For example, here is a list circulating on twitter by the jihadi organization Ansar Al Sharia—”the Supporters of Sharia”—indicating who it will kill should Muhammad Morsi fail; among the names is new Coptic Pope Tawadros.
 
Moreover, the amount of violence inflicted so far on Egyptian protesters certainly can be described as terrorism. Aside from those killed by Brotherhood forces, here are some pictures of those beat and tortured. Many of these victims tell the same story: they were threatened to admit publicly that “outside” sources had hired them to protest otherwise they were severely beat and tortured.
 
In typical Islamist projection fashion, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is enlisting the aid of fellow but foreign jihadis, is trying to portray the grassroots revolts against it as a foreign conspiracy.
 
Nor is there any doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood was always more interested in empowering Islam over improving Egypt—a natural consequence of the Islamist mentality, which sees the triumph of Islam and Muslims, the collective Umma, more important than the triumph of one’s nation and immediate neighbors.
 
A couple examples: Brotherhood representative Safwat Hegazy—who earlier predicted the group would be “masters of the world“—is more interested in seeing Jerusalem become the capital of the Islamic caliphate than Cairo prospering for Egypt; and the former General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Akef, when pressured to talk more about Egypt and less about Islam, declared “the hell with Egypt,” clearly indicting that the interests of his country are secondary to Islam’s.

Speaking of the General Guide, only recently, more evidence emerged demonstrating that Morsi is little more than a tool of Islamization: although many accused Morsi of simply being a stooge to the General Guide—currently Muhammad Badie, who, as head of the Muslim Brotherhood, has one goal, the enforcement of Sharia in Egypt—Morsi brushed aside such talk, saying he was his own man, that his policies for Egypt would have nothing to do with Brotherhood interests, that he was a president for all Egyptians, etc., etc.
 
Amazingly, however, a couple days ago on Egyptian satellite TV, a Muslim Brotherhood official actually admitted that “Yes, the General Guide rules Muhammad Morsi,” to a flabbergasted host, who in resignation, said, “Well that’s it; it’s over. What else is there to say?”
 
Indeed, what else is there to say about an Egyptian president who terrorizes Egyptian citizens into accepting Sharia law?

"al-CIA-duh" in Syria.

.
.
.
.

US Recognizes Unelected Terrorists as Syrian "Representatives" 

By Tony Cartalucci

US admits Al Qaeda "amongst" Syrian rebels, recognizes them as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people."


The Syrian Army is fighting Al Qaeda.

 As expected, after a long pause of feigned "consideration," the US has recognized the militants it has been arming, funding, aiding logistically and supporting diplomatically since as early as 2007, as the "legitimate representatives of the Syrian people," with the added caveat, "in opposition to the Assad regime." The Wall Street Journal would report that US President Barack Obama's announcement actually read:

"The Syrian National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime."

The bizarre, uncertain wording sends a message of both  uncertainty and resounding illegitimacy, indicating that the US itself recognizes the true nature of the so-called "Syrian" opposition is apparent to an increasing number of people both in public office and across the public, and that a certain degree of rhetorical distance must be kept.

The overt, extremist nature of the militants operating in Syria has become increasingly difficult for the West to paper over. Torrents of videos and confirmed reports documenting militant atrocities, including several involving the machine gunning of bound prisoners, and a particularly gruesome video of a child handed a sword by militants to hack off the heads of bound men wearing civilian clothing, has confirmed the worst fears expressed by geopolitical analysts and foreign governments around the world - that the Syrian opposition is in fact Al Qaeda.


So damning is the evidence, that President Obama was forced to finally acknowledge this, stating:

There is a small element of those who oppose the Assad regime that are affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq…and we are going to make clear to distinguish between those elements of the opposition.

The Wall Street Journal, in their article, "U.S. Recognizes Syria's Main Rebel Group," would also report: 

The Obama administration on Tuesday for the first time released intelligence directly tying a powerful Syrian rebel group to commanders of al Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. officials formally sanctioned the Syrian militia, called Jabhat al-Nusra—freezing any assets it may have in the U.S. and barring Americans from doing business with it—because of fears it is gaining disproportionate power among the rebel groups seeking to overthrow Mr. Assad.

Despite this announcement, such sanctions are symbolic and selectively enforced. Also on such lists was the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), and currently the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007, according to the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report, "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq." Yet in 2011, NATO had armed, funded, and provided air support for LIFG during the premeditated overthrow of the Libyan government. 

US Has Knowingly Supported Al Qaeda for Years( Therefore lying and contradicting its official policy based on the so called GWoT SHAM)

Based in Benghazi, elements of LIFG were behind the attack on a US consulate and the death of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. They are also confirmed to be sending fighters and weapons through NATO-member Turkey where they stage before engaging in combat operations inside Syria.

