Iran detains terrorists carrying Israeli arms

Iran detains terrorists carrying Israeli arms
Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:42:52 GMT

The US State Department considers the PKK as a terrorist organization but has long been accused of supplying PJAK with arms to provoke ethnic unrest in Iran.

Israeli-made weapons have been confiscated from terrorists arrested near the Iran-Iraq border, an Iranian intelligence official says.

“Four members of a terrorist organization equipped with Israeli weapons have been arrested near Iran’s border with Iraq’s Kurdistan region,” the counter-espionage director of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry said on Saturday.

The official told reporters that the group had entered Iran on an assassination mission, but were arrested by Iran’s intelligence forces before ‘doing anything.’

The intelligence director did not provide details regarding the exact location of the arrest or the nature or name of the terrorist group.

Iran has on several occasions reported clashes between government forces and members of the outlawed Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) along its western border with Iraq.

PJAK is considered to be an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) which has been fighting Turkish troops for more than three decades.

Tehran has repeatedly accused Washington of aiding PJAK in a bid to stir up ethnic unrest in the country, an accusation the US denies.

In a 2006 article published in the New Yorker, investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, revealed that the US military and Israel are assisting PJAK by providing the group with equipment, training, and vital intelligence in a bid to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

Israeli hawks ready to fly on Iran

Israeli hawks ready to fly on Iran

Paul Sheehan

Prepare for war. Last week I met the Boogie Man, the former head of the Israeli Defence Forces, General Moshe “Boogie” Ya’alon, who is preparing the political groundwork for a military attack on Iran’s key nuclear facilities. “We have to confront the Iranian revolution immediately,” he told me. “There is no way to stabilise the Middle East today without defeating the Iranian regime. The Iranian nuclear program must be stopped.”

Defeating the theocratic regime in Tehran could be economic or political or, as a last resort, military, he said. “All tools, all options, should be considered.” He was speaking in the tranquillity of the Shalem Centre in Jerusalem, where he was, until last Thursday, one of Israel’s plethora of warrior-scholars, though more influential than most.

Could “all options” include decapitating the Iranian leadership by military strikes, including on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel’s destruction? “We have to consider killing him,” Ya’alon replied. “All options must be considered.”

That’s why he’s called Boogie. This is significant, for several reasons. Ya’alon has decided to enter what he called “the cold waters of Israeli politics”. He will run for the conservative Likud party in the general election in Israel on February 10. Likud is leading the opinion polls. So I could have been speaking to Israel’s next defence minister or, at least, an influential member of the next cabinet.

He is not known for making idle threats. Ya’alon is a former paratroop commander and was deputy leader of the Israel Defence Forces from 2000 to 2002, then chief of staff from 2002 to 2005, during the most recent Palestinian uprising, or intifada. He is credited with shutting it down.

Events are moving quickly. The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission has estimated that Iran will have produced enough highly enriched uranium by the end of next year to produce a nuclear bomb. Next year is widely regarded in Israel as year zero for the strategic decision about Iran’s nuclear program.

“There is a growing sense of anxiety here, from the top levels down,” said Eran Lerman, a former senior member of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence. “The anxiety is built on the knowledge that the Iranians are pressing ahead. The centrifuges are whirring away. Next year will be critical.”

Boogie Ya’alon agrees. He has long regarded Iran as the main wellspring of instability and terrorism in the region.

“I was chief of staff during Operation Iraqi Freedom [the US invasion of Iraq in 2003] and I was surprised the US decided to go into Iraq instead of Iran … Unfortunately, the American public didn’t have the political stomach to go into Iran.”

Ya’alon does. “Military intervention would not be one strike. It needs to be a sustained operation … Any military strike in Iran will be quietly applauded by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states. It is a misconception to think that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the most important in the Middle-East. The Shiite-Sunni schism is much bigger, the Persian-Arab divide is bigger, the struggle between national regimes and jihadism is much bigger. And I can’t imagine the US will want to share power in the Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran.”

The Boogie doctrine is mainstream, not fringe, in the Israeli strategic debate. “We cannot accept a nuclear Iran, we cannot be reconciled to it,” Major-General Amos Gilad, the head of the Defence Department’s Diplomatic Security Bureau, told The Jerusalem Post last Thursday.

“Israel is preparing for an attack on the Iran nuclear facilities,” Dr Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre, told me in Tel Aviv last week.

“Sanctions won’t work against Iran. Only a military action against Iran will work,” Professor Efraim Inbar said. “I know the Israeli military is preparing its capacity to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Inbar is another of Israel’s warrior-scholars, a former paratrooper who is professor in political studies at Bar-Ian University and Director of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies. He does not accept the argument, popular in America, than the Iranian nuclear facilities are already impregnable to attack. “I’m a paratrooper. If you are committed, if you are willing to pay the price, you can destroy the target.”

Inbar also believes the Iranian regime, by spreading Persian and Shiite power, is widely unpopular in the Sunni Arab world.

In effect, Israel has already conducted a test run into an enemy country and been encouraged by the results. In September last year, Israeli Air Force jets destroyed a nuclear facility under construction in Syria. Israel never said a word. Syria never said a word. No government in the Middle East ever said a word.

“Israel’s raid on Syria was greeted by a thunderous silence from the rest of the region,” Eran Lerman said. “What that silence told us was that the rest of the region regard Syria as part of the Iranian problem. If Iran obtains the bomb, even if they don’t use it or threaten to use it, they will have positioned themselves in a way that will transform this region into a much more dangerous place. Iran has influence on the Shiia communities, not just in Iraq and through Hezbollah in Lebanon but in Syria and the Gulf states. The position of the moderate states in the Gulf will have been rendered more fragile.”

Lerman, too, believes next year will be year zero. “Unless the pace [of developing Iran's nuclear program] is slowed down, we will need to face some bitter decisions within a year. The sanctions have failed.

“The Iranian regime’s need for a nuclear bomb is a reflection of the profound crisis in which it finds itself after almost 30 years in power. They promised the earth and the country is in disarray. The regime has failed to create or sustain stable social structures. So the last validated remnant of the Iranian revolution is to destroy Israel.”

Israel is preparing accordingly. The message is now clear.

Why Bush Can’t Allow Habeas Corpus – And Why we Need to Leave Afghanistan

Why Bush Can’t Allow Habeas Corpus – And Why we Need to Leave Afghanistan

The whole rationale for our war in Afghanistan probably would be exposed to the world as the farce that it is if the Bush administration allowed its “War on Terror” prisoners to use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detentions. That appears to be a major reason, if not the major reason, why the Bush administration has for several years fought tooth and nail to deny its prisoners the habeas corpus rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. And it is also probably a major reason why whenever our courts have over-ruled the Bush administration in specific cases, Bush has released the respective prisoners rather than allow them a fair and open trial.

The whole rationale for our Afghanistan war is based on the presumed refusal of the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, whom George Bush claimed to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on our country, to U.S. custody. But there are enough holes in that story to drive a truck through.

The ultimate rationale behind the indefinite imprisonment without charges of many or most of our “War on Terror” prisoners is rooted in the claim that they fought for the Taliban or al Qaeda against our country (when we invaded it). Since we accuse the Taliban of harboring bin Laden, whom we claim perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and since we also claim that the Taliban knew of bin Laden’s role in the 9/11 attacks and yet refused to hand him over to us, therefore the Taliban is guilty of terrorism, and so is anyone who fought for the Taliban when U.S. troops invaded their country.

Since that scenario provides the rationale for our imprisonment of the so-called “terrorists”, and would therefore provide the basis for any formal charges that were to be brought against them in a fair and open trial, and since the underlying scenario can be so easily disproven, obviously the defendants’ lawyers would attempt to expose that scenario for the fraud that it is if they were given the chance to do so in a fair and open trial. And then the whole house of cards that we call the “War on Terror” would come tumbling down. And then of course, quite a few high level officials would be vulnerable to war crimes charges.

That’s it in a nutshell. Let’s look at some of the evidence:

THE FRAUDULENT BASIS FOR THE U.S. INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Bin laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks from the beginning

I’ll start out with bin Laden’s denials of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That of course means little by itself – except for the fact that our news media have been such cheerleaders for war that most Americans probably believe that bin Laden admitted his responsibility for the attacks from the beginning. But he didn’t. To the contrary, six days following the attacks, CNN published the following statement by bin Laden, which he had made to al Jazeera:

The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.

Lack of evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

To support their claims of bin Laden’s guilt, the British and U.S. governments published a dossier of “evidence”. That dossier was lambasted by numerous critics, including Bronwen Maddox in the Times of London, as:

a puzzling and worrying piece of work with so many puzzling omissions that the document begins to undermine itself… more significant for what it leaves out than for what it leaves in, with few clues even to the form of evidence for September 11… It seems lame – to the point of advertising a deficiency – to say that a signature of an al Qaeda attack is the absence of a warning.

