Could A News Headline Be More Slanted Than This One from CNN?

Why the Syrian regime is killing babies

By Frida Ghitis


Editor’s note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of “The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.”

(CNN) — When a slow-motion massacre has unfolded over the course of 15 months, it’s easy to lose the world’s attention. But even the most jaded gasped in horror as news emerged of the latest carnage inflicted on the Syrian people. The images from the town of Houla defied belief.

Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad went on asystematic killing spree, murdering at least 108 people. Most shockingly, the killers targeted women and children. A U.N. representative said the victims included 49 children who were younger than 10. The al-Assad regime denied it carried out the atrocities, but U.N. officials said they saw clear evidence that the Syrian government was involved in the attacks.

Why would a regime, even a brutal dictatorship, send its thugs to kill women and children, even babies? Does it make any sense, even by the twisted logic of armed conflict and tyranny?

India struggles with pipeline geopolitics

India struggles with pipeline geopolitics

By Zorawar Daulet Singh

Asia Time Online - Daily News

NEW DELHI – India spends more than U$400 million each day on oil imports which account for 70% of its oil consumption. For a country facing such high dependence on outside sources so early in its growth trajectory one would expect securing reliable and long-term supplies would be at the forefront of the development and foreign policy agenda.

And yet, Delhi seems to be expending diplomatic and political resources in a direction that would baffle even the most optimistic observer. Last week, the union cabinet affirmed India’s participation in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) 1,700-kilometer pipeline, which envisages a flow of gas from Central Asia into the Indian heartland.

While Afghanistan and Pakistan committed to the security of the pipeline in a December 2010 Inter-Governmental Agreement, the transit zone involved in the TAPI case is now widely acknowledged as the most tumultuous region in the world.

In Afghanistan, though the Kabul regime has received extensive international aid and military support, it is by no means assured that the state will acquire a wherewithal that can ensure the uninterrupted flow of a strategic resource like natural gas across 735 kilometers of southern and western Afghanistan, the hotbed of Pashtun resistance.

In Pakistan, the problem is magnified because the state’s capacity is weak and compromised by an ideology that is repulsed by the idea of any interdependence with India. Further, the military – the most vital state organ for underwriting the security of the 800-kilometer transit route – is nurtured by a strategic culture that strives to acquire new leverages vis-a-vis India. To place India’s energy security in the hands of an institution that has rarely been bound by international agreements would be strategically irresponsible.

So, why is this project being pursued? Perhaps, it serves to underscore India’s hope for a seamless flow of resources across the greater South Asia region. It might also be good public diplomacy as India exudes the right notes for a region condemned to irresolvable territorial conflicts.

Indeed, the US State Department spokesperson summed up US interest in this project, “You’ve got new transit routes, you’ve got people-to-people links, you’ve got increased trade across a region that historically has not been well-linked, where there have been historic antipathies which are now being broken down by this positive investment project.”

Few can dismiss such grandiose rhetoric. But to assert that the TAPI pipeline “is a perfect example of energy diversification” as the US official did, is going too far. What it actually reflects is America’s dual strategy to break the Russian monopsony on Central Asian gas and prevent the flow of Iranian gas eastward. Concern for South Asian energy security was probably an afterthought.

The pursuit of energy security is a serious endeavor and cannot be driven by or become hostage to ideological or optimistic projections of international politics. Surely, there are other more benign means to test the prospects of Central-South Asian camaraderie? A two-way flow of less strategic merchandise and people could be a start.

If energy security is a national concern, Delhi should be pursuing a geostrategy that is based on a more sensible comparative assessment of the potential lines of communication to the energy starved Indian heartland.

The severing of India’s natural lines of communication to the resource wealth of Central and West Asia was one of the great tragedies of partition. In many ