Posts from — August 2012

‘Turkey support for anti-Syria terrorism to backfire’
13 August, 2012 – PRessTV

Interview with Mohammad Marandi, Professor at the University of Tehran

It [Turkey’s illegal support of al-Qaeda terrorist gangs] will most probably backfire.”

Mohammad Marandi, professor at the University of Tehran
Turkey, along with the US and Persian Gulf Arab dictatorships, is actively playing a part in fueling the armed crisis in Syria to topple the Syrian government, arming and sponsoring the al-Qaeda terrorists on Syria’s soil.

The US Republican congressman, Ron Paul has warned that Washington is driving Syria into a war by interfering with the ongoing unrest in the Middle Eastern country.

“We are told that ever-harsher sanctions finally will force the targeted nations to bend to our will. Yet, the ineffectiveness of previous sanctions teaches us nothing; in truth sanctions lead to war more than they prevent war,” he has said.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Tahsin al-Halabi, political analyst from Damascus, to further discuss the role of the US-Arab-Turkish triangle in arming and supporting the al-Qaeda armed gangs in Syria.

The video offers the opinions of two additional guests: Don debar, anti-war activist from New York, and Mohammad Marandi, professor at the University of Tehran.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Professor Marandi our guest in Damascus talked about the atrocities that had been committed and that it should be obvious for everyone.

Is it obvious? Let us look at the international community because we know how the mainstream media is projecting this situation and portraying the situation in Syria.

Do you think that the majority of people living in these countries as far as the mainstream media really realize what is going on and I want to look at the role, in general in your perspective, that the media has played in this situation in Syria?

Marandi: Well, obviously the media has been completely one-sided and every massacre that were taking place in Syria before even any evidence being provided, the Western media would immediately blame the [Syrian] government and what was interesting was; after the first massacre that was carried out, which was right before a UN meeting on the country, the Syrian government was immediately condemned and for a long time people were discussing and debating who is behind it and who is responsible.

Not only on the mainstream press, but online and on more investigative websites.

But then a pattern emerged, every time there would be a UN meeting on Syria, there would be a massacre the day before, which worked very well and was very convenient for the so-called rebels. So the fact that the Western media would immediately blame the Syrian government, created this atmosphere where extremists could carryout atrocities and know that the blame would be pinned on the government.

So not only is the Western media completely biased and providing a one sided story but they are also helping atrocities being carried out by blaming the [Syrian] government for things they have no information about and for, basically, keeping silent about atrocities carried out by the opponents of the government.

Press TV: Professor Marandi, talking about these different entities like Qatar, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, how likely is it, especially Turkey being right there on the Syrian border that is opening a can of worms that may actually backfire on itself.

We have the whole al-Qaeda and the lack of security in general now like instability. How likely is this possibly going to backfire on Turkey itself?

Marandi: Well, upon history, it will most probably backfire. Thirty years ago Pakistan was a country that really did not have such a serious problem of sectarianism that it does today; and in the 1980’s and the 1990’s largely due to American support and money from dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, specially the Saudi regime; sectarianism began to grow in Pakistan for the sake of Afghanistan.

They were supporting the rebels and so on in that country, but gradually this spread inside Pakistan itself and now we see the horrific crimes that are carried out on a very regular basis in the country.

Turkey can not align itself with Saudi Arabia and other sectarian regimes with extreme ideologies such as Wahabis and so on; and not pay the consequences ultimately.

In fact their own population condoning racial, sectarian hatred and religious hatred which is what the Saudis are doing in the other countries.

If one looks at the television stations funded by these Persian Gulf, Arab dictatorships, one can see them clearly…, there are many clips on Youtube, where the so-called clerics in Saudi Arabia say that one third of Syrians can be killed for the other two thirds or where they condone the rape of women and the murder of the children, these are all Youtube clips; these are things that people can see. Or when for example, the grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia says that all Churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed.

This intolerance is something that is spread by petrodollars and Turkey can not remain normal and uninfected when it is involved in perusing such policies in Syria. So Turkey … …more

Bahrain Court Postpones Rajab Verdict
POMED – 13 August, 2012

The appeals verdict for prominent Bahraini human rights leader Nabeel Rajab, imprisoned after sending a tweet calling for the kingdom’s prime minister to resign, will be issued Thursday according to Rajab’s lawyer. The decision had been scheduled to be announced Sunday for Rajab’s twitter comments as well as three other charges relating to illegal assemblies. Nineteen U.S. lawmakers had written a letter prior to the original Sunday appeals date calling for Rajab’s release, as did the rights leader’s family calling for the international community to put pressure on the Bahraini government.

In addition, another court sentenced a 19 year-old Shiite man to two years in prison after he insulted Aisha, the Sunni-revered wife of the Prophet Mohammed in comments made on the Internet. The court alleged the man’s comments were ”phrases that are too dirty and degrading to mention, defaming the mother of the believers, Aisha.”

Also, the kingdom’s foreign minister announced that Bahrain’s ambassador to Iran will return to his post in Tehran for the first time in over a year. The ambassador had been recalled after Iran heavily criticized the government’s response to the protest movement. …more

Bahrain returns ambassador to Tehran
13 August, 2012 – Tehran Times

Bahrain said Sunday it reinstated its ambassador in Iran, more than a year after recalling the envoy over Tehran’s strong condemnation of Manama’s brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests.

“The ambassador of the kingdom to the Islamic Republic of Iran has returned to his work in Tehran,” announced Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa on his Twitter page, AFP reported.