In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, "Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group," would mention LIFG by name when they reported:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there." 

Another Telegraph article, "Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels," would admit:

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya's new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad's regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.

"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."

Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and have been flooding into the country ever since.

Clearly they are not "secretly" organizing hundreds of fighters under the nose of the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and "sneaking" through NATO member states into Syria. They are doing with NATO-backing, with NATO admittedly providing support for militants along Turkey's border with Syria, utilizing the very same regional Al Qaeda networks identified by the US military during the US occupation of Iraq - which also explains where Jabhat al-Nusra is coming from.  

Further undermining US claims that they have identified and are attempting to separate from the "opposition," sectarian extremists, are admissions made as early as 2007 that US foreign policy explicitly sought to utilize these very sectarian extremists to violently overthrow the Syrian government. Indeed, in 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published an article titled, "The Redirection" for the New Yorker, within which US, Saudi, and Lebanese officials described their conspiracy.

In the report it specifically stated:

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007) 

Hersh's report would continue by stating: 

"the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

The link between extremist groups and Saudi funding was also mentioned in the report, and reflects evidence presented by the West Point CTC indicating that the majority of fighters and funding behind the sectarian violence in Iraq, came from Saudi Arabia. Hersh's report specifically states:

"...[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)

The report reads like a prophecy, fulfilled verbatim during the events of the last 2 years. The Wall Street Journal report openly states that the Syrian conflict is turning into a proxy war with Iran, just as was planned in 2007. The feigned ignorance, surprise and attempts to mitigate terror groups the US purposefully created in the first place, is merely for public consumption. Bands of sectarian extremists destroying Syria was the stated plan for years, a plan now coming into fruition.

Wall Street Journal Admits Syria's Minorities are Fighting for Lives - SNC Leader Admits He Seeks an "Islamic State" 

And even as US President Obama attempts to assure the public and the international community that the West is sorting out the extremists, the Wall Street Journal admits that militias are forming across Syria - assembled by Syria's large minorities to protect themselves from what is clearly a sectarian assault - not a pro-democracy movement. In describing the militias, the Wall Street Journal reports:  

Many come from Syria's religious minorities, mostly the Shiite offshoot Alawite sect to which the president's family belongs, as well Christians and Druze, who increasingly see themselves in a battle against a mainly Sunni rebel insurgency.

Of course, the Wall Street Journal attempts to portray the militias as mercenaries in the service of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite admitting the sectarian nature of the opposition and admitting that Al Qaeda is confirmed to be operating inside of Syria.

The sectarian nature of the bloodbath the US was engineering in 2007 was also mentioned in Seymour Hersh's "The Redirection." Foreshadowing was given by a former CIA officer based in Lebanon who stated:

"Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites" -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007) 

Clearly, the Christians in Syria would also need protection.

And while the US attempts to reassure the world that the brood of terrorists it is cultivating and has now officially recognized as the "representatives of the Syrian people" is "pro-democratic" in nature, the very leader the US recently handpicked in Doha, Qatar to lead the new opposition coalition, Moaz al-Khatib, has admitted in an Al Jazeera interview that he seeks to establish an "Islamic state" across currently secular Syria.

Modeled after the increasingly despotic Muslim Brotherhood regime led by Mohammed Morsi, who is currently hiring rape gangs to help disperse protesters opposed to his expanding dictatorship, al-Khatib's vision of Syria's future is one even many Syrian Sunnis reject.

To declare this violent minority, augmented by foreign terrorists couching the establishment of a brutal faux-theocracy behind the paper-thin veneer of "democracy," as the "representatives of the Syrian people" is not a "a big step" as President Obama declared. Instead, it is a step as illegitimate and morally bankrupt as it is desperate. It is a stumble forward - and one that threatens to trip up anyone within arms reach of America as it takes it.

Counter-Revolution against CIA Morsi....lessons should be learnt from the Iran "Peoples Revolution" of 1979.

.
.
.
.
In this world there is no place for religious based parties, or pseudo-religious based parties ie parties in power which display religious piety, but in reality are as corrupt as they come (mullah Iran, Hamas Gaza, al-Shahab Somalia). 

Such entities are created and backed by the CIA. Morsi is a CIA agent recruited in the late 1970's in Egypt, and then sent to the USA by the CIA to do his Ph.D, to give him an air of power, authority and knowledge.

Morsi is a divisive character who has maintained American policy intact in the Middle, through Egypt-----

unquestioned peace, unqualified peace with Israel, no matter what the little entity does.