One of the points of evidence was the claim that bin Laden warned his closest associates to return to Afghanistan by September 10th. But since there were no known incidents of bin Laden associates actually returning to Afghanistan shortly before September 11th, the evidence for that claim is quite weak.

Another of the major points of evidence was that three of the hijackers were said to be “associates” of bin Laden. But the nature of the alleged association with bin Laden was not very well spelled out.

And there was the claim that no other organization than al Qaeda is known to have both the motivation and the capability of carrying out such an attack. That claim has been widely disputed. But even if no such organizations were known to have had the motivation and capability of carrying out such attacks, that hardly constitutes evidence of al Qaeda involvement in 9/11.

Bush administration and Taliban interaction prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

But whether or not bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks on our country is not the primary issue. The more relevant issue is what the Taliban – whom we declared war upon – had to do with it.

The Taliban never demonstrated the kind of intransigence on the issue that the Bush administration and the U.S. news media accused it of. To the contrary, The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said from the beginning:

Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told (the Pakistan delegation) to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?’

But the Bush administration never provided that proof. It claimed to have secret information beyond the “dossier of evidence” described above, but it refused to share that secret information with the Taliban.

Then on October first, the Taliban went a step further. They agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan – an American ally – to stand trial for charges of participation in 9/11. They agreed that if the court found sufficient evidence that bin Laden would then be extradited to the United States. And bin Laden even agreed to that. But President Musharraf turned the deal down, for the absurd reason that he could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety.

George Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over”. Bush later elaborated further on that, saying, “When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations”.

U.S. obligations under international law

One of the major purposes of the United Nations is to prevent unnecessary wars. Therefore, it is not surprising that its charter says: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”. Clearly, George Bush’s actions with respect to his invasion of Afghanistan fall well outside of that mandate. Maher Osseiran explains the implications of that:

The Bush administration, with premeditation, ignored its international obligations in deference to war. If the Bush administration had supplied the evidence to the world and specifically the Taliban who were requesting such evidence in exchange for bin Laden, the war might not have taken place and bin Laden would very likely be in custody.

Not pursuing that route makes the Afghanistan war an illegal war under the UN Charter and The Geneva Convention; thereby, the majority of the Guantanamo detainees can no longer be classified as enemy combatants, but (rather) victims of war crimes.

That, of course, is what fair and open trials of Bush’s detainees are likely to show – which of course is why he can’t allow that to happen.

FBI finds no hard evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

If all that isn’t enough (and it should be), several years later the FBI admitted that there is no substantial proof of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.

The FBI website lists Osama bin Laden as one of its 26 most wanted terrorists. However, it says nothing about his involvement in 9/11. The Muckracker Report, an investigative group, looked into this oddity in an attempt to find the reason for it:

The Muckraker Report contacted Rex Tomb, who serves as Chief of Investigative Publicity with the FBI. Tomb’s response? “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11… He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

BUSH ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS TO ITS PRISONERS

The following examples show the great extent to which the Bush administration has repeatedly gone to deny its prisoners their rights under international law and our Constitution, and to manipulate the law for their own nefarious ends.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Yasir Esam Hamdi was captured by the Northern Alliance in November 2001 and turned over to the U.S. military in Afghanistan (probably for a large bounty), then sent to Guantanamo Bay as an “enemy combatant” and a suspected terrorist. After the U.S. military discovered that Hamdi was a U.S. citizen (having been born in Louisiana), he was transferred to a U.S. Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, still classified as an “enemy combatant”, where he remained, in isolation, for the next two and a half years. His father claimed that he was a humanitarian relief worker, not a terrorist.

Several criminal defense attorneys, concerned about the trashing of our Constitution by the Bush administration, filed suit on Hamdi’s behalf. After working its way through lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case on June 28, 2004. Though the Bush administration tried to spin the decision as a victory for them, eight of the nine justices agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the right to indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections. Constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein summarizes the main finding in his book, “Radicals in Robes”, by noting that the court

said that an enemy combatant must be supplied with notice of the factual basis for his classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision maker. The plurality did not deny the possibility that the constitutionality could be met by a military tribunal.

Explaining the decision, Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, said that “… We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

What this meant was that now the Bush administration had to either provide Hamdi with access to a lawyer and some sort of hearing on his case or else release him. Faced with that choice, three months later it decided to release him back to Saudi Arabia.

Deliah Lithwick comments on the absurdity of the situation:

So the Bush administration’s decision to release Hamdi is stunning, given that only months ago he was so dangerous that the government insisted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and the world that he could reasonably be locked up for all time, without a trial or criminal charges….

He was slammed into solitary on some flimsy assertions contained in what’s known as the two-page “Mobbs Declaration.” … swearing that Hamdi was an enemy combatant, because, according to his captors from the Northern Alliance, he was “affiliated with a Taliban military unit.” Any other American suspect, including serial killers and Timothy McVeigh, would have been given an opportunity to dispute that bare claim; to tell his side of the story – which, according to Hamdi’s father, was that Hamdi was in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. But we never heard that story and we never will. Yaser Esam Hamdi was evidently too dangerous even to set foot in a courtroom.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla

On May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody by the FDA and locked up as a “material witness”. On June 10, four days after Colleen Rowley testified to Congress about the failure of the FBI to respond to her pre-9-11 warnings of an impending attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft made an announcement to the nation about Padilla. Referring to him as “a known terrorist” who had been plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States, Ashcroft announced that the FBI foiled the plot by capturing Padilla. The previous day, George Bush had classified Padilla as an “enemy combatant” and had him sent to a Navy brig in South Carolina, where he remained for three and a half years and was repeatedly tortured.

As with the Hamdi case, lawyers concerned about the abrogation of Padilla’s Constitutional rights took up his case. On September 9, 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Padilla’s detention without charge was legal. The author of that ruling was J. Michael Luttig, who was considered to be a potential Bush Supreme Court nominee. Padilla’s lawyers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but before the Supreme Court made a decision on whether or not to take the case the Bush administration made the case moot by rescinding Padilla’s “enemy combatant” status and agreeing to prosecute him in a civilian court. But the charges had nothing to do with the original allegations about plots to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil. Rather the new charges were “providing – and conspiring to provide – material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas.”

Luttig, the 4th Circuit Court judge who had made the prior ruling, was incensed at this about face by the Bush administration. Charlie Savage, in his book, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy”, describes Luttig’s reaction:

Luttig – one of the most conservative and executive power-friendly judges on the federal bench – accused the Bush-Cheney administration of manipulating the judicial process to make sure that the Supreme Court would have no opportunity to evaluate the precedent that Luttig himself had just written. The Padilla indictment, he said, raised serious questions about the credibility of the government’s statements on which the judge had relied when crafting that precedent, and “left the impression that Padilla may have been held for all these years, even if justifiably, by mistake”.

Hamden v. Rumsfeld

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant”. He was the personal driver of Osama bin Laden, but he claimed not to be a terrorist or even a member of al Qaeda.

In November 2004 a federal district court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the Bush administration’s military commission trials violated the Geneva Conventions. But that decision was overturned on July 15, 2005, by the D.C. Circuit Court, in a 2-1 decision ruling that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to war time detainees suspected of terrorism.

John Roberts cast the deciding vote in that decision, just 5 days before he was nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Bush. Furthermore, it later emerged during Roberts’ Senate confirmation hearings that Roberts had: met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez 6 days prior to hearing oral arguments in the Hamdan case; in the midst of deciding the case, met secretly with Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Andy Card, Harriet Miers and Gonzalez, and; met with Bush himself on July 15, the same day that the court handed down its decision.

In the end, the ridiculous D.C. Circuit Court decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-3 decision. Roberts, though Chief Justice of the USSC by that time, had to recuse himself because the Court was ruling on his own previous decision. Two of the USSC justices who voted in the minority on the Hamdan decision (Scalia and Thomas) were two of the same scumbags who had voted in 2000 to hand Bush the Presidency by stopping the vote counting in Florida.