Manama recalled its ambassador from Iran on March 15 last year.

Tehran retaliated by recalling its envoy from Manama.

Iranian officials had severely criticized the violent crackdown in Bahrain, and the dispatch of Saudi troops there to help confront pro-democracy protests.

Since mid-February 2011, thousands of anti-government protesters have been staging regular demonstrations in the streets of Bahrain, calling for the Al Khalifa royal family to relinquish power.

On March 14, 2011, troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates invaded the country to assist the Bahraini government in its crackdown on the peaceful protesters.

According to Amnesty International, scores of people have been killed and hundreds arrested in the crackdown.

Physicians for Human Rights says doctors and nurses have been detained, tortured, or disappeared because they have “evidence of atrocities committed by the authorities, security forces, and riot police” in the crackdown on anti-government protesters.

Human rights groups and the families of protesters arrested during the crackdown say that most detainees have been physically and mentally abused and that the whereabouts of many of them remain unknown. …source

Iran, Saudi Arabia in direct talks
Atul Aneja – 14 August, 2012 – The Hindu

Ahmadinejad in kingdom at the personal invitation of King

Arch rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia would hold direct talks in Mecca to address the crisis in Syria and cool the region’s growing sectarian divide.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leading the Iranian delegation which arrived in Medina on Monday — a day ahead of the two-day conference in Mecca of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Iranian President is visiting the Kingdom at the personal invitation of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz — in itself a strong signal of the urgency that Riyadh attaches to this meeting.

Syria is expected to top the agenda of the talks, where forces loyal to President Bashar Al-Assad — backed by Iran — appear to have rooted out opposition fighters — backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey — from the embattled city of Aleppo.

The visiting delegation has been carefully chosen: it includes Ali-Akbar Velayati, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s trusted lieutenant on foreign affairs. Also in the team are Mr. Ahmadinejad’s two insiders — Rahim Mashaee, the head of the presidential office, who also happens to be the President’s brother-in-law; and senior adviser Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi, known also for his close ties with the elite Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi is also part of the high-powered delegation, which represents all the major pillars of the Iranian establishment.

Analysts point out that with the Syrian regime refusing to cave-in to the externally-backed onslaught by the opposition’s so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), a recalibration of tactics may be on the cards.

Expressing a sense of realism, the Iranian delegation acknowledged that the two countries had major differences to bridge. “By attending the summit, we will express our viewpoints and try to bridge the gaps and narrow the differences through dialogue,” said Mr. Salehi, the Foreign Minister.

Iran’s solid support for Mr. Assad was recently underscored by Saeed Jalili, the head of the Iranian National Security Council, during a visit to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. But without referring to Mr. Assad directly, Mr. Jalili told a Lebanese television channel on Sunday — a day ahead of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s departure — that Iran was ready for a transition in Syria, provided it was internally driven; without external intervention; and based on genuine democratic elections.

Iran’s recent spurt of diplomatic activism includes the hosting of a conference last week in Tehran on Syria in which 29 countries participated. At the month-end, Tehran will also play host to a summit of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM), during which the situation in Syria is likely to feature strongly.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have been at loggerheads over the human rights situation in Bahrain, following the intervention of Saudi troops to quell pro-democracy protests. Saudi Arabia, on its part, has been suggesting that Iran is supporting the unrest in its oil-rich eastern province. . …more

We’re Still Arming the King of Bahrain? There Oughta Be a Law!
13 August, 2012 – By Robert Naiman- Truthout

Don’t you think it’s wrong for the US government to send US weapons to King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain at a time when his government is attacking Bahrainis who try to peacefully demonstrate for democracy and human rights?

Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, thinks there oughta be a law against that. So far, 24 other members of the House agree.

Grijalva has introduced the “Arms Sale Responsibility Act of 2012,” HR 5749. So far, 24 members of the House have agreed to co-sponsor the bill.

The Arms Sale Responsibility Act would prohibit US arms sales to a government unless the president certifies that the government is not engaging in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including the use of excessive force against unarmed protesters; systematic official discrimination on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity; or blocking the free functioning of human rights organizations.

Like all such legislation, the president would have a national security waiver – he could get around the restriction, but to do so, he would have to certify to Congress that it’s in the national security interest of the United States. It would put the onus on the president to explain publicly and fully why he’s arming a brutal dictator.

There is existing legislation that tries to restrict US support for human rights abuses. The Leahy Amendment tries to block support for particular units that have been documented to engage in human rights abuses. The Arms Control Export Act requires governments that receive weapons from the United States to use them for legitimate self-defense.

Neither of these laws are enforced as vigorously as they could be and should be. But even if they were fully enforced, they leave a huge gap. Under current law, as interpreted by the administration, the US can export weapons to brutal dictatorships so long as it can be argued that these particular weapons are not going to be used in human rights abuses and the particular units being armed are not committing human rights abuses.

The problem with that is that US weapons sales are seen by regime supporters and opponents alike as a US “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” When a government that is cracking down on peaceful protest is armed by the United States, that is seen as a tacit US endorsement of the government’s actions and as a green light to proceed with its crackdown.

That’s been true in the case of the King of Bahrain. When the Obama administration announced that it was resuming a large arms sale to the King of Bahrain, the Christian Science Monitor reported that it “incensed opposition activists … who see the deal as a signal” that the US supports “repression of opposition protests.”

