Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

– Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association

Manama regime threatens participants in Friday protest
13 September, 2013 – PressTV

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry has threatened to take legal action against anyone who takes part in an anti-regime demonstration scheduled to be held on Friday.

“Legal action will be taken against any participant in the rally planned by political associations, for flouting the law,” said Bahrain’s Public Security Chief Tariq Hassan Al-Hassan on Thursday.

Hassan further said the Bahraini Interior Ministry has banned the Friday protest, claiming that the demonstration has nothing to do with exercising the freedom of expression, as guaranteed by law.

The anti-regime gathering is due to be staged between Bahrain’s northern villages of Daih and Bilad al-Qadeem.

Meanwhile, Bahrain’s main opposition group al-Wefaq has criticized the interior ministry decision, calling on Bahrainis for a massive turnout at the protest.

The Manama regime’s human rights record has come under scrutiny over its handling of anti-regime protests that erupted across the country in early 2011.

Bahrainis demanded political reform and a constitutional monarchy, a demand that later changed to an outright call for the ouster of the ruling Al Khalifa family following its brutal crackdown on popular protests.

Manama also called in Saudi-led Arab forces from neighboring states. Scores of people have been killed and hundreds of others arrested in the clampdown.

On September 9, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) that she was frustrated with reports of human rights violations in Bahrain.

“The deep polarization of society and the harsh clampdown on human rights defenders and peaceful protesters continue to make a durable solution more difficult to secure,” Pillay said. …more

Bahrain: Eight Members of the AlMoqdad family in prison; Youngest is 15 years old
13 September, 2013 – Bahrain Center for Human Rights

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights condemns the continued attacks on the families of political dissidents, and the targeting of their relatives and children with arrests and trials as part of harassment campaign. The family of AlMoqdad has had eight of its members arrested so far, which started with the arrest of 2 prominent political leaders in 2011, and the last victims who are 15 and 16 year old boys arrested several days ago. A ninth member of the family is also on trial.

Jaffar Abduljalil AlMoqdad (15 years old) and his cousin Mohamed Ebrahim AlMoqdad (16 years old) along with seven other children and six adults were abducted by security men in civilian clothing accompanied by police vehicles at around 4am on the 5th of September 2013 from a swimming pool in Adari village. A worker at the swimming pool witnessed the beating of the detainees at time of arrest, as they were taken away in their swimwear.

Despite inquiring about them in several police stations in the morning, their families were not able to get any information about the children’s whereabouts or wellbeing. It took over 48 hours to get to know that the two children from the AlMoqdad were moved to the Dry Docks detention center (adult’s prison).

The lawyer of Jaffar said that the public prosecution interrogated him in absence of his lawyer despite being informed of the lawyers contact. The prosecutor ordered the detention under interrogation of all the detainees, including Jaffar and the other children, for 60 days under the terrorism law.

On the 9th of September, Jaffar called his family to inform them that he is at the Dry Docks detention center (adult’s prison) and he has a visit the next day. He briefly informed them that he was subjected to torture and he said he would give the details during the visit. He also informed them that he was forced to confess and to sign papers at the public prosecution without being able to read it. However, when the family went to visit him on the 10th of September, they were denied the visit without any explanation.

Other young children have been tried under the terrorism law, the youngest child being Hussain AlDallal, 14 years old.

Murtadha AbdulJalil AlMoqdad, who is currently pending a verdict that could include imprisonment for “illegal gathering” said that the authorities are refusing to return the passport documents of the family, which were taken by the security forces at time of arresting his father in March 2011. Without passports the family members cannot travel or apply for jobs. …more

Obama bin Sultan and Bandar ibn Israel

By Steve Weissman – 12 September, 2013 -rsn

How much did Obama’s threat of a not-so-limited U.S. military strike push Russia and Syria to accept, at least in words, the international control and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons?

How much did the threat of losing a Congressional vote on military authorization push Obama to grab onto Putin’s offer with its lack of specifics and enormous difficulties in implementation?