In the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld USSC decision, Justice Stevens, speaking for the majority, explained that the petitioner Hamdan was “entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention”, and that the “military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Universal Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention”. Justice Kennedy further elaborated on the Geneva Convention that the USSC determined the Bush administration to have violated:

The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law… moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses…

The Military Commissions Act and its overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court

Consequently, the Bush administration pushed through Congress the Military Commissions Act, in an attempt to ensure that detainee trials remained secret. However, on June 12, 2008, the USSC determined that this law too was not Constitutional, primarily because the Act was not sufficient to restore habeas corpus:

Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of George Bush’s “War on Terror” detainees are never charged with or tried for a crime. On the rare occasions when they are charged with a crime, the American people are afforded the opportunity to learn, if they care to, what George Bush’s “War on Terror” is really about, and to what extent he will go to manipulate our judicial system for his own political purposes: In the case of Hamdi we find, after holding him in isolation for two and a half years, that George Bush would rather set him free than give him a hearing to present his case, as demanded by our Supreme Court; In the case of Padilla we find, when faced with the possibility of an adverse ruling from our Supreme Court, that Bush would rather drop his “enemy combatant” status and try him on vague charges rather than on the spectacular charges (plot to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil) that he originally used to scare the American people with, and; In the case of Hamdan, Bush found it necessary for he and his administration to secretly and repeatedly meet with the justice who was trying the case while simultaneously dangling before him the possibility of being nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court – assuming that he ruled correctly, of course.

All of this because an open and fair trial of any one of George Bush’s so-called “illegal enemy combatants” could expose his “War on Terror” for the fraud that it is.

What does all this say about our war in Afghanistan? In the first place, the war has been illegal from start to finish, and those who perpetrated it should be subject to criminal charges. But even if we had a decent reason for our original involvement, what are we accomplishing by our continuing presence there? This is what the editors of The Nation have to say about escalating our war in Afghanistan:

The United States and its NATO allies are losing the war in Afghanistan not because we have had too few military forces but because our military presence, along with the corruption of the Hamid Karzai government, has gradually turned the Afghan population against us, swelling the ranks of Taliban recruits. American airstrikes have repeatedly killed innocent civilians. Sending thousands of additional troops will not secure a democratic and stable Afghanistan, because the country is not only deeply divided but also fiercely resistant to outside forces. Indeed, more troops may only engender more anti-American resistance and cause groups in neighboring Pakistan to step up their support for the Taliban in order to stop what they see as a US effort to advance US and Indian interests in the region…

Second, securing Afghanistan is not necessary to US security and may actually undermine our goal of defeating Al Qaeda…. American safety thus depends not on eliminating faraway safe havens for Al Qaeda but on common-sense counterterrorist and national security measures – extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, effective border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces.

Yet another terrorist strike on Pakistan

shafabakhsh20080728175313125

Yet another terrorist strike on Pakistan

At least five militants, including the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind of a 2006 transatlantic airplane bombing plot, were killed and six others injured early Saturday when two missiles hit a house in Ali Khel village near Mir Ali town of North Waziristan Agency. Two foreigners, Briton Rashid Rauf and Egyptian Abu Zubair Al-Misri, believed to be Al-Qaeda activists, were reported killed. Also among the five killed was Egyptian Abu Zubair Al-Misri, another wanted Al-Qaeda operative, a senior Pakistani security official said on condition of anonymity.

Note an interesting pattern in these reports. After every attack on Pakistan some important figure of “al-Qaeda” is reported as killed. In this case, note the list of those who were killed despite the fact that the report mentions: “Soon after the attack, militants from all over the area reached the site and cordoned off the area. They did not allow local residents to take part in rescue activities.” Yet and “unidentified” intelligence official lists all the name who are being reported as killed. If the “unidentified” intelligence official was so sure of these persons being killed, it means they knew they were there before the attack, because after the attack no one could personally confirm their deaths. So, why was  no other action taken? Why attack through US drones alone, risking lives of other innocent people on the ground? Why not any attempt to arrest them alive and besides trying them in court parade them on TV so that we also see a real face attached to al-ka-ee-da?

The US is bombing Pakistan with an objective to cleans off Pakistan tribal areas. As a part of the war of terrorism on Pakistan, everyone should be driven out of the area which the former empire used as a buffer zone. The sold out in Pakistan military and intelligence are part of this campaign. They issue pre-pared statements after every single attack. If they were so honest and so sure about the presence of specific terrorists in specific locations, they won’t wait for the US to come all the way from another occupied land, bomb Pakistan and then these “unknown” officials announce the list of those who they want the world to consider as dead.

The Pakistan We Are Creating

1100525362-1

See the young children are collecting saleable or useable items from garbage while the mercenary army and a puppet regime take billions of dollars in loan to kill its own people. Look at the body language of these impoverished youth of the land. It seems as if they are on a treasure hunt. Too sad they are not from the elite families, ruling the masses and having fun. See more of the same here: Tears as poverty-stricken parents abandon children And see assets of one of the key looters of the nation’s wealth: Zardari’s assets.

Iranian Commander: Bush’s Iran War Plan Delivered to Obama

Iranian Commander: Bush’s Iran War Plan Delivered to Obama

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Bush administration has created the required infrastructure for attacking Iran and delivered his war plan to Obama, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday, adding that Obama’s election has provided Iran with a one-year opportunity to increase preparedness.

Addressing a meeting to mark the start of the Week of Basij (mobilization of volunteer forces), lieutenant commander of the General Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Major General Gholam-Ali Rasheed said that US President George Bush has established the infrastructures required in the region for posing a threat to Iran.

“The United States’ threats have now found a structural form. They have done the planning for reaching the necessary preparedness to wage a war (against Iran) through setting up military bases, holding (security) pacts, etc.,” he said.

The General viewed “northwestern and southeastern Iran as well as the southwestern province of Khuzestan as vulnerable points” the US forces are likely to use if they want to invade Iran, and underlined that the aforementioned areas should become invulnerable within the next one year.

He further urged military officials to leave war rhetoric and expression of foreign policy views to politicians and “accelerate measures to boost Iran’s deterrent power”.

Considering that the country is now under threat, he said, we should consider measures to prevent entering the stage of actual war.

US forces attacked a Syrian village near the borders with Iraq on October 26, and the raid on Sukkariyah, which took place almost simultaneously with an air raid on a Pakistani village, has raised speculation about the likelihood of similar unilateral strikes by the US troops on other regional states, including the Islamic Republic.

Speculation that Israel could also bomb Iran mounted after a big Israeli air drill in June. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has also always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran’s progress in the field of nuclear technology.

Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through the waterway.

In a Sep. 11 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy says that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.
According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world’s oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran’s response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities “is unlikely” to delay the country’s program.

Intensified threats by Tel Aviv and Washington of military action against Iran contradict a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies which endorsed the civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear plans and activities.

Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head – one in November and the other one in February – which praised Iran’s truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions or launch military attack on Iran seems to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran’s cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran’s nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The UN nuclear watchdog has also carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West’s allegations.

Also in another report to the 35-nation Board of Governors, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed “the non-diversion” of nuclear material in Iran and added that the agency had found no “components of a nuclear weapon” or “related nuclear physics studies” in the country.

The IAEA report confirmed that Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level “less than 5 percent”. Such a rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production, meanwhile, requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog continues snap inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and has reported that all “declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently said that Iran remains far from acquiring capabilities to develop nuclear weapons as it is still lacking the key components to produce an atomic weapon.

“They do not have even the nuclear material, the raw unenriched uranium to develop one nuclear weapon if they decide to do so,” said the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.

Following the said reports by the US and international bodies, many world states have called the UN Security Council pressure against Tehran unjustified, demanding that Iran’s case be normalized and returned from the UNSC to the IAEA.

Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply

Remember the corporate seed bank?

svalbard-seed-bank-image-01

Rich countries launch great land grab to

safeguard food supply

• States and companies target developing nations
• Small farmers at risk from industrial-scale deals

Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies.

The head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, has warned that the controversial rise in land deals could create a form of “neo-colonialism”, with poor states producing food for the rich at the expense of their own hungry people.

Rising food prices have already set off a second “scramble for Africa”. This week, the South Korean firm Daewoo Logistics announced plans to buy a 99-year lease on a million hectares in Madagascar. Its aim is to grow 5m tonnes of corn a year by 2023, and produce palm oil from a further lease of 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres), relying on a largely South African workforce. Production would be mainly earmarked for South Korea, which wants to lessen dependence on imports.

“These deals can be purely commercial ventures on one level, but sitting behind it is often a food security imperative backed by a government,” said Carl Atkin, a consultant at Bidwells Agribusiness, a Cambridge firm helping to arrange some of the big international land deals.

Madagascar’s government said that an environmental impact assessment would have to be carried out before the Daewoo deal could be approved, but it welcomed the investment. The massive lease is the largest so far in an accelerating number of land deals that have been arranged since the surge in food prices late last year.

“In the context of arable land sales, this is unprecedented,” Atkin said. “We’re used to seeing 100,000-hectare sales. This is more than 10 times as much.”

At a food security summit in Rome, in June, there was agreement to channel more investment and development aid to African farmers to help them respond to higher prices by producing more. But governments and corporations in some cash-rich but land-poor states, mostly in the Middle East, have opted not to wait for world markets to respond and are trying to guarantee their own long-term access to food by buying up land in poorer countries.

According to diplomats, the Saudi Binladin Group is planning an investment in Indonesia to grow basmati rice, while tens of thousands of hectares in Pakistan have been sold to Abu Dhabi investors.

Arab investors, including the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development, have also bought direct stakes in Sudanese agriculture. The president of the UEA, Khalifa bin Zayed, has said his country was considering large-scale agricultural projects in Kazakhstan to ensure a stable food supply.

Even China, which has plenty of land but is now getting short of water as it pursues breakneck industrialisation, has begun to explore land deals in south-east Asia. Laos, meanwhile, has signed away between 2m-3m hectares, or 15% of its viable farmland. Libya has secured 250,000 hectares of Ukrainian farmland, and Egypt is believed to want similar access. Kuwait and Qatar have been chasing deals for prime tracts of Cambodia rice fields.

Eager buyers generally have been welcomed by sellers in developing world governments desperate for capital in a recession. Madagascar’s land reform minister said revenue would go to infrastructure and development in flood-prone areas.

Sudan is trying to attract investors for almost 900,000 hectares of its land, and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has been courting would-be Saudi investors.

“If this was a negotiation between equals, it could be a good thing. It could bring investment, stable prices and predictability to the market,” said Duncan Green, Oxfam’s head of research. “But the problem is, [in] this scramble for soil I don’t see any place for the small farmers.”

Alex Evans, at the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: “The small farmers are losing out already. People without solid title are likely to be turfed off the land.”

Details of land deals have been kept secret so it is unknown whether they have built-in safeguards for local populations.

Steve Wiggins, a rural development expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “There are very few economies of scale in most agriculture above the level of family farm because managing [the] labour is extremely difficult.” Investors might also have to contend with hostility. “If I was a political-risk adviser to [investors] I’d say ‘you are taking a very big risk’. Land is an extremely sensitive thing. This could go horribly wrong if you don’t learn the lessons of history.”

The Judeo-Russian Mafia: From the Gulag to Brooklyn to World Dominion

The Judeo-Russian Mafia: From the Gulag to Brooklyn to World Dominion


by M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D.

While the FBI and major media obsess about the Sicilian Mafia (the “Cosa Nostra”) a far more powerful and sinister force is in existence that has controlled most of the globe’s organized crime for at least two decades—the Jewish mafia from Russia (a “Kosher Nostra”). Yet there is not even a desk at the FBI for their crimes, which dwarf those of the Italian gangsters in scope, violence and depth.

Alexander Lebed
Alexander Lebed

On April 28, 2002, a military helicopter went down in the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk region of Siberia. On board was a major Russian dignitary, Gen. Alexander Lebed, governor of the region. Lebed was pronounced dead at the scene. Almost immediately, the international press blamed “heavy fog” for the incident. However, at the time, every member of the Russian military was convinced the death of Lebed was no accident, but rather another hit by the international Jewish mafia, an organization that had long since taken control over much of Russia’s economy. Lebed, likely the most popular man in Russia at the time, was going to build a national socialist empire—possibly with Chinese assistance—based on the massive oil and mineral wealth of the region.Had he succeeded, world history could have changed, and the 21st century would look very different. Prior to that, dozens of anti-Zionists in Russia had been murdered by car bombs or other devices, while none of the cases was ever solved. Only a handful was even investigated.

The very fact that the Jewish mafia (often misnamed the “Russian” mafia) was capable of completely covering its tracks, being completely left out of all news reports surrounding the incident, while the common people (in Russia) were utterly convinced of their complicity, proves the immense strength of this rather new movement of organized crime. The Jewish mafia is nothing like their Irish or Italian predecessors in its American or European operations. They are richer, more international in scope and far more violent and ruthless. They kill children. They kill policemen and their families. They kill whomever they like.

There has been nothing like it before in the history of the globe. And they are just getting started.

Investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman
The investigative stories of Robert I. Friedman (1951-2002) appeared from the early 1980s. Allegedly, he died of a tropical blood disease. But many had their doubts and believed he was poisoned. The daring Jewish journalist made headlines exposing politicians, bankers and mobsters who preyed on the powerless. The ADL maligned him, death threats poured in, and he was badly beaten by West Bank thugs. Friedman warned the FBI of the threat posed by the first World Trade Center bombers and delivered vital reports on the long arms of the Russian Jewish mafia, which offered $100,000 to have him killed.

The major figure in uncovering the web of secrecy that surrounds the Jewish mafia was a journalist named Robert I. Friedman, who died at an early age from a “tropical disease.” He has interviewed the major figures in this underground and has uncovered their hiding spots and plans. After his book on the subject was published, major mafia leaders put a bounty on his head. The “Russian” mafia knows that it can kill with impunity, and, given their cozy relationship with European and American intelligence agencies, their immunity from real prosecution will only get more pronounced.

Friedman’s work is breathtaking in scope, and this essay will cite him extensively, especially his book Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America. Friedman is not afraid to state the obvious, namely, that the entire “Russian” mafia is Jewish, without exception, and that they have used this as a shield to deflect criticism. This shield has permitted them to grow and prosper. Further, Friedman is also not afraid to admit that Jewish organizations throughout the world, led by the Anti-Defamation League, are the beneficiaries of largesse coming from organized crime, and that the organizations in question are aware of it. In other words, Jewish organized crime is considered an acceptable part of Jewish life, and that Jewish organizations have actually lobbied law enforcement to stop investigations into this phenomenon, almost always with success. The confirmation of Zionist Michael Chertoff, to the post as chief of Homeland Security guarantees that Jewish organized crime in America will not be at the receiving end of the many stings that have targeted the Italian Mafia.

The roots of Jewish organized crime, it is said, go far back into tsarist times. Organized crime syndicates assisted Lenin’s gangs in bank robberies and the creation of general mayhem. During the so-called revolution, it was difficult, sometimes impossible, to distinguish between Bolshevik ideologues and Jewish organized crime syndicates. They acted in nearly an identical manner.

However, in more modern times, they seem to have had their roots in the waning days of the stagnant USSR under Leonid Brezhnev. By the late 1970s, the Russian economy was driven by the black market, and the early stages of the Jewish mafia were involved in this black underground. In fact, the Russian socialist economy would have collapsed much sooner if it had not been propped up by the extensive black economy. Soon, the rulers of the black market became so powerful they were able to form their own “people’s courts,” which dispensed “justice” completely apart from the Soviet state, and away from its control. Many of these black marketeers had been recently released from the gulag system of prison camps in an earlier era for their black market activities, and the toughness that was required to survive these dungeons served this new criminal elite very well (Friedman, 9).

The black market acted as a safety valve for the Soviet state for decades, making all estimations of the strength of the Soviet economy subject to speculation. The black market provided many goods and services the overextended Soviet system could not provide. In the gulag, they had formed brotherhoods, much like blacks and Hispanics currently do today in prison. They formed Jewish bunds that, upon release, served to create deep bonds that exist today, maintaining a highly secretive organization almost impossible to deal with or penetrate.

Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s famous bill, the JacksonVanick law, linked Soviet trade privileges to the treatment of Soviet Jews. It was a bill lobbied heavily for by American Jewish organizations. And while non-Jews could not emigrate from Russia, Jews could. Quickly, the KGB took this opportunity to dump its hardcore criminals into the United States, many who were Jewish, as conservatives cheered, believing, naively as usual, to have scored a major victory against the USSR. Much of the Jewish mafia’s penetration into the United States came as a result of these Soviet “boatlifts,” which were partially financed by groups such as the ADL or the Hebrew Aid Society. Given the substantial nature of the black market and the Soviet criminal underground, and its exclusively Jewish character, it is difficult to believe that the Jewish groups who were financing the immigration of Russian Jews to America were unaware of the connections of many of the new arrivals. Regardless, much of the money earmarked for immigration to Israel was pocketed by the mafia and redirected to settling Jews in New York—the New Promised Land.

Marat Balagula was one of these. A major Jewish crime figure, he bought a restaurant in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, named it the Odessa (a major port city in Ukraine), and quickly converted it into a central recruiting base for mobsters. It was also closely linked with Zionist agencies in the area, including the women’s group Hadassah, who used the establishment for meetings and fund raising dinners (Friedman, 17). This restaurant also became the seat of real political power in Brooklyn, for in the upstairs part of the establishment, Balagula and other Jewish mobsters would convene the “People’s Courts,” and their word was (and is) law. Ordinary courts in the area could not hope to compete with the mobsters, well protected by powerful Jewish groups within the city and the municipal government itself.

“These courts, controlled by the Jewish mob, were more powerful and acted more quickly than the regular municipal courts of New York City. Balagula had created a state within a state.”