The continued blockade of the Palestinians, in Gaza.

Support for the illegal overthrow of the Syrian government

Promoting Sunni nationalism, so as to forment division in the Muslim world between Shia and Sunni based societies.

To keep the Middle East backward, mired in religious obscurantism/fatalism/schism.

Destabilization of the Egyptian economy, along with capital flight.

Destruction of the Egyptian Middle class.

Morsi should not have been allowed into power.

It is truly fateful that the USA through the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are using the same tactic the USA used in installing the Mullahs of  Iran.

Fake, compromised Referendum votes, and then the subjugation of power by the new Paraoh Morsi.

The Mullahs used thugs from the Zurkhaneh, and illiterate village boys between the ages of 16--30 riding on motorcycles armed with chains, knives and batons to control the Iranian people in the street ......along with the secret police....MORSI through the CIA will use the same tactics to control Middle Cass secular Egypt.

________________________________________

The problm is not logic and FACTS followed by accomodation, but perception of a rogue state.

.
.
.
.
 There are millions of articles by various Western and other writers and analysts who say that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, and nor does it have the intention.

The fundamental problem is that those that accuse and point the finger, don't want to compromise or accept plain facts.

These accusers have other intentions, of creating Eretz Israel or Greater Israel, which means the sacrifice and destabilization of moderate, stable Middle East regimes.

Iran over 9 years has opened its gates to some of the most extensive inspections of its sensitive security sites by IAEA inspectors, some of whom work for Western and Israeli Intelligence.

The mullahs were brought into power in 1979 by the USA/UK, precisely for the purpose of de-legitimating Iran. The Mullahs have also done a full job of de-legitimating Iran themselves.

Given this background the USA is not now going to undermine its long term policy and finally accommodate the mullahs......the warlike nature of the Obama regime does not suggest this.

The very strict sanctions against Iran, based on fear and a lie....and that maybe Iran might go nuclear is another indication of this hostile intent against Iran.

Iran should eject the IAEA, and prepare for full scale war without actually initiating it.

Iran should NOT provide further concessions to the Americans over the question of civilian nuclear energy.


____________________________________________

Ten Reasons Iran Doesn't Want the Bomb

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian at Information Clearinng House and "National Interest" -  

Since the beginning of Iran’s nuclear crisis, the West has been convinced that one approach offers the best hope of altering Tehran’s nuclear policy and halting its enrichment activities: comprehensive international sanctions and a credible threat of military strike. 

During the same period, I have repeatedly warned my friends in the West that such punitive pressures, no matter how severe, will not change the Iranian leadership’s mindset, and that a military option would be catastrophic for Iran, the region and beyond.

Almost a decade has passed and the unrelenting Western pressures applied on Iran have not achieved the objectives they set. Instead, they have resulted in Iran having an expanded and more sophisticated nuclear program. It is time for the West to acknowledge these realities.

The question that remains is whether Iran ultimately aims to get a nuclear weapon. If Iran isn’t after the bomb, then the Western accusations and concerns would be reduced enough to allow a diplomatic solution.

The following reasons aim to strengthen the case for why Iran is not after a nuclear bomb:

1. Religious Obligations: Besides an international commitment to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has religious obligations against nuclear weapons. Based on the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s religious edict or fatwa, the use of nuclear weapons and all other types of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is forbidden or haram—constituting a sin, while being useless, costly, harmful and a serious threat to humanity. Iran’s authorities were informed about this religious view in 1995, eight years prior to Iran’s enrichment program became known to the West. Leaving no room for discrepancy, all Muslim Shia grand ayatollahs have issued the same religious fatwa.

Iran’s stance against weapons of mass destruction, which is far from new, has been put to the test. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein ordered chemical weapons to be used against Iran in the 1980s, resulting in 100,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians being killed or injured (By Iraqi Chemical weapons supplied by USA TO CIA Saddam). Iran did not retaliate in kind primarily because Imam Ruhollah Khomeini was against the use of weapons of mass destruction based on religious beliefs.

2. No Long-Term Advantage: Based on Iranian assessments, the possession of nuclear weapons would provide only a short-term regional advantage that would turn into a longer-term vulnerability. It would trigger a regional nuclear arms race, bringing Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into the fold sooner or later.

3. Technology Choices: The technical configurations Iran has chosen for its nuclear program demonstrate a preference for a robust enrichment capability rather than for a rapid nuclear weapons breakout capability. Iran’s development program is focused on next-generation nuclear technologies, rather than mass production or maximum installation of centrifuges. There are more advantageous configurations Iran could implement if it was determined to acquire weapons in the near term.