Americans will debate both questions well into the next presidential election. But these are only the political atmospherics surrounding a much larger strategic question. Will the redline issue of chemical weapons end up escalating the war against Bashar al-Assad? Or will the long-term Russian cooperation Obama will need to control and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons end up slowing down the brutal momentum of the Syrian civil war?

The point man behind all this global intrigue is an old Washington favorite, the Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, who is pushing the U.S. to provide the military muscle for a Sunni takeover of Syria. Now, with Vladimir Putin’s masterful diplomacy, Bandar’s mission has become a whole lot trickier.

Appointed the director general of Saudi Intelligence this past July, Bandar took responsibility for installing a compliant Sunni regime in Damascus. As the Wall Street Journal reported, his appointment convinced officials inside the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that Saudi Arabia “was serious about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

Having previously served as Saudi ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005, Bandar pulled major strings under five U.S. presidents. He worked closely with the CIA to arm the anti-Soviet Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, which ended in the creation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He played a supporting role in the Iran-Contra scandal, and loudly urged the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As Craig Unger documented in “House of Bush, House of Saud,” he also grew so personally and financially close to the Bush family that George W nicknamed him Bandar Bush.

Slipping into the shadows in 2006, Prince Bandar encouraged Vice President Dick Cheney to join Sunni leaders in a new sectarian alliance against Iran and its Shia allies in Syria and Lebanon. Sy Hersh described this “redirection” of American policy in The New Yorker, and I showed the continuity in “How Obama Fans the Flames of Islam’s Holy Wars.” Far from doing nothing, as his hawkish detractors claim, Obama began using the CIA to help the gas-rich Qataris, and increasingly Bandar and the Saudis, fly in heavy arms to the Sunni rebels in Syria. Many of these Sunni rebels – like Jabhat-al-Nusrah – have links to al-Qaeda, an inconvenient truth that John Kerry and his new neocon allies are falling all over themselves to minimize.

The effort is embarrassing. Kerry’s chief source on the subject, Elizabeth O’Bagy, worked for the neocon Institute for the Study of War and was affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which supported the supposedly moderate rebels that she, Kerry, and Senator John McCain were boosting. According to Politico, she has since been fired for falsely claiming to have completed her Ph.D.

Prince Bandar, Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the die-hard neocons are all using the highly circumstantial evidence that Assad was behind the August chemical weapons attacks on the outskirts of Damascus. They are openly fanning the flames of a larger war all the way to Tehran. “Humanitarian interventionists” like Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice and U.N. ambassador Samantha Power also seem to favor more war.

The Israelis are also backing the escalation in Syria. They had earlier hesitated because they had found Assad easy to deal with over the Golan Heights, which they continue to occupy. Their major interest remains building an alliance against Iran, and – unlike the Saudis – they would like to see the war in Syria go on without either side winning, hoping to grind down the Iranians, Hezbollah, and their Sunni antagonists. The prince has nonetheless grown close to Tel Aviv, and his Arab enemies have dubbed him “Bandar ibn Israel.”

Where, then, does Obama stand? In his Tuesday night speech, Obama sounded far more hawk than dove, playing up the very real suffering of those who underwent the gassing while hypocritically ignoring America’s own use of white phosphorus and depleted Uranium and its support of the Israelis and Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons. He appealed to the chauvinistic nonsense of “American exceptionalism,” and went out of his way to sell military intervention in Syria as part of his opposition to Iran’s nuclear program.

At the same time, he has U.S. Special Forces in Jordan training Sunni rebels to fight in Syria as part of what Bandar and the Saudis call their “southern strategy” for strengthening the opposition south and east of Damascus. The White House is also setting Putin up to be the fall guy for delaying military escalation in Syria.

The problem with all this is that it hardly encourages the kind of cooperation Obama needs to control and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, a task that will take many years. It also ignores Putin’s own experience with Prince Bandar. According to the widely respected British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Bandar met with the Russian leader at Putin’s dacha outside Moscow early in August.

“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” Bandar said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the U.S. He also pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if Assad was toppled.