These courts, controlled by the Jewish mob, were more powerful and acted more quickly than the regular municipal courts of New York City. Balagula had created a state within a state. The Italian gangs in New York didn’t know what hit them. Public executions and torturings were common in Brooklyn, and in broad daylight. Often, public murders would happen for the tiniest offenses, or to prove one’s toughness. While the Italians were very cautious and deliberate, the Jewish mob was flamboyant and gratuitously violent.

Yuri Brokhin, another Jewish mobster who had already made a name for himself in America, and Balagula were heavily into stealing diamonds from jewelry stores and replacing them with cheap fakes. At one incident, narrated by Friedman, the pair pulled such a scam in Chicago, and was caught at the airport with $175,000. As it turns out, the duo was seen by a Jewish security guard in Chicago’s O’Hare Airport wearing their phony Hassidic garb on the eve of Yom Kippur, when Jews are strictly forbidden to travel. This sloppiness got them caught. The duo was convicted, but as proof of the power of the Jewish mafia, they both got off without a jail sentence, having committed major grand larceny, among other crimes. Of course, Friedman does not speculate as to why this would be, since a major felony such as this often carried sentences over 20 years. Both Brokhin and Balagula were criminals in the USSR, and were able to transfer their wealth to America via Zionist and “charitable” organizations of Jewry.

A major connection between the halls of American political power and the Jewish mafia is the rabbi Ronald Greenwald. He knowingly did business with con artists and mafia figures, and used his major political connections to shield them. Greenwald was a major player in CREEP, the re-election campaign for Richard Nixon in 1972. Greenwald was used heavily by Nixon and other Republicans to gain the Jewish vote, which he doubled for Nixon during that election (Friedman, 31) in the state of New York. Soon, the rabbi was given a post as an “advisor” to Nixon on “Jewish poverty programs,” a post which certainly made some snicker at the time, though it was clear that Nixon owed Greenwald, and the rabbi made quick use of his newfound powers. He used his power to protect the mafia’s bilking of Medicaid programs and other crimes that were never investigated by the authorities.

His post as head of the “Jewish poverty” initiative permitted him to shield those involved with such financial scams, as well as call off any and all FBI investigations of his friends. Part of the rise of Jewish mafia groups was the protection afforded it by Greenwald’s political connections.

Greenwald was also instrumental in protecting Marc Rich, a billionaire Jewish investor with mob ties. Rich, a major player in the Clinton administration, swindled investors out of billions. Nothing was done, again, though negative media treatment against Rich was permitted largely because he did do business with Iran, and thus was considered a traitor by his fellow Jews. Eventually, Clinton pardoned Rich in a much-publicized case, and Rich is now free.

Jewish mafia investors all but took over Las Vegas, also with the political protection and patronage of Greenwald. Some years back, a movie was released called Casino, starring Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci. Concerning itself with the takeover of Las Vegas, the film depicted Mr. Rothstein (played by the Jewish DeNiro) as the suave and successful entrepreneur, and Pesci as the typical Italian wiseguy, brash and insolent. Of course, the purpose of the movie was to absolve Jewish organized crime and transfer all blame to Italian mobsters. The opposite was true.

Balagula, before taking over Jewish mafia interests in the United States, acted as a mob functionary for the KGB. In his very own words, Balagula said that the “KGB gave him visas, no problem” (Friedman, 44) and was instrumental in sending him stolen art and jewels, which he sold to foreign tourists. The KGB also set him up as head of the largest food co-op in Ukraine, a position he quickly turned into a major black market operation with the blessings of the KGB. Near the end of the Cold War, members of the KGB viewed the Jewish crime syndicate as a source of possible new jobs for them after the old system was destroyed. So, not only did they have the patronage of the American political establishment under Greenwald, but also the decaying intelligence apparatus of the USSR as well.

BOOTLEGGING

What needs to be kept in mind about the bootlegging operation is that it was never small time. Nothing the Jewish mob did was ever small. This operation was multinational in scope. They had a fleet of massive oil tankers, tanker trucks and hundreds of gasoline stations and distributorships, all owned by Jews loyal to the mob. Balagula had created a massive mafia empire leading from North Africa to Saudi Arabia to Venezuela to Brooklyn. The Jewish mobsters developed an infrastructure within the oil trade that made them invincible. Mafia influence is substantial in the price of oil, as well as acting as the occasional go-between between the Mossad and Arab oil-producing sheikdoms. No one of substance was ever brought to justice.

***

With all the power that the Jewish mob has amassed, they are merely a pimple on the back of the master of them all, and a man who truly controls much of the globe. There is no one on Earth more powerful than he, and, as per usual, he remains unknown, left out of all press and television reports on the subject. The CIA considers him a “grave threat” to global security and the “world’s most dangerous man” (Friedman). The fact that he remains almost unknown shows the power of the Zionist-controlled media and their relentless drive to suppress all investigation into Jewish crime. He has created a massive, global communications network and employs hundreds of Ph.D.s in computer science, physics and economics to run his massive financial empire. He has penetrated every stock exchange in the world and controls much of the trading therein.

He was also the mastermind of the largest money-laundering scheme in U.S. history, “washing” $7 billion through the Bank of New York, which is a major branch of the Federal Reserve and his bank of choice. His name is Semion Mogilevich, born in 1946.

Basing his first operations in Israel, where he fleeced Jewish refugees from Russia, Mogilevich acquired Hungarian citizenship after making the comment that the biggest problem with Israel is that there are “too many Jews there.” However, he single-handedly controls the brothels in Israel, where Ukrainian and Russian girls are forced into sexual slavery. This is legal in Israel if the girls are non-Jews. The name of Mogilevich has been left out of every report on the phenomenon in Israel, Ukraine or the United States.

Mogilevich also controls the vodka trade in Russia and Central Europe.

Most ominously, Mogilevich has bought Hungary’s armaments industry. In other words, he controls the military equipment being manufactured in Hungary. He has his own army, artillery, mechanized infantry, antiaircraft guns and missiles of all types. NATO has said that he is a “threat to the stability of Europe,” though his name remains little known. This mobster is militarily more powerful than many European countries. He has nuclear weapons from the former Warsaw Pact countries and is presently trading with various governments and providing them with nuclear technology. He has agents in the intelligence agencies of all European countries, which means that he may never be prosecuted, for he is made aware of any pending investigation into his activities, which quickly gets quashed.

German television reported that the German intelligence service, the BND, had entered into secret negotiations with Mogilevich whereby the latter would supply information on his rivals in Russia. He has a similar arrangement with French intelligence. He has close connections to the Mossad, which destroyed his criminal file (Friedman, 245-247). Therefore he is immune to prosecution and travels freely. He controls the black market from Central Europe to Russia. He has a Rockefeller connection as well, as his main economics advisor, Igor Fisherman was a consultant to Chase Manhattan Bank. Friedman writes, concerning the Fed and its relations to Mogilevich: “While the bank has not been charged with any wrongdoing, some investigators believe that the money laundering could not have taken place unless senior bank officials were bought off or otherwise involved” (259). When the Justice Department began a criminal investigation into Mogilevich (which went nowhere), he accused the Department of an “antiSemitic conspiracy.”

George W. Bush’s professed mentor, Natan Sharansky, has long and deep ties to organized crime. The Congress, State Department and the CIA all have lengthy dossiers on Sharansky, who acted as a bridge between the Republican Party and Jewish thugs in a similar manner to Rabbi Greenwald. Sharansky, knowing his power, simply refused to sever his ties with organized crime, infusing the Jewish mafia into the highest echelons of the Bush administration. A pattern emerges in relation to the Republican Party: Russian Jews usually pose as “anti-Communists.” They did this partially because they had been arrested by security services for their black market activities, but also because this posture would make them valuable to Republican operatives and the Beltway “conservative movement.” Their reputations as “dissidents” protected them almost as much as their religion.

George W.’s father refused to cooperate with several investigations into Russian mob activities in Switzerland. The CIA has commented that there is no “major Russian mob figure that does not carry an Israeli passport.”

Because of this, George W.’s father also refused to cooperate with several investigations into Russian mob activities in Switzerland. The CIA has commented that there is no “major Russian mob figure that does not carry an Israeli passport,” but the Israeli state refuses to take any action against the gangsters. Yitzhak Rabin was the one exception, and met with Mossad figures, as well as Shin Bet and Israel’s FBI, to combat organized crime, believing that it could destabilize Israel. Within a few days, he was murdered. His successor, Shimon Peres, shelved the recommendations formulated under Rabin, where they collect dust to this day.

CAUSES

It might be worthwhile to delve into some of the causes of this phenomenon. Why the Jews? It is true that many culture groups have engaged in ethnic based organized crime, but it seems only the Italians get frequently mentioned. Today, Chechen, Hispanic and Albanian gangs are growing in power, but none has come close to being even a footnote to the Jewish clans. Few people in the FBI, CIA or DEA speak Hebrew or Yiddish. Some Jewish mobsters go back and forth between languages, including Russian, so as to make themselves more indecipherable. The power of the Jewish gangs is wielded more ruthlessly than any other criminal gang. Jewish mobsters enjoy inflicting pain, they murder children as well as unarmed men and women. The old code of honor among Irish and Italian gangsters is nonexistent. These old-time mobsters would only kill another mobster. The Jewish gangs have no regard for these rules, and thus are more feared. The sheer arrogance of the Jewish gangsters and their outrageous self-assurance have allowed their “competition” among the Italian gangs to take a very cautious stance toward their Jewish counterparts.

The state of Israel is a major factor in the rise and power of the Jewish mafia. Jewish drug dealers, child porn pushers and slave traders are free from prosecution in Israel.

The state of Israel is a major factor in the rise and power of the Jewish mafia. Jewish drug dealers, child porn pushers and slave traders are free from prosecution in Israel. Israel does not consider these to be crimes, again, so long as the victims are non-Jews. The mafia proved its power in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. The Israeli state will not extradite its citizens to nonJewish countries, and, therefore, Jewish murderers can quite easily escape punishment in Israel.

The unique situation in the former USSR, and the fact that Jews predominated in the Soviet bureaucracy, provides another link in the rise of the mafia. Jews predominated in the earlier and more primitive black market in Russia, and thus these groups were physically more ready to take advantage of the crisis in Russia beginning in the mid-1980s.

Jewish organized crime, connected to both the KGB and Mossad, automatically had the skids greased to remain off the radar screen for allied intelligence agencies.

Likely the most important factor is the complete control of the media by Jewish families and the power of the ADL in American culture. The power of the Jews in America is so great that any serious investigation into Jewish crime will see shrill attacks from every major media outlet in America. In terms of public relations, it is just not worth it. Therefore, one will see a television program like The Sopranosabout Italian mobsters, but one will never see the same program featuring Jewish mobsters.

WHATCANBEDONE?

There is very little that can be done at this time. There is every reason to believe that soon, nationalists and Revisionists will be targeted by Jewish criminals with strong ties to the Mossad. The fate of the west is being decided in Moscow, not in Washington, D.C. or New York. Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to continue to centralize power in his own person. His elimination of provincial governors was meant primarily as a crime fighting campaign, as local governors were making peace with the crime bosses. Putin also needs to continue to reform the military and security services, making them more and more loyal to the new Russian order. Putin should begin publicly drawing attention to the global power of the bosses and the connivance of western powers in their rise and present prosperity.

The ruble should be made non-convertible (so as to prevent its manipulation by crime bosses in the currency markets), and a strong Sino-Slavic trading bloc needs to be solidified. Police work in Russia is now a rough business. Poorly paid policemen need to be supplemented by local militias to begin direct and militant confrontations with organized crime and corruption wherever it might arise. Putin has the popularity and the power to create a major security bloc against organized crime, as well as capitalist imperialism. Russian banks need to come under state control, and be purged of all criminal elements. Furthermore, the church, currently the second most popular institution in Russia after Putin, needs to place its powerful seal on the development of a mob-free Russia, and call on all Russians to repent and begin building a nationalist and communitarian system. Agriculture and the village commune should receive government support to repopulate the countryside, making Russia self-sufficient in food.

And, of course, Russia’s extremely important and strategic oil and natural gas reserves need to be protected by interior ministry troops and placed under government control if need be. Putin, the nationalists and the church have tremendous popularity and influence. This capital should be spent on developing a nationalist system dedicated to purging Russia of Jewish-inspired crime, imperialism, depopulation and liberalism. He is already moving in this direction, and Russian economic growth and a low inflation and unemployment rate are its fruits.

ENDNOTE: This article is based chiefly on: Robert I. Friedman, Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America, 288 pages, hardcover, Little, Brown; May 1, 2000; mass market paperback publisher: Berkley Publishing Group (2002). Other books of similar interest: Russian Mafia in America: Immigration, Culture, and Crime by James O. Finckenauer; Comrade Criminal: Russia’s New Mafiya, by Stephen Handelman; Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalismby Paul Klebnikov; Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State, by David Satter.

DR. M. RAPHAELJOHNSON received his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Nebraska. He is widely published in both peerreviewed journals as well as popular journals of opinion. He is presently a college professor in Pennsylvania. He lives with his family in Chambersburg.

Source: ZioPedia.org

Zionists Subjugate Nations By Controlling Their Political Parties

Zionists Subjugate Nations

By Controlling Their

Political Parties

By Christopher Bollyn

Politicians in the United States and Britain are made to pass under the yoke of the Zionist masters who control our leading political parties. By forcing our political leaders to accept the Zionist yoke our nations become subjugated and the pro-Israel agenda is forced upon the entire population. Zionist control of Britain’s prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is explained in this article, “How Mossad Controls our Political Parties.”
As the $700 billion bail-out of Zionist fraudsters was being debated in the U.S. Congress a supporter wrote to me saying, “I think we are out of time. If only more good people knew what you know!” I would say that it’s not so much what I know, but rather my perspective and the directions I pursue in my investigations that are not found in the media. Because my anti-Zionist perspective is taboo, my views are censored by the Zionist-controlled media. Hence, most people are simply unaware of my research.
Having spent several years in Israel and the Middle East and having studied the history of Zionism (i.e. Jewish nationalism), I know something about the many crimes committed by Zionists during the past century. From this perspective I approach the evidence of Israeli and Zionist involvement in the major crimes of our time, such as 9-11. My investigations have uncovered a great deal of evidence of Israeli involvement in the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 and other crimes.
For journalists working in the controlled media pursuing such investigations would be “career suicide” as many learned after 9-11.
I have also paid a very high price for my research and writing. I learned that Jewish Zionists control even small so-called nationalist newspapers. Most journalists, lawyers, and politicians are primarily interested in advancing their own careers and learn early on to accept the yoke of their Zionist masters — or sacrifice their careers. Ambitious people put their self interest first and agree to go along with lies and corruption rather than stand up for the truth. I’ve seen it many times.
I am not like that. During the past 30 years, I have witnessed first- hand the extremely brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine and seen how Zionists operate to subjugate entire nations. My years in Palestine/Israel were my political awakening. Zionist control of the mass media and “Holocaust” propaganda serve to protect and promote their criminal agenda. I have watched how the people of America and Europe are deceived and forced to bear the yoke of the ruthless Zionists who control their political systems and media. Thousands of young Americans and Europeans have been maimed or lost their lives in fraudulent wars for Israel in Middle Eastern nations they know nothing about. Americans have become mercenaries of Zionism.
As an American, I can’t support either presidential candidate because both are clearly Zionist puppets who espouse positions that I am strongly opposed to. American voters aren’t even given a real choice about important things ­ like the ongoing wars in the Middle East, for example. Both candidates eagerly support the Zionist “War on Terror” and both lobbied hard for the $700 billion “bail-out” to be passed.
Senators Obama and McCain are both solidly in the Zionist camp.
(Graphic – JewsforJesus.org)
I could only support a true anti-war candidate who promised a proper investigation of 9-11 and who supported investing in American infrastructure, such as providing comfortable and efficient passenger trains between our cities. Why are we bailing out investment bankers with taxpayers’ money while our cities and infrastructure are crumbling?
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are pro-war and pro- Israel. These are the only candidates we have to choose from because both parties in the United States are political machines financed and run by Zionists. Third parties, such as the erstwhile Reform Party, are likewise controlled — and run off the tracks. Zionist control of our political parties compels candidates from both parties to support Zionism, an utterly racist and un-American ideology based on a false and dangerous notion of Jewish supremacy. What kind of patriotic American could support that nonsense?
NO PARTIAL SOCIETY
“It is therefore important, if the general will is to be properly ascertained, that there should be no partial society within the state, and that each citizen should decide according to his own opinion,” Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract. “When one of the associations, is big enough to triumph over all the others, the outcome is no longer the sum total of small differences, but a single difference, then there is no longer any general will, and the opinion that prevails is only a particular opinion.”
The “partial society” that triumphs over all the others in American politics today is Zionism — no other. In the United States, the pro- Israeli position is the only “opinion that prevails” in academia, the mass media, and the political parties with absolutely no consideration for the expense, injustice, and violence it causes.
American support for Zionism has clearly been extremely detrimental for the United States of America, yet the support continues, without question. How does this happen?
MOSSAD SPIED ON HAIDER
Israel and the international Zionists control the political parties and news outlets in Europe as well, as the recent death of Austria’s Jörg Haider reveals. Oddly, Haider, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party, allowed Peter Sichrovsky, a Jew, to serve as “secretary- general” of his supposedly anti-Zionist party. In 2005, the Times (UK) reported that Sichrovsky, the managing director of the party, had served as a spy for Israel’s Mossad for five years. Three years later, after his party won parliamentary elections, Haider was suddenly killed in a very suspicious car accident.
“I wanted to help Israel and certainly did not do anything wrong,” Sichrovsky said. “It’s true, though, that I co-operated with Mossad until my withdrawal from politics in 2002.”
Sichrovsky admitted that he had spied for Mossad, a foreign intelligence agency, because he “wanted to help Israel.” At the same time he maintained that he did nothing wrong. This is exactly how many Jews feel about supporting Israel, even when their actions involve breaking the laws of the nations they reside in.
Facing a criminal investigation and charges of spying for a foreign power, Sichrovsky quickly fled to the United States where he began a new career as “a businessman concerned with military co-operation between Israel and China.” Sichrovsky’s career with Mossad evidently continued after he left Austria.
If Mossad infiltrates “third party” movements in small nations like Austria, imagine what they do to control the two political parties in the United States. How much control does Israeli intelligence have over the major political parties in Britain and the United States?
Let’s look at the most obvious connections.
MOSSAD CONTROLS BRITAIN
The evidence indicates that Israeli intelligence has near complete control of the leading political parties in Britain and the United States. While the Zionist political controllers in London and Washington are well known to the owners of the mass media, discussion of the subject of Zionist or Israeli control of the parties is censored in the media outlets they control. This censorship illustrates how Zionist control of the media serves to deceive the people and cause extreme harm to the nations.
Specific examples of the current pro-Israel bias in the mass media would include the media’s unquestioning support of the 9-11 cover-up, the costly and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the trillion dollar “bail-out.” The complete lack of transparency in U.S. elections and discussion of the secretive private companies that run our elections are also censored subjects.
The utterly fraudulent Zionist construct called the “War on Terror” and the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have all been designed and forced onto the American and British nations by Zionists who control the political systems of London, New York, and Washington.
In Britain, the two political leaders who have promoted and supported the Zionist agenda and wars of aggression are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Their Zionist paymasters and handlers are not hard to discern, although they are never discussed in the media in such terms.
“LORD CASHPOINT”
Michael Abraham Levy, or “Lord Levy,” was known as “Lord Cashpoint” (Can it be any more obvious?) when he was the leading fundraiser for the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. Described as “a long-standing friend of Tony Blair,” Levy served as Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East from 1998 until 2007, when he was replaced by Gordon Brown’s appointee, Michael Williams.
Tony Blair with his Zionist handler, Michael Levy, a.k.a. “Lord Cashpoint”
Levy’s son, Daniel, is an Israeli citizen (immigrated 1991) who has held high-level positions in Israeli governments since 1995. While his father was bankrolling and managing Tony Blair, the younger Levy was a member of the Israeli negotiating team to the “Oslo 2″ agreement during the summer of 1995 under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was also a member of the Israeli delegation to the Palestinian summit at Taba in January 2001.
Israeli Daniel Levy, son of Michael Levy
The younger Levy also served as senior policy adviser to former Israeli Minister of Justice, Yossi Beilin, from March 2000 to March 2001. Under Ehud Barak, Levy served as the prime minister’s special adviser and head of the Jerusalem Affairs unit. The Levy link was obviously the connection that gave Israeli intelligence control over the head of the British government – Tony Blair.
“WE HAVE TO DO IRAQ”
Before the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq turned sour, Blair was fond of recalling what he, the first foreign leader to meet George W. Bush, told the newly installed president when they met in early 2001. “We have to do Iraq,” is the first thing Blair told Bush, according to his own statements.
“We have to do Iraq,” is the first thing Tony Blair
told Bush when they met in February 2001.
Only by understanding that Blair and his New Labour party were financed and controlled by Israeli interests can one understand how Blair was manipulated to support such a reckless and criminal scheme. Similar Zionist forces were at work on Bush.
When Tony Blair and his Zionist handler “Lord Cashpoint” fell from power in June 2007, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assumed the office of prime minister, upon the approval of Queen Elizabeth II — but of course. Prior to becoming prime minister, Brown had served 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the minister responsible for economic and financial matters in Britain.
Prime Minister Brown, in turn, is bankrolled and controlled by Lord Ronald Cohen, who has replaced the beleaguered and disgraced Lord Levy. The Egyptian-born Cohen is described as “Sir Ronald Cohen, the daddy of England’s private equity industry and a bosom buddy of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.”
Ronald Cohen with Gordon Brown at a Jewish Policy Research (JPR)
reception at 11 Downing Street in June 2001. JPR president is Lord Rothschild.
In the British press Cohen is portrayed as a wealthy Jewish supporter of Brown and New Labour. Cohen’s third wife, the Los Angeles-born Sharon Harel-Cohen, is usually described as a film producer whose father, Yossi Harel, commanded the Jewish refugee ship that became known as Exodus in 1947. Her Israeli nationality is seldom discussed.
What the controlled media doesn’t tell us about Sharon Harel-Cohen is that she is an Israeli-American whose father was one of the founding chiefs of the Mossad and Israeli military intelligence until his death in April 2008. This means the daughter of one of the founders of Israeli intelligence is part of the team controlling the British prime minister. This is how Mossad has controlled the political leadership of Britain since the 1990s and taken the United States and Britain into two costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East.
Sharon Harel-Cohen, daughter of Israeli intelligence
chief, Yossi Harel, a.k.a. Joseph Hamburger
Sharon Ruth Harel was born in Los Angeles on March 6, 1952. Her mother, a “Julie Berez” married Mossad officer Joseph Hamburger (a.k.a. Yossi Harel) in 1950 while he was stationed in Los Angeles.
Harel was, most likely, engaged in the illegal procurement of weapons, ships, planes, and military technology for the Israeli military. The reports that Harel, one of the highest Mossad agents, was studying at UCLA or M.I.T. are neither substantiated nor credible; this was only his cover. Harel also had two sons, whose names are not known to the author.
(Whether Boaz and Ezra Harel, the two Israeli brothers who ran ICTS, the Mossad-run Israeli airport “security” company involved in the 9-11 attacks, are related to Yossi Harel is an open question I am investigating.)
The Mossad (“agency”) actually came into existence in the 1940s as the clandestine agency known as Ha’Mossad Le’Aliya Bet, the secret Zionist agency engaged in bringing Jewish refugees to British- occupied Palestine to swell the Jewish population prior to creating the “Jewish state.” In 1946, Joseph Hamburger was sent on a secret mission to provide Mossad agents in Greece with gold to bribe European governments to facilitate the transit of Jews to Palestine, which was then illegal. Some Mossad tactics have not changed at all during the past 60 years — they still buy politicians with gold.
Joe Hamburger (a.k.a. Yossi Harel) commanded four refugee ships and sailed to Israel with an estimated 25,000 immigrants during the period of the British Mandate. U.S. immigration records indicate that Mr. Hamburger used both his real name, Hamburger, and his Israeli name, Harel, during the 1950s, which is typical of Mossad agents.
Yossi Harel was a lifelong chief of Israeli intelligence.
His 2008 obituaries say that “Yosef” Hamburger was born, with a twin brother, in Jerusalem, British-occupied Palestine, in 1918. At 15, he joined Haganah, the Zionist militia/terrorist group. Five years later he joined the Special Night Squad, an anti-Palestinian terrorist unit. In 1941, Harel joined the Palmach, the “strike force” of the Haganah before transferring to the Palyam, its naval unit.
During the 1948 Zionist war to conquer Palestine, Harel served as the liaison officer to the army’s chief of staff, Yaakov Dori, and played an important role in co-ordinating the Zionist campaign. He was also the personal body guard for Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.
In 1954, Moshe Dayan, chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, called Harel back to Israel to head Unit 131, a secret group that had agents in Arab countries. Harel’s immediate task was to cover up the Lavon Affair, the Israeli false-flag terrorism plot designed to turn Britain and the United States against Egypt. David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, assigned Harel to rebuild military intelligence from the ground up. Ben-Gurion, Dayan, and Shimon Peres were actually part of the group that supported the use of false-flag terrorism, such as the Lavon bombings, to achieve their goals. Given this context, Harel must have seen eye-to-eye with Ben-Gurion about deploying Israeli agents in foreign nations. Shiploads of Israelis were sent on missions to America and Europe in the 1950s, often disguised as students.
Joseph Hamburger/Yossi Harel with David Ben Gurion
Harel went on to pursue a successful business career, the Telegraph reported, “which served as a cover for his work for Israeli intelligence.”
Like the Democrat “turncoat” Lewis M. Eisenberg, the current head of finance for the Republican National Committee, Cohen changed political parties in order to bankroll the Labour Party of Tony Blair. Cohen was a candidate in the Liberal party in the 1970s and only converted to Blair’s New Labour in 1996. Since then he has reportedly given Labour an estimated $5 million and bankrolled Gordon Brown’s career.
At their home in London the Cohens “give lavish parties for the likes of the Rothschilds, the Rausing billionaires and Cohen’s old mentor Sir Clive Sinclair.” At their home in New York they entertain “their friends the Clintons.” And then there is their villa at Mougins, near Cannes.
“Cohen moved into Brown’s orbit in 2000, when the chancellor appointed him chairman of a Treasury fund set up to encourage investment in deprived areas of the country. The next year he was rewarded with a knighthood,” according to the Times 2005 profile entitled, “Sir Ronald Cohen: Midas with a mission – to make Gordon king.”
Cohen began to replace Levy as Britain’s liaison in the Middle East. In 2004, along with Blair and Brown, Cohen met Ehud Olmert, deputy to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.
As Brown replaced Blair, Cohen, the multimillionaire venture capitalist, replaced Levy as chief fundraiser for the ruling Labour party. About his connections to Israel, Cohen told the Times: “If you look at my history: born in Egypt, a refugee, married to the daughter of the commander of the Exodus who’s an Israeli, there’s an obvious connection between me and the region.”
Obvious, perhaps, but definitely not discussed in the media.
Cohen, who is called the prime minister’s ‘private banker’, “clearly has influence over Gordon Brown,” the Jewish Chronicle wrote in their 2007 interview: “So what exactly is his relationship with Brown?
There is a seven-second pause. ‘I would classify myself as a friend of the Prime Minister, just as I was a friend of Tony Blair,’ he says carefully.”
In 2006, Cohen “started to take over the role of government emissary from Lord Levy by meeting Israeli leaders, including the prime minister, Ehud Olmert,” the Guardian reported.
Sources:
Ashkenazi, Eli, “Commander of legendary Jewish immigrant ship Exodus dies at 90,” Ha’aretz and Associated Press
Boyes, Roger, “Mossad spied on far-right Austrian,” The Times (U.K.), June 2, 2005
Leppard, David and Robert Winnett, “Brown picks tycoon to back power bid,” The Sunday Times, January 16, 2005
Martin, Douglas, “Yossi Harel,” The New York Times, May 1, 2008
Martinson, Jane, “Sir Ronald Cohen: Financier who is hoping for a peace dividend,” The Guardian, July 7, 2006
“Mossad spied on Austria’s Haidar,” United Press International, June 2, 2005
“Profile: Sir Ronald Cohen: Midas with a mission – to make Gordon king,” The Sunday Times, January 23, 2005
Rowan, David, “Interview: Sir Ronald Cohen,” Jewish Chronicle, September 22, 2007
Yossi Harel, The Times, April 30, 2008

Worst of financial crisis yet to come: IMF chief economist

Worst of financial crisis yet to come: IMF chief economist

The IMF’s chief economist has warned that the global financial crisis is set to worsen and that the situation will not improve until 2010, a report said Saturday.

Olivier Blanchard also warned that the institution does not have the funds to solve every economic problem.

“The worst is yet to come,” Blanchard said in an interview with the Finanz und Wirtschaft newspaper, adding that “a lot of time is needed before the situation becomes normal.”

He said economic growth would not kick in until 2010 and it will take another year before the global financial situation became normal again.

The International Monetary Fund on Friday promised to help Latvia deal with its economic crisis after it assisted Iceland, Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia and Pakistan.

But Blanchard said the IMF was not able to solve all financial issues, in particular problems of liquidity.

Withdrawals of capital leading to problems of liquidity “can be so significant that the IMF alone cannot counter them,” he said, adding that massive withdrawals of investments from emerging countries could represent “hundreds of billions of dollars.

“We do not have this money. We never had it,” he said.

The IMF had spent a fifth of its 250 billion dollar (200 billion euro) fund in the last two weeks, Blanchard added.

He also urged central banks around the world to cut interest rates, after the Swiss National Bank made a surprise one percentage point rate cut Thursday.

The central banks “should lower interest rates to as close to zero as possible,” he said.


Copyright AFP 2008,

Chávez’s cold war

Chávez’s cold war

The visit of the Russian fleet to the Caribbean puts out in the open two old characters in the Cold War and a new joker in Latin America -Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez

Following the purchase of a fleet of 24 Sukhoi 30 fighters, Chávez started an arms race in order to create a new, anti-US, defense network in partnership with Russia and other military super powers (File Photo)

Politics
The Caribbean in the crosshairs

“We are in front of a new geopolitical dynamics; that is why we are moving fast,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told last September his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev, at the beginning of a meeting held in the city of Oremburgh, south of Ural, bordering Kazakhstan.

This is not the first time President Chávez makes reference to the advent of a new international order which, in his view, is starting to operate in the world. He did it earlier in his previous six visits to Russia as from 2001.

Is it music to the ears of the Russian political leadership? While the Venezuelan head of state has termed this new crusade the reemergence of a new multipolar world, the Russian leadership has its own judgment, pointing to the longed-for return to the Russia-US bipolar system.

Venezuela’s invitation for a visit of the Russian fleet led by flagship Peter the Great to conduct air-sea exercises in the Caribbean has not been disregarded in the hemisphere. The Greater Caribbean had not been visited since 1962, during the missile crisis, when the Soviet Union installed in Cuba a continental missile shield that was viewed by Washington as a threat. However, behind the exercises in the Caribbean agreed upon by Russia and Venezuela -labeled by Colonel José Machilanda as geopolitical by nature and just for a symbolic and propagandistic value instead of geo-strategic- an interplay of interests revives the remains of the Cold War.

Russia and the USA

This interplay, including a new, yet moderate, version of the Cold War, has attracted the attention of other world leaders, and shows that some nations are concerned about the recent steps taken by Russia and the United States.

The United States, under the administration of President George W. Bush, implemented a “continued war policy,” according to the National Security Agency, an NGO specialized in security and defense issues. And this policy is meant to keep the internal cohesion of the US people in face of a “necessary foe.”

In the aftermath of the Cold War and subsequently, the September 11th events, “new threats” appeared with terrorism, organized crime and drug traffic as surrogates of the “necessary foe.”

For its part, Russia is under the administration of the most radical wing with links with the old Soviet Union. Some analysts claim that the elite presently in office, some of them ex KGB members, still hold out hope that they would return to the past grandeur and yearn for the military and economic super power.

In this way, Russia found in Hugo Chávez a formula to enter Latin America, traditionally considered an area in the US interest, and termed by some others as the US backyard.

Strategy and propaganda

According to expert in military issues José Machilanda, a difference should be made between the geopolitical purpose and the geo-strategic aim. He explained that the geo-strategic character is related to the deployment of an armed component in the area. This undoubtedly affects relations among states, as it covers areas of influence that are important from the strategic, military view for all the countries in the hemisphere.

He noted, however, that the geo-strategic aim will have no practical effect. Based on the studies conducted, the operational capacity of Russian forces is very limited. There are additional stumbling blocs. One of them is that Venezuela’s military operations have declined and military preparedness is in bad shape.

The provocation implied in the invitation made by the Venezuelan state is effective though, turning into a pure geopolitical move, which President Chávez has made to give the impression that there is a Venezuela-Russia military alliance.

Chávez, the joker

In this interplay of powers, Chávez has turned out to be sort of wild card to the benefit, both of Bush and Medvedev and his mentor, ex Russian President Vladimir Putin. In his own logic, Chávez has premised the domestic policy on the myth of the empire and Bush.  Every single event contrary to the Venezuelan government, no matter how insignificant, is labeled by the official propaganda as forged by the empire. This is the case for the foreign policy, to such an extent that the US ambassador was repatriated in retaliation for an internal clash in Bolivian between the government of President Evo Morales and autonomic provinces.

Surely enough, the geopolitical issue has prompted the reaction of all the countries in the hemisphere. The United States promised to monitor the area. However, the US-Russian military balance is clear for them.

In the expert’s opinion, Brazil has replied with military exercises in the air base of northern Natal, after asking a significant number of Latin American and European states to join them. Brazil is keenly aware of its enormous capacity, as it produces a large amount of air equipment. In the face of a provocation, it is saying that it has geopolitical capacity -it has managed to gather several states and a sound air capacity.

Further, Machillanda explained, when Chávez ordered a deployment of troops near Colombia without justification, due to a problem on the Colombian-Ecuadorian border, Brazil realized that Chávez’s “unscheduled events” could result in a strained situation and endanger the hemispheric security. As a result, it created the UNASUR Security Council, to settle peacefully any dispute that may arise in the region.

The Brazilian stance is consistent with the concept of military post-modernity -which recommends not using the armed forces- as opposed to the thesis of conflict -where the militarist concept prevails- championed and handled by President Chávez in the region.
folivares@eluniversal.com