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) says the Bahraini monarchy is engaged in systematic and disproportionate use of tear gas on its Shiite majority, The New York Times recently reported. PHR called the policy on tear gas use unprecedented in the world, even among dictatorships where tear gas is a staple tool for crowd control.

Cole Bockenfeld of the Project on Middle East Democracy noted in Foreign Policy that the King of Bahrain is blocking peaceful protests, but the US government isn’t saying boo.

Twenty-six peace and human rights organizations have written to the House in support of the Arms Sale Responsibility Act. So far, twenty-five members of the House are supporting the bill. …more

Drop all charges against Zainab al-Khawaja : Amnesty
Shia Post – 13 August, 2012

Zainab Al-Khawaja was arrested in the evening of 2 August 2012 when she was protesting alone outside the capital, Manama, at al-Qadam roundabout in Budaya road, Two days later her detention was extended for a further seven days and she was charged with “destroying government property”, as she had allegedly torn up a picture of Bahrain’s King while detained in May.

In the past nine months Zainab Al-Khawaja has been arrested and released several times. She has been put on trial several times for “illegal gathering” and “insulting officials” .

She is still facing three more trials. The first is an appeal hearing on a charge of “insulting an officer” in a military hospital. She had been acquitted of this charge on 2 May but the prosecution appealed and the appeal hearing is now under way; the next session will be on 16 October.

She faces two further trials: the first trial together with Ma’suma Sayyid Sharaf, for “illegal gathering” and “inciting hatred against the regime” has been postponed until 5 September. The second, for obstructing the traffic during a protest has been postponed until 1 November.

Zainab al-Khawaja was reportedly injured in the leg when she was hit by a teargas canister fired by riot police breaking up a protest she was monitoring a few weeks ago. It is not clear whether she has been given any medical treatment in detention. …more

To the governments of the USA, the UK and all governments who have influence on Bahrain And to the UN and all Regional and International Human Rights Organisations

Bahrain: An open letter from the family of Human Rights Defender Nabeel Rajab

11 August, 2012 – Gulf Center for Human Rights

My name is Sumaya Rajab, the wife of the prominent Bahraini human rights defender, Nabeel Rajab, who is currently detained in Bahrain. I write this letter in my name, and the names of our son Adam and our daughter Malak to urge you to use your influence and act quickly to guarantee my husband’s release immediately and unconditionally.

The Bahraini government fabricated a number of cases against Nabeel to take revenge because of his human rights activities. He was recently convicted as a result of his tweets in which he criticized the Prime Minister who has been in his post for 42 years. It is well-known that Nabeel exercised his right to freedom of expression in his tweets, which was guaranteed by all international conventions for human rights. Other cases taken against Nabeel related to his criticism of the security forces and the use of excessive force and torture and also his calls for peaceful protests through social networks. The right to assembly to demand civil rights is guaranteed by Bahraini laws.

My husband Nabeel is a prominent Bahraini rights activist and he is the head of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, and a member of Human Rights Watch’s MENA Advisory Board. He is also the Vice-President of the International Federation for Human Rights. Nabeel has worked in human rights for 20 years and he has held important positions in several countries.

With the beginning of what is known as the Arab Spring, Nabeel initiated many peaceful activities to support the right of all peoples to decide their destinies. This came at the same time as the Bahraini revolution in February 2011 which demanded the Bahraini people’s legitimate rights to democracy, social justice and the end of corruption. Nabeel initiated a campaign on social networks to support Bahraini people’s rights, erase corruption and uncover violations of human rights. He also tried to uncover the role of the ruling regime in Bahrain in these violations. Nabeel has become one the most prominent activists on social networks, especially Twitter. He has at present more than 166,000 followers from all around the world. He travelled around the world and he met several international officials both in the West and the Middle East and officials in human rights organizations and institutions to uncover the human rights violations carried out by the regime and to explore ways to stop these violations and end the impunity. Nabeel and his team at the BCHR succeeded in uncovering the lies of the regime in front of the world. As a result, the Bahraini regime manipulated the politicized judicial authorities to fabricate cases against him in order to imprison him and stop his influential activities. …more

Verdict tomorrow in Bahraini opposition activists’ appeal
13 August, 2012 – Amnesty International

Tomorrow (Tuesday 14 August) the final verdict in the appeal by 13 opposition activists and prisoners of conscience in Bahrain is due to be handed down.

Amnesty International has mandated Dr Ghanim Hamad Alnajjar, an internationally recognised human rights expert, to attend and observe the proceedings at the High Criminal Court of Appeal in Manama.

Dr Ghanim will be available for interviews, in English and Arabic, after the hearing.

The 13, who include prominent activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, were originally sentenced by a military court in June 2011 to between two years and life in prison on charges including “setting up terror groups to topple the royal regime and change the constitution”. All of the 13 maintain their innocence.

Several of the defendants have described in previous court hearings how they allegedly suffered torture (including sexual assault) during their detention to coerce “confessions” from them.

Amnesty considers the 13 to be prisoners of conscience, held solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly and has repeatedly called on the Bahraini authorities to quash the activists’ convictions and release them immediately and unconditionally. …more

CFP: Post Arab-Spring: Structural Changes and New Directions in Media and Society.

by danjackson – 13 August, 2012

The focus of this special issue of the Global Media Journal-American Edition is:

Post Arab-Spring: Structural Changes and New Directions in Media and Society.

Deadline for Submission: September 15, 2012

Communication technology and media services are advancing more rapidly than ever before. Throughout the entire world, average citizens have the ability to receive — and transmit — more and more unfiltered content to larger and larger audiences. The results can range from public empowerment to unabated chaos. Governments and regulators of every philosophy are struggling to keep up with the changes.

“Arab Spring,” now well into its second year, is but one example of societal change based — in part — on technological advancements. In just two short years throughout the “Arab World” some governments have cracked down with an iron fist while in other countries regimes have changed. Some revolutions have been violent, other transitions orderly. Other nations, at least on the surface, have felt no effect of the systemic changes to technology and society.

As a special issue of the American edition of Global Media Journal, the editors encourage submissions that focus on personal, mass, and computer-mediated communication within and to and from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in this new and still changing environment. Broad topic areas include, but are not limited to matters such as:

● Changes in how governments communicate with their populace and how the people communicate with government.

● Evolution in sociopolitical communication in the region.

● Western adaption to the new communication publics in the MENA region.

● Media representation of the various groups and factions involved in MENA change.

● The roles played by new media in recent changes in the MENA region.

● The relationships between traditional and new media in the pre and post Arab Spring events/

● Theoretical frameworks explaining the triangle relationships among governments, media and publics.

● Spill-over effects of Arab Spring on other nations and regions.

Graduate Student Research: In keeping with the mission of the journal to provide opportunities for graduate student publication, this special issue of Global Media Journal will have a graduate research section.

…more

US Savagery Abu Grahb HERE

US Troops Desecrate Bodies in Afghanistan

Custer massacres Cheyenne on Washita River, 27 Novemebr 1868

Without bothering to identify the village or do any reconnaissance, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer leads an early morning attack on a band of peaceful Cheyenne living with Chief Black Kettle.

Convicted of desertion and mistreatment of soldiers earlier that year in a military court, the government had suspended Custer from rank and command for one year. Ten months into his punishment, in September 1868, General Philip Sheridan reinstated Custer to lead a campaign against Cheyenne Indians who had been making raids in Kansas and Oklahoma that summer. Sheridan was frustrated by the inability of his other officers to find and engage the enemy, and despite his poor record and unpopularity with the men of the 7th Cavalry, Custer was a good fighter.

Sheridan determined that a campaign in winter might prove more effective, since the Indians could be caught off guard while in their permanent camps. On November 26, Custer located a large village of Cheyenne encamped near the Washita River, just outside of present-day Cheyenne, Oklahoma. Custer did not attempt to identify which group of Cheyenne was in the village, or to make even a cursory reconnaissance of the situation. Had he done so, Custer would have discovered that they were peaceful people and the village was on reservation soil, where the commander of Fort Cobb had guaranteed them safety. There was even a white flag flying from one of the main dwellings, indicating that the tribe was actively avoiding conflict.

Having surrounded the village the night before, at dawn Custer called for the regimental band to play “Garry Owen,” which signaled for four columns of soldiers to charge into the sleeping village. Outnumbered and caught unaware, scores of Cheyenne were killed in the first 15 minutes of the “battle,” though a small number of the warriors managed to escape to the trees and return fire. Within a few hours, the village was destroyed–the soldiers had killed 103 Cheyenne, including the peaceful Black Kettle and many women and children.

Hailed as the first substantial American victory in the Indian wars, the Battle of the Washita helped to restore Custer’s reputation and succeeded in persuading many Cheyenne to move to the reservation. However, Custer’s habit of boldly charging Indian encampments of unknown strength would eventually lead him to his death at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. …source

Horrific videos show rebel brutality in Syria
13 August, 2012 – Al Akhbar

Horrific videos purportedly showing Syrian rebels throwing the bodies of postal workers off a roof and a man’s throat being savagely cut triggered outrage among rights activists on Monday.

Three videos all showing the apparent atrocities in the province of Aleppo, including a bound man being repeatedly shot, were posted on YouTube on Monday but their authenticity could not immediately be verified.

Both sides in the 17-month conflict have been accused of human rights violations as reports of cold-blooded killings mount.

“What is the difference between them and a wild animal in the jungle? At least a wild animal does not kill unless it is hungry,” said Massoud Akko, a Kurdish activist and co-founder of the Association of Syrian Journalists.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights director Rami Abdelrahman, not his real name, said he strongly condemned such atrocities, whoever was behind them, if the videos were confirmed.

Graphic footage showed a crowd of people shouting “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) as they gathered around several bodies on the ground before another three victims were seen being hurled from the top of the building.

The incident was said to have taken place in rebel-controlled al-Bab near the northern metropolis of Aleppo and the victims were identified as postal workers, but it was not clear when it occurred.

“These are the heroes of Bab city who are inside the post office,” the man shooting the video said.

When the body of one man was thrown to the ground, the crowd is heard shouting: “This is a shabiha,” referring to the pro-government militia.

The video could not be independently verified.

In another shocking amateur video, a blindfolded man, with his hands tied behind his back, struggled as a group of men forced him to lie down on a pavement in Aleppo.

The man calls out: “I would rather die by a bullet.” A man retorts: “Shut up.”

As the group chanted “Allahu Akbar,” the assailant forced what appeared to be a small knife repeatedly across his throat as his blood spurted onto the pavement.

“This is the fate of all the shabiha and those who support Bashar (al-Assad),” said the man filming the video.

And a third clip, purportedly shot in Aazaz, also in Aleppo province, showed a bearded man being hauled out of a car boot with his hands tied behind his back and pushed to the ground.

One man opens fire on him with a small pistol, only to be joined by another with a rifle. They shoot many times at the man, who dies face down in a field.

“If these videos are confirmed, such atrocities harm the revolution. They only benefit the regime and the enemies of the revolution,” Abdelrahman told AFP.

Online activists also condemned the killings, which highlight the escalating brutality of a conflict that started out as a peaceful uprising but which has deteriorated into a brutal civil war.

…more

August 2012 …source

Mit Romney’s GOP Vice Presidential Candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, embraces the extreme philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ryan heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.”

Among the most detrimental policies for Native Americans in U.S. history began in the early 1800s. By 1830, Andrew Jackson had signed the Indian Removal Act, which authorized a plan to appropriate Indian land, a practice that had been followed since Europeans arrived in North America. The idea of segregating Indians onto poor land was first suggested by Thomas Jefferson after the Louisiana Purchase. Thus began a system of appropriating Indian land and undermining Indian culture that has been expressed throughout U.S. history. Although many Indians had taken on European cultural traits, including religious conversion, and worked their land using white methods, they were still considered incapable of assimilating into white society. Despite continuing efforts by Europeans to convert Indians to Christianity, they continued to be viewed as heathens in both popular cultural and society. ….more

Syria: Terrorism As Weapon
August 13, 2012 – John Cherian – Stop NATO

====

The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July.

The Iraqi government has obviously drawn a parallel with what is happening across its borders to the recent terror attacks in Iraq. Many of the Iraqi “jehadis” have transformed themselves into Syrian freedom fighters.

July became one of the bloodiest months for Syria as the foreign-backed armed groups made a concerted attempt to further destabilise the government led by Bashar al Assad. The terror attack on July 18, which claimed the lives of Defence Minister Dawoud Rahja and three senior officials (Assef Shawkat, deputy head of the Syrian Army and brother-in-law of Bashar al Assad; Hassan Turkmani, Chief of Crisis Operations; and Hisham Bakhtiar, head of Intelligence) who were in the forefront of the security drive to clear the armed groups from their strongholds, was indeed a serious blow to the government. The fact that the bombing occurred in the National Security Building where meetings are often chaired by the President himself is a serious cause for alarm as it could not have happened without the help of hostile foreign powers.

The Turkish newspaper Habberturk reported that Israeli Intelligence played an important role in the attack. It quoted an unidentified former American intelligence analyst as saying that the “entire attack smelled of Mossad”. Israeli President Shimon Peres has publicly stated that he wants the Syrian government to collapse. If a pro-Western government is installed in Damascus, then Israel can turn its full attention to Hizbollah, and the United States can focus on regime change in Iran.

The Syrian government said that foreign powers were behind the attack and named “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel” as the countries responsible for the act of terror. A Reuters report in the last week of July said that a secret base located in Adana province near Turkey’s border with Syria was the “nerve centre” from where operations to topple the government in Damascus were being launched. The U.S’ military base of Incirlik is also based in Adana.

The leaders of the countries ranged against Syria virtually applauded the terror attack. The U.S. State Department spokesman, while saying that Washington was against further bloodshed in Syria, “noted” that those killed and injured “were key architects of the Assad regime’s assault on the Syrian people”. A palpable regret could be noticed in the statements issued by some governments that the primary target of the bombing – the President – was not among the casualties. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the American reaction to the Damascus blasts “as a direct endorsement of terrorism”. He said that the position Washington had adopted was “a sinister one”.

The terror groups operating in the country have been lavishly funded and trained by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and also by Turkey and the U.S., two North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking after the rebels had briefly seized two border crossings and massacred the soldiers manning the posts, said that cooperation with the armed rebels should increase. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Adnan al Assadi told the media that the Turkey-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) “executed 22 Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi soldiers” after they briefly overran a border post at Abu Kamal, in eastern Syria, close to Iraq, in the third week of July. …more

US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey stand accused of state sponsorship of terrorism. UN failure to enforce own resolutions will resign their legitimacy, necessitate their expedient removal and replacement with multipolar system.

UN Designates “Free Syrian Army” Affiliates as Al Qaeda
12 August, 2012 – Land Destroyer – Tony Cartalucci

August 12, 2012 – The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) currently arming, funding, and commanding entire brigades of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), is designated an Al Qaeda affiliate by the United Nations pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011), in addition to being listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf) as a foreign terrorist organization and a proscribed terrorist organization respectively.

Image: From UN.org – LIFG, who is now leading, arming, and funding (via Qatari, Saudi, Turkish, US, and British cash) entire brigades of the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” is clearly listed as an integral part of Al Qaeda, with the UN noting several prominent LIFG terrorists occupying the highest echelons of Al Qaeda’s command structure. These resolutions reflects other reports previously covered, including the US Army West Point Combating Terrorism Center report, “”Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq” (summary here).
….

This means that the United States, the UK, NATO, and the Gulf State despots of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are knowingly and willfully funding, arming, and politically backing designated affiliates of Al Qaeda contrary not only to US and British anti-terror legislation, but contrary to numerous UN resolutions as well. Western and Gulf State support of the FSA constitutes state sponsorship of terrorism.

…more

World in transition toward new power balance: Ayatollah Khamenei
shiapost – 13 August, 2012

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the world is in transition toward a “new political, economic and social structure and geometry,” which involves a balance in power.

“The direction of the future world developments is … toward the transfer of the general powers and capabilities of some parts of world nations to other parts,” Ayatollah Khamenei noted in a meeting with academics and researchers on Sunday.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the sweeping wave of Islamic Awakening across the region and the failure of the West, led by the US, to dominate West Asia are two signs of the coming new world order.

“America’s unsuccessful leap for dominating this important and sensitive region, which became evident in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of the other signs of the deep changes that the world is facing.”

“Europe’s status quo, which will finally bring it down, stems not from tactical or strategic errors but from a fundamental flaw in worldview,” the Leader added.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the decline of the US is the fourth sign, indicating that the world is witnessing a transition into a new state.

“As a leading power in wealth, science as well as military and non-military technology, the US had a very good public image among the nations; however, today, this country not only does not have that credit, but has turned into the symbol for bullying, oppression, interference in other nation’s affairs and warmongering.”

Ayatollah Khamenei added that the Iranian nation plays a very important and sensitive role in this transitional phase.

“Contrary to the infertile West, the Islamic Republic has new and wave-inducing suggestions for the human community in various political, administrative, ethical, cultural, social and economic spheres,” the Leader said.

“Iran, its elites and officials resist the Western threats, warmongering, assassinations, mass killing, and divisive [policies] and this reality has conferred a special prominent on this country.” …source

Congress of the United States
10 August, 2012

His Majesty King Hamad Bin Isa AI-Khalifa
The Amiri Court, Riffa Palace
P.O. Box 555
Manama, Bahrain

Your Royal Highness,

We write to express our concern regarding Nabeel Rajab and other Bahrainis who have been prosecuted foi crimes related to freedom of expression. We understand Mr. Rajab was imprisoned for calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister via Twitter, an Internet-messaging program. We respectfully request that you use your authority to order Mr. Rajab’s release under the universal principle that all citizens should have the right to
peacefully express disagreement with their government.

Reports indicate many Bahrainis have been imprisoned for peaceful political activities since the start of pro-democracy demonstrations in February 2011. According to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), the National Safety Courts convicted approximately 300 people for exercising their right to free expression and
peaceful assembly. Since Your Excellency’s endorsement of the BICI report and its recommendations, Bahraini officials have repeatedly stated that individuals prosecuted for political speech would be released, and that no one would face prosecution for exercising these rights.

We recognize that the Bahraini government has taken positive steps to implement certain BICI recommendations. These steps represent important progress. However, recent charges against Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, run counter to the government’s assurances that individuals will not be prosecuted for peaceful political speech. Bahraini authorities have prosecuted Mr. Rajab five separate
times, and in each case the charges appear to have been based on peaceful dissent and peaceful protests. Mr. Rajab was sentenced to three months in prison after “tweeting” that the Prime Minister should resign.

Mr. Rajab is also facing three other active prosecutions related to “illegal gatherings”; however, reports indicate prosecutors have produced no evidence that the protests at issue were violent or threatened violence.

In sum, we remain very concerned about the ongoing prosecution of peaceful opposition activists such as Nabeel Rajab for taking part in activities protected by international law and the Bahraini Constitution, notwithstanding Your Excellency’s acceptance of the BICI recommendations and the government’s reassurances that it does not conduct political prosecutions. We therefore respectfully urge the government to unconditionally and immediately release all Bahrainis being held for crimes related to freedom of expression.

Sincerely,

see signators and source HERE

More Than 250 First Nations and Allies From Across North America Gather In Alberta To Raise Awareness
First Nations delegations from British Columbia and Ontario show growing concern and resolve against tar sands infrastructure projects across Canada.

First Nations march against tarsands
4 August, 2012 – Censored News

FORT MCMURRAY ALBERTA (August 4, 2012) – Hundreds of First Nations leaders from BC, Alberta, the NWT and Ontario along with First Nation actress Tantoo Cardinal and allies from across North America, gathered in Fort McMurray today, to walk 13-kilometres through the visceral landscape of tar sands operations to bring attention to the destructive impacts of tar sands projects and pipelines on surrounding communities and the environment.

First Nation representatives from the Heiltsuk (BC), Yinka Dene (BC), Coastal First Nations (BC), the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Six Nations (Ontario) and Aamijiwnaang (Ontario) joined with local First Nations leaders in a traditional mixing of the waters ceremony, bringing water from their respective territories as a symbol of importance of the protection of water and the sacred connection to mother earth.

Local elders led the group in prayers along the route that was once valuable northern Boreal forest and fertile traditional hunting, fishing and gathering grounds, stopping in the four directions to lay down tobacco as an offering for healing of the land.

“We have come from all over North America to walk together through the heart of the destruction caused by the ever-expanding tar sands and offer prayers for the healing of the land and its people,” said Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus. “For more than 500 years governments have fought over our lands and resources. It’s time the provincial and federal governments sit down with the First Nations, the rightful owners of these lands and resources, to decide if and when these lands should be developed.”
The third annual healing walk was organized by Keepers of the Athabasca, a network of First Nation, Metis and allied communities along the Athabasca River that includes people whose lives have been directly impacted by tar sands operations.

“The places where we used to pick berries and find our medicines have been destroyed by rapid tar sands projects,” said Anthony Ladouceur, Councillor of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. “Our people have lived here for thousands of years, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue to live off the land with industry expanding all around us.”

The Alberta tar sands currently produce approximately 1.8 million barrels of oil per day; if industry and government’s expansion plans are approved that number could reach six million barrels per day. Local opposition to Shell’s two proposed open pit mine applications is growing, along with North American-wide resistance to pipeline proposals. Four pipelines are being proposed to transport tar sands oil: Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain, Trans Canada Keystone XL, and Enbridge Line 9 reversal.

“I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to participate in the 3rd Annual Tar Sands Healing Walk,” said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. “This sacred walk serves to remind us that we, as parents and grandparents, have the unconditional responsibility to safeguard and pass on the legacy of respecting and caretaking Mother Earth, entrusted to us by our ancestors, to our children and grandchildren.”
“This walk creates strength and unity among the people who have to live with the destructive impacts of tar sands. Together, we are more empowered to ensure a clean and healthy world for future generations,” said Roland Woodward Chair of the Keepers of the Athabasca.

The walk was not a protest, but a spiritual gathering to offer prayers for the healing of Mother Earth and all those negatively impacted by tar sands projects and associated infrastructure. Participants walked along Highway 63 past Suncor and Syncrude’s operations to help heal what has been destroyed and to give each other the spiritual strength to carry on. …more

The West and the Glorification of Terrorism By Thierry Meyssan
3 August, 2012 — Voltaire Network – crosspost on WilliamBowles.info

The U.N. Security Council met shortly after the July 18 attack that decapitated the command of the Syrian security forces. The two sessions that followed addressed the Resolution proposals submitted by the Western powers and Russia. It was incumbent upon the Council to condemn terrorist action on principle, as it does in all similar circumstances. The practice is to unanimously adopt a declaration and have it read by the sitting president of the Council, in this case the Columbian, Nestor Osorio. Protocol dictates that he present his condolences to the member state under attack.

However, the Council remained silent. The Western members refused to apply to the attack in Syria one of the most basic principles of international relations: the condemnation of terrorism. Even worse, in their respective declarations German, British, American and French leaders instead condemned the victims, making them responsible for the violence they had been the targets of and reaffirming support for the forces that perpetrated the attack. Immediately, the Western media set about defiling the memory of the victims as if their deaths were still insufficient to quench their thirst for Syrian blood.

No one doubts that terrorism in Syria is being sponsored by NATO and the GCC but until now it was being carried out behind a veil of hypocrisy. Unable to bombard and raze the country because of the Russian and Chinese double veto, the Western powers and their Arab partners decided to bleed the country while setting it up for an attack by mercenaries. Then on February 12 came the call to jihad issued by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Suddenly, NATO, the GCC and al-Qaeda found themselves pursuing the same objective. Notwithstanding, Brussels took the view that the Egyptian sheik’s declarations were his alone and were therefore unworthy of comment as if to underline that NATO doesn’t revise its positions in response to such fatwas. This rationale remained unconvincing because it ignored the issue of the common objectives shared by the self-proclaimed advocates of democracy, on the one hand, and Islamism, on the other. It did allow appearances to be preserved. The masks are now off. The Western powers have acknowledged their links with terrorists.

The turning point occurred during the 3rd Conference of the “Friends” of the Syrian people in Paris on July 6. President Francois Hollande accorded a place of honor to individuals who had previously been paid in secret while taking care to deny knowing them. He elevated war criminals to the rank of heroes without eliciting the least discomfort among his foreign partners.

Without waiting for al-Qaeda to be invited to yet another conference of the “Friends” of the Syrian people, Sergei Lavrov expressed surprise at this behavior: “This signifies that [the West] will continue to support this kind of terrorist attack until the Security Council fulfills its obligations. It is a terrifying position.” He continued, “We do not know how we are to interpret this.”

Beyond the moral questions, what does this doctrinal turnaround signify in that for over a decade the Western powers have touted themselves as the champions of the “war on terrorism” while today they openly proclaim their support for terrorists?

Many authors, among them U.S. strategists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, have emphasized that the notion of a “war on terrorism” is an absurd concept. One can conduct a war on terrorists but not against their strategy. Be that as it may, the slogan has had the double advantage of placing certain states on the side of Good while justifying a “” against all others. …more

Mike Macnair examines the paradox of the rational irrationalism of US foreign policy

Imperialism, capitalism and war

2 August, 2012 – Weekly Worker 925 – Mike Macnair

For some years now the USA and its allies have been carrying out a blockade, or siege warfare, against Iran, under the euphemistic name of ‘sanctions’. In July, the sanctions siege was significantly intensified and alongside it the US and Israel have been organising semi-clandestine sabotage operations (most notably the Stuxnet computer virus) and assassinations.

Also parallel to the siege has been the running threat of direct bombardment – with its own set of euphemisms: the ‘surgical strike’ to ‘take out’ Iran’s potential nuclear capability. The level of media attention paid to this threat varies: very recently Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given his backing to an Israeli ‘strike’, while publicity has been given to the arrival in the region of US super-bunker-buster bombs.

There is something obviously irrational about this policy. The suggestion that Iran getting the bomb threatens an immediate attack on Israel, which has 100 or more warheads and complete delivery systems, etc, is ludicrous. The arguments that president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman or can be analogised to Hitler are both equal nonsense, and scarily reminiscent of similar claims about Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Moreover, one might imagine that the US would be a bit more cautious, given that its budget has been tightened by the results of the 2008 crash, and it spent billions failing either to find weapons of mass destruction or to create a shining beacon of democracy in Iraq, and has equally failed to defeat the Taliban in 11 years of war in Afghanistan.

The apparent irrationality – in a certain sense real irrationality – has substantive present political implications. On the one hand, an important section of the anti-war movement has seized upon it with the aim of persuading the capitalist class, or at least sections of it, to act more rationally: it is not really in their interests to pursue such wars.