Bandar made an interesting offer, with economic implications involving major Saudi arms purchases from Russia and global cooperation between OPEC and the Russians. But, reports Evans-Pritchard, Bandar also hinted at a Chechen terrorist attack on Russia’s Winter Olympics next year. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year,” he allegedly promised. “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

If Putin did not go along, Bandar implied that the Saudis might allow the Chechens to attack the Winter Olympics. With Mafia-like threats of that sort, I doubt that Putin will prove terribly cooperative if Obama continues to channel Prince Bandar al-Sultan al Saud. …source

Meet Saudi Arabia’s Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppetmaster Behind The Syrian War
by Tyler Durden – 27 August, 2013 – Zero Hedge

Yesterday the Telegraph’s Evans-Pritchard dug up a note that we had posted almost a month ago, relating to the “secret” meeting between Saudi Arabia and Russia, in which Saudi’s influential intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with Putin and regaled him with gifts, including a multi-billion arms deal and a promise that Saudi is “ready to help Moscow play a bigger role in the Middle East at a time when the United States is disengaging from the region”, if only Putin would agree to give up his alliance with Syria’s al-Assad and let Syria take over, ostensibly including control of the country’s all important natgas transit infrastructure. What was not emphasized by the Telegraph is that Putin laughed at the proposal and brushed aside the Saudi desperation by simply saying “nyet.” However, what neither the Telegraph, nor we three weeks ago, picked up on, is what happened after Putin put Syria in its place. We now know, and it’s a doozy.

Courtesy of As-Safir (translated here), we learn all the gritty details about what really happened at the meeting, instead of just the Syrian motives and the Russian conclusion, and most importantly what happened just as the meeting ended, unsuccessfully (at least to the Saudi). And by that we mean Saudi Arabia’s threats toward Russia and Syria.

First, some less well-known observations on who it was that was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even as US support was fading fast:

Bandar said that the matter is not limited to the kingdom and that some countries have overstepped the roles drawn for them, such as Qatar and Turkey. He added, “We said so directly to the Qataris and to the Turks. We rejected their unlimited support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Turks’ role today has become similar to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war. We do not favor extremist religious regimes, and we wish to establish moderate regimes in the region. It is worthwhile to pay attention to and to follow up on Egypt’s experience. We will continue to support the [Egyptian] army, and we will support Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he is keen on having good relations with us and with you. And we suggest to you to be in contact with him, to support him and to give all the conditions for the success of this experiment. We are ready to hold arms deals with you in exchange for supporting these regimes, especially Egypt.”

So while Saudi was openly supporting the Egyptian coup, which is well-known, it was Turkey and most importantly Qatar, the nation that is funding and arming the Syrian rebels, that were the supporters of the now failed regime. One wonders just how much Egypt will straing Saudi-Qatari relations, in light of their joined interests in Syria.

Second, some better-known observations by Putin on Russia’s relationship with Iran:

Regarding Iran, Putin said to Bandar that Iran is a neighbor, that Russia and Iran are bound by relations that go back centuries, and that there are common and tangled interests between them. Putin said, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”

Then, Putin’s position vis-a-vis Turkey, whom he implicitly warns that it is “not immune to Syria’s bloodbath.”

Regarding the Turkish issue, Putin spoke of his friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; “Turkey is also a neighboring country with which we have common interests. We are keen to develop our relations in various fields. During the Russian-Turkish meeting, we scrutinized the issues on which we agree and disagree. We found out that we have more converging than diverging views. I have already informed the Turks, and I will reiterate my stance before my friend Erdogan, that what is happening in Syria necessitates a different approach on their part. Turkey will not be immune to Syria’s bloodbath. The Turks ought to be more eager to find a political settlement to the Syrian crisis. We are certain that the political settlement in Syria is inevitable, and therefore they ought to reduce the extent of damage. Our disagreement with them on the Syrian issue does not undermine other understandings between us at the level of economic and investment cooperation. We have recently informed them that we are ready to cooperate with them to build two nuclear reactors. This issue will be on the agenda of the Turkish prime minister during his visit to Moscow in September.”