Iran has shown no urgency to advance its nuclear dual-use efforts. Even the activities detailed in the November 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report are not directed at any specific nuclear weaponization. According to Robert Kelly, an American top nuclear expert and the former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspector, the report was misleading and aimed to bolster hardliners “by taking information and feeding it as raw meat to people who want to move forward with war.”

4. Isolation: Iran recognizes that by becoming a nuclear weapons state, it will compel Russia and China to join the United States and implement devastating sanctions that would paralyze the Iranian economy.

Iran recognizes that becoming a nuclear weapons state would give the Israelis ample ammunition to rally the United States and the international community on a perceived existential threat to its existence for creating another war in the Middle East.

5. Aspirations: Iran’s ultimate strategy is to be a modern nation, fully capable of competing with the West in terms of advanced technologies. The majority of Iran’s prominent politicians believe that possessing nuclear weapons would be an obstacle in the long-term for Iran’s access to vast technological cooperation with developed countries. They do not want to see Iran come under the kind of extreme international isolation levied against North Korea.

6. Goodwill: During negotiations from 2003 to 2005, with Iran and France, Germany, and the UK (the EU-3), Iran submitted proposals which included a declaration to cap enrichment at 5 percent; to export all low-enriched uranium or fabricate it into fuel rods; to commit to an additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement and subsidiary arrangements to the agreement, which would provide maximum transparency; to allow the IAEA to make snap inspections of undeclared facilities; and to ship its enriched uranium to another country for fabrication into fuel rods for Tehran Research Reactor. Similarly, Iran welcomed the Russian step-by-step proposal in the summer of 2011, which addressed all the West’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities.

These offers were intended to ensure that no enriched uranium would be diverted to a nuclear weapons program in the future. That’s why the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman recently said: “Iran, in order to prove its goodwill, has even gone beyond the commitments enumerated in the agency’s regulations.” But the United States and EU still rejected the offer.

7. No Stockpile: Accusations levied against Iran for stockpiling enriched uranium to build nuclear weapon are misleading, since Iran requires 27 tons of uranium enriched at 3.5 percent level annually to provide fuel for its only nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Up to now, Iran has produced about 7 tons and needs an additional 20 tons.

8. Enrichment Offers: The West’s biggest concern and therefore highest priority in nuclear talks have centered on Iran’s 20 percent enriched uranium. First in February 2010 and for the second time in September 2011, Iran proposed to stop its 20 percent enrichment in return for fuel rods—and once again the West declined. At a meeting between EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on September 19, Iran once again offered to suspend its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, provided proportionate reciprocation would be taken by P5+1. "If they give us the 20 percent [enriched] fuel, we will immediately halt 20 percent [enrichment]," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Iranian state-run television. But Europe responded to his goodwill by placing more sanctions.

9. Deterrence: A major accusation levied against Iran is that once it acquires nuclear weapons, it will use it against the United States and Israel. This makes no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran’s total annihilation. Iran has publically acknowledged this fact.

10. Forget Regime Change: The view of some U.S. politicians is that Iran’s motive for seeking nuclear weapons is nuclear deterrence—to ensure Washington would not attack it at will, instigate regime change or reach its objectives. If this concern is accurate, then Iran’s nuclear weapons could be used to prevent war—a positive outcome. But this concern relies on the wrong premise, as Iran has not aimed to acquire nuclear weapons in the face of a concerted effort by the United States and the West to engineer regime change in Tehran, including the use of war. During eight years of Iraqi aggression against Iran, the United States and the West did their utmost to support the aggressor and yet failed to bring defeat to Iran. Paradoxically for some, Iran without nuclear weapons has become more powerful year after year in the past 34 years, stymieing Western efforts to bring about the collapse of the regime. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israeli positions in the region have declined despite the thousands of nuclear weapons between them.

 
The Deal

These are just a few reasons the West should enter into a genuine, face saving and realistic solution—rather than continuing to push aggressively and ineffectively against Iranian nuclear development.

Tehran would only accept a deal in which the P5+1 recognizes Iran’s legitimate rights of enrichment under the NPT and gradually lifts the sanctions. In return, to assuage Western worries, Iran would operationalize Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa banning nuclear arms, implement the Additional Protocol and the Subsidiary Arrangements (Code 3.1), and cooperate with the IAEA to resolve technical ambiguities and its worries about possible military dimensions. It would also export its enriched uranium stockpile beyond domestic consumption or convert it to fuel rods, cap enrichment at 5 percent, and establish a multilateral consortium for enrichment in Iran.

This package can guarantee Iran’s legitimate NPT rights of enrichment while ensuring that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state forever.

 
_________________________________________

Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a research scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators. His latest book is The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.