(Or perhaps the idea is that we could have capitalism without US hegemony (or any other hegemon state): the United Nations as a proto-world-state, the ‘law-governed world order’ which Peter Gowan promoted before his death. The reality is that the UN, though an entity with which the US is often partially at odds, is an agency of the US’s alliance systems; and the ‘law-governed world order’ is precisely a regime in which the security council can authorise siege warfare, bombing and invasions.)

On the other hand, an equally important section of the left argues that behind the irrational arguments are real, rational reasons for the US to act as it does – chiefly concerned with the price and control of oil and with maintaining US geopolitical dominance through surrounding Russia and China. This latter view is associated with the idea that the left and the workers’ movement has a stake not merely in the defeat of the war drive, but positively in the victory of the US’s ‘anti-imperialist’ opponents.

This idea is a bastardised form of the ‘anti-imperialist united front’ of the colonial workers’ movement and the nationalists and/or pan-Islamists, which was promoted by the early Communist International. ‘Bastardised’, because in its modern form it is filtered through the diplomacy of the old USSR-led ‘socialist bloc’. The underlying idea is that the overthrow of imperialism (identified in modern practice with US-led imperialism) can precede and provide the basis for socialist revolution.

The view that the irrational explanations conceal real rational reasons of imperialist interests is associated with the ‘anti-imperialist united front’ conception, but is not essential to it. Rather, it offers supporting grounds for it: if the imperialists have a real economic or geopolitical interest at stake in creating puppet regimes in the Middle East, then the ‘resistance’ offered by nationalists can potentially actually undermine the imperialist order.

How should we judge these questions? In my view the siege warfare and bombing threats against Iran are part of a larger pattern of US policy and the nature and incidence of wars since the US defeat in Indochina in the 1970s. This US behaviour is neither simply irrational, nor, on the other hand, do the irrational explanations conceal real decisive interests which explain the war decisions.

I propose to explain, or to contribute to an explanation of, this US behaviour by three elements. The first is the political effects of the business cycle. The second is the relative decline of the United States, which partially repeats the previous experiences of older ‘leading capitalist states’. The third is the decline of capitalism as such, which is reflected in differences between the present relative decline of the US and the decline of British world hegemony in the late 19th century.
The pattern

Before the 1970s, US Middle East policy had a clear and rational character as part of the general policy of the cold war. This was an orientation involving state-to-state alliances, ‘containment’ of ‘communism’ – ie, of the USSR and its alliance system – and US-Soviet competition in development aid within the framework of managed trade and limited import-substitution industrialisation in ‘developing countries’. US military interventions and those of the US’s British side-kick were directed to supporting existing state regimes and used quite limited force. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war and 1973 Yom Kippur war were fought wholly within this strategic framework.

After Vietnam, the US gradually broke with this policy and embarked on a new orientation. Financial globalisation is the most discussed aspect of the changed orientation; but other aspects of it include the ‘human rights’ offensive; increased use of US support for guerrilla and militia operations to destabilise regimes seen as hostile to the US, with some tendency to produce ‘failed states’ (most strikingly Afghanistan after 1980); and episodic large-scale military operations that are merely destructive.

There is an apparent indirect connection to financial crises. The point at which the 1987 stock market crash began to feed through into the real economy around 1990 was followed by the first Gulf war of 1991. The point at which the economy was affected by the dot-com crash of 2000-02 (as opposed to mere financial difficulties), was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It looks to me (I may be wrong) as though, although the sheer severity of the crash of 2008-09 has delayed the process, nonetheless this crash has already been followed by an escalation of siege and sabotage operations against Iran, while a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran appears to be in the offing. …more

History’s Greatest Terrorist: Harry Truman
By Steve Fake – August 10, 2012 – FPIP – Cross-posted from Scramble for Africa.

The motives for dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political, the targets civilian — a textbook case of terrorism.

Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson in the lull between the storms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson in the lull between the storms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Terrorism, despite continual abuse, is a word like any other. It has an actual definition: violence against a civilian target undertaken to send a political message. It is not merely a slur to be affixed willy-nilly to whomever, as geopolitical needs dictate.

On August 6th 1945 Washington dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. One hundred fifty thousand civilians were incinerated or condemned to slow and terrible deaths by radiation exposure (as immortalized in the Japanese manga and animated film Barefoot Gen). On August 9th, the Truman Administration released a plutonium core atomic bomb over Nagasaki, killing an additional 75,000 people.

A justifying mythology was immediately crafted and remains firmly lodged in popular understanding — at least in the U.S. The bombs were dropped, reluctantly, to save the lives of U.S. servicemen fighting Japan. Perhaps a half million (Truman’s claim) would have died before Japan would have unconditionally surrendered had the U.S. not deployed the bombs. The story has long been debunked, but with little popularization. If fact, Japan was already prepared to surrender, having only a few (trivial next to hundreds of thousands of lives) conditions. The actual reasons the bomb was dropped, included, as Gar Alperovitz has long argued, intimidating Russia and to demonstrate U.S. power on the world stage. Any street gangster would recognize the dynamic. There was also a concern to forestall any further Soviet influence in Asia. Thus the motive was political and the target was civilian. It is a textbook case of terrorism. Perhaps the preeminent example.

Truman’s successor continued developing the arsenal. In 1954, the federal government, in a secret test, detonated a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb — the most powerful device the country ever exploded — on the Bikini Atoll island range in the Pacific Ocean. Rongelap Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, was downwind. The people were temporarily relocated, only to be sent back a few years later to their now radioactive homelands. …more