Of course, there is Syria:

Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.”

Alas, that has failed.

So what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis?

First this: Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Since we know all about this, it means no more talks, an implicit warning that the Chechens operating in proximity to Sochi may just become a loose cannon (with Saudi’s blessing of course), and that about a month ago “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate.” Four weeks later, we are on the edge of all out war, which may involve not only the US and Europe, but most certainly Saudi Arabia and Russia which automatically means China as well. Or, as some may call it, the world.

And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar.

P.S. Russia and Saudi Arabia account for 25% of global oil production. …more

Head of Syrian Rebels Calls for Terrorist Attacks On America
by George Washington – 13 September, 2013 – Zero Hedge
immanent
We knew that the Syrian rebels are mainly Al Qaeda, and that the U.S. has been supporting these terrorists for years.

And we knew that rank-and-file Syrian rebels have:

– Burned American flags
– Threatened to attack America
– Said: “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”

– And said: “We started our holy war here and won’t finish until this [Al Qaeda] banner will be raised on top of the White House. Keep funding them, you always do that, remember? Al Qaeda for instance.”

But even we were shocked to learn that the head of the Syrian rebels is also the global boss of Al Qaeda … and that he is calling for fresh terrorist attacks on America.

CBS News reports:

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri called has called on Muslims to continue attacking Americans on their own soil in order to “bleed” the U.S. economy.

“To keep up the hemorrhage in America’s security and military spending, we need to keep the Unites States on a constant state of alert about where and when the next strike will blow,” Zawahiri said.

Reuters noted in February 2012 that al-Zawahri is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.

But al-Zawahri has since taken control of the main Al Qaeda rebel terrorist group in Syria: al-Nusra.

Terrorism experts at the Bipartisan Center’s Homeland Security Project (co-chaired by 9/11 Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean) report (page 24):

A recent illustration of the fractured nature of the al-Qaeda network was provided during the spring of 2013 when Zawahiri [the global head of Al Qaeda] personally intervened to settle a dispute between Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Zawahiri rejected AQI’s assertion of control over al-Nusra and declared the Syrian group to be under his direction.

In doing so, Zawahiri was trying to assert control over two of al-Qaeda’s most virulent affiliates. AQI had mounted a series of spectacular attacks in Iraq over the past year, demonstrating that it was a force to be reckoned with. According to the Congressional Research Service, there were some dozen days in 2012 in which AQI carried out simultaneous multicity attacks that killed hundreds of Iraqis. And the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria is widely acknowledged as the most effective fighting force in the war against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Let’s put this in context. Most of the Syrian “rebels” are Al Qaeda. The U.S. government has designated these guys as terrorists.

Things are getting better, not worse: Al Qaeda is gaining more and more power among the rebels.

And the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel have been backing these guys for years. Indeed, we’ve long known that most of the weapons we’re shipping to Syria are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. And they apparently have chemical weapons.

We’re arming the same guys who are threatening to blow us up.

This is even stupider than creating Al Qaeda in the first place to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. At least then, they didn’t threaten America while we were arming them. ...source

Syrian Rebels Say Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Weapons Deliveries
By ANNE BARNARD, 12 September, 2013 – NYT

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Saudi Arabia, quietly cooperating with American and British intelligence and other Arab governments, has modestly increased deliveries of weapons to rebels fighting in southern Syria, the rebels say.

But the shipments have not been large enough to assuage rebel frustration that they are being abandoned, as the United States shifts its focus to a possible Russian-initiated deal to quarantine the Syrian government’s chemical weapons, or to ease anxieties among the Persian Gulf leaders who have been the rebels’ primary backers.

Publicly, the Saudis expressed patience, with pro-monarchy newspapers saying that the negotiations over Syrian chemical weapons would probably founder and that American military strikes would follow sooner or later. But behind the scenes, analysts say, leaders in Saudi Arabia and allies like Qatar chafed as rebel leaders fumed that their larger need — a way to shift the balance in the two-year-old civil war and end the army’s bombardment of towns and neighborhoods — was being ignored.

The greatest fear of gulf leaders, said Hassan Hassan, who analyzes the gulf role in the Syria conflict at The National, a newspaper based in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, is that talks over Syria’s chemical weapons will shift the American focus to “talking with the Iranians and the regime and Russia rather than with the gulf.”

The gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have positioned themselves as crucial players in Syria, working closely with the United States.

“Now all of a sudden the limelight has been taken away from them,” Mr. Hassan said. “They are afraid the situation can take another course.”

Since the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last month that American officials blame on the Syrian government, rebels and analysts say the Saudis have stepped up deliveries of light weapons and antitank guided missiles. The aim was initially to bolster the rebels’ ability to take advantage of any American strikes by storming damaged or undefended bases, analysts and rebels say — though the Saudis refrained from sending the antiaircraft missiles that the rebels covet most. The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the chemical attack.

Rebels in southern Syria who nominally answer to the loose-knit, Western-backed Free Syrian Army said Thursday that they had received new infusions of arms from Saudi Arabia, delivered through Jordan, and that the weapons had helped them gain ground near the border. …more

EU Parliament Expresses Human Rights Concerns For Bahrain
12 September, 2013 – Eurasia Review

“The legitimate right of Bahraini citizens to express their opinions freely, organise gatherings and demonstrate peacefully must be respected”, said MEPs in their resolution.

They further called on the authorities to immediately end all acts of repression, release all prisoners of conscience, and respect the rights of juveniles.

“The independent commission for the rights of prisoners and detainees should effectively monitor and improve their conditions”, they added, while “the Ministry for Human Rights and Social Development in Bahrain should act in accordance with international human rights standards and obligations”. …source

Complete EU Resolution HERE

U.S. Ambassador Donahoe Hits Back at Bahraini Media Distortion of Meeting with Regime Officials
11 Septemebr, 2013 – By Brian Dooley – Human Rights First

Once again the Bahraini media has proven that it plays fast and loose with the truth in its reporting of the regime’s meetings with foreign diplomats. An article in today’s English-language Gulf Daily News claimed that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council at Geneva Eileen Donahoe refuted remarks made by earlier in the week by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay in which she criticized the government of Bahrain.

A story titled “U.S. Backs Bahrain” reported from Geneva that a “Bahrain parliamentary team yesterday won superpower backing against ‘unfair’ comments,” and that “America’s Ambassador to the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, Eileen Donahoe, agreed that her remarks did not reflect reality.” Yesterday the state-controlled Bahrain News Agency (BNA) also reported that Donahoe met with Bahraini Members of Parliament and “agreed” that the Members “showcases the true nature incidents” (sic).

Ambassador Donahoe hit back on Twitter this morning, saying “Story is NOT accurate. #Bahrain gov del ask to meet after US joined JS: I expressed concern re Min of Justice order.” Earlier this week the Bahraini Minister for Justice announced that opposition figures in Bahrain would have to notify the government in advance if they intended to meet representatives of foreign governments. Also this week The United States, along with 46 other countries, signed a statement expressing concern over human rights violations in Bahrain.

This is not the first time the Bahraini media has been caught falsifying what happened at governments meetings. In June 2011, the BNA reported that Pillay had recognized that “misinformation” had been spread about the crisis in the Kingdom. In a statement the following day, a Pillay spokesperson described the BNA account of a meeting held with Bahraini officials as a “distortion of her words” and asked for a retraction.

The government-supported media in Bahrain media seems determined to cement its pants on fire reputation. The U.S. government should really wonder how reliable an ally Bahrain is when its state media distorts conversations with senior American officials. A full statement from Ambassador Donahoe about what was said and not said in the meeting would help clarify things.

Update: The U.S. Mission to the U.N. in Geneva posted a statement expressing its “deep disappointment and concern over gross factual inaccuracies” reported by the Bahrain News Agency and the Gulf Daily News. …source

OFFENDING STORY BELOW:

US backs Bahrain over human rights issue
Trade Arabia , 11 September, 2013

A Bahrain parliamentary team yesterday won superpower backing against ‘unfair’ comments by UN human rights chief Navi Pillay, a report said.

America’s Ambassador to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, Eileen Donahoe, agreed that her remarks did not reflect reality, according to the report in the Gulf Daily News, our sister publication.

Bahrain’s delegation, led by MP Dr Jamal Saleh and including Shura Council member Hala Ramzi, met the envoy following a statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Dr Saleh stressed the need to differentiate between hundreds of peaceful demonstrations allowed by authorities and terrorist attacks in which saboteurs frequently use Molotov cocktails, metal rods, firearms and homemade bombs and set fire to tyres in the streets.

This jeopardises people’s basic freedom of secure living, movement, and access to health and medical service besides other liberties, which are guaranteed by the Bahraini Constitution.

He said that the National Assembly was convened after exhausting all patience in the aftermath of a series of acts of terror and sabotage.

It set forth 22 recommendations for implementation by the government to eliminate acts of terrorism and vandalism.

Ramzi explained that Bahrain suffered from constant attacks on its public schools to an extent that parents fear for the safety of their children daily, in addition to continuous instances of road-blocking.

This necessitated a quick decision from the National Assembly to stop such acts of terrorism committed by miscreants seeking to destabilise Bahrain’s national security and infringe upon the freedom of its citizens and residents, she said.

Donahoe expressed her dismay at the violent demonstrations, burning of tyres and undermining of public interest.

She urged all parties to encourage peace, shun violence and resume dialogue to reach stability.

The UN rights chief’s comments had caused an uproar earlier with legislators terming it one-sided and alleging that it seemed to be ‘dictated’ by the opposition. – TradeArabia News Service …source

Thierry Meyssan analyses the contradictions and incoherences made by the US, British and French secret services about the so-called chemical massacre of Ghouta.

How the Western services fabricated the ’’chemical attack’’ of Ghouta
Voltaire Network, 13, September 2013, Thierry Meyssan

Introduction

Thierry Meyssan : The Western secret services are 100% sure of things that aren’t logical :

1. They think that combat gases can make the difference between men and women.

2. They observed while the concoction of combat gas was being made, but did not intervene to avoid it’s usage. On the other hand, they stepped forward to suggest punishing the ones who used it.

3. They explain that the children were killed on the 21st of August, while the video is dated from before that, and these children come from families that support the Syrian regime and Bashar el-Assad’s government.

4. They assure they possess telephone call recordings. But they are not the ones who made those telephone interceptions.

5. And, finally, the ’’red line’’ affair. According to the joint committee of the British Intelligence service, Jon Day, Syria would have supposedly used combat gas 14 times in the past. But this was never confirmed. Why 14 times before ? Because it is the number of times the US government had use of chemical weapons in Iraq, in 2003-2004. And, of course, it would only be the 15th time of use that would lead the punishment exerted by the great powers.
The Ghouta massacre
The contradictions of the Western secret services

TM : The US and French government assure that the Syrian Arab Army, the legitimate army of the Syria state, carried-out a chemical massacre in the Damascus suburbs, in the agricultural belt of Ghouta, which surrounds Damascus, on August 21st .

I I am going to show you that this affirmation is utterly fabricated and that is conforms in no way to reality. Therefore, I will first take support on official documents, published by the american government, as well as the british and French.

1- The number of victims varies from 1 to 5

TM : In the information note that was published by the american government, we can read that this attack caused the death of at least 1 429 people.

However, when we look at the French equivalent document, only 281 deaths are mentioned, that would have supposedly been counted by watching the internet videos. The same document states that a ’’non government related’’ organization – this has to be said with quotations marks -, Doctors without boarders, would have counted – for the French government – 355 deaths in the hospitals surrounding Damascus.

So, the difference of evaluation of the problem varies from 1 to 5, from source to source.

Then, the West leans solely on the videos to prove the veracity of the facts.

In conclusion, about these videos, almost no one agrees on the number of victims. From what the US document says, their are more that 100, whereas the French one only claims 47.

2- Paris and Washington have validated the videos dated from before August 21st

TM : When we look at these videos, we can notice that some of them are previous to the massacre.

Indeed, if you look on YouTube , you will see that they were posted on august 20th, which could be on the eve of the massacre, but not necessarily when you take into account the time change of 9 hours between Syria and California, where the Youtube server is. However, you can clearly see that the outside scenes are filmed during the time where the sun is at it’s highest.

So, it was filmed around noon and can’t possibly have been recorded before that date.

And yet, these are the unproven facts that the US and French government are relying on.

3- A gas that spares women

TM : In these documents is explained that most of the victims are children.

Indeed, you can see in the videos that many children are in agony. They are all about the same age. There are also adults. But all the adults are men. And generally, are at the age where they can fight.

There are no woman. Aside from two exceptions, there were no women in the officially announced victims. On the 1 429 official victims, only 2 are women.

It would be the first time that a gas would discriminate individuals according to their gender. …more

American Exceptionalism has come to mean, Americas leaders believe themselves to be above the law and exempt from norms of decency, designed to protect Human Rights and to protect protect Nations and Individuals Rights and Sovereignty from the belligerent aggression of Economically and Militarily dominate Nations.

IAEA envoy says Iran willing to cooperate on nuclear issue
Al Akhbar, 12 September, 2013

Iran’s new envoy to the UN nuclear agency said on Thursday he would cooperate with it to find a way to “overcome existing issues once and for all.”

But Ambassador Reza Najafi, at his first board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also repeated Iran’s position that it would not give up what it sees as its legitimate right to a peaceful nuclear energy program.

“Based on its rights and obligations recognized under the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran is ready to faithfully engage and remove any ambiguity on its nuclear activities,” Najafi told the governing board of the Vienna-based UN agency.

Iran is at loggerheads with Western powers in particular, who fear its nuclear program may be designed to give it the capacity to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the accusation.

Separately from big power efforts to resolve a decade-old dispute that could trigger a Middle East war, the IAEA has held 10 rounds of talks with Iran since early 2012 in a bid to resume a stalled inquiry into suspected atom bomb research.

The negotiations have so far failed to yield results but a meeting is set for September 27 in Vienna, seen by Western states as a key test of the new Iranian government’s intentions.

Najafi, who was appointed to the Vienna post after President Hassan Rohani took office in early August, said there was a “strong political will” on the Iranian side to “constructively interact” on the nuclear issue.

“We are looking forward to working closely with the Director General (IAEA chief Yukiya Amano) and his team in the coming days,” Najafi, a career diplomat and disarmament expert, said.

Asked whether he was hopeful that an agreement could be reached in the Vienna meeting, he later told a brief news conference: “We sit together, we directly and frankly discuss the differences. We hope that we can solve those differences.”

Iran says it is enriching uranium only for civilian energy and medicine, denying any aim to acquire nuclear weapons.

Hitting out at Israel’s “clandestine nuclear weapons program”, Najafi said Iran’s nuclear program “has always been and continues to be exclusively for peaceful purposes” and that Tehran would never relinquish its “right” to peaceful atomic activities.

Rohani, who has vowed that Iran will be more transparent and less confrontational in talks both with the IAEA and the big powers, said this week that the time for resolving Iran’s nuclear dispute with the West was limited.

He said he would meet with the foreign ministers from some of the six powers – Russia, China, France, Britain, the United States and Germany – when he attends the UN General Assembly in New York this month.

Iran is ready for “meaningful, result-oriented and time-bound negotiations,” Najafi said, calling on the West not to speak to Iran “with a language of threat or sanctions”.

“We hope there would be the same approach and political will on the other side. In this context, we should not lose sight of the fact that interaction is not a one-sided road,” he said, according to the text of his remarks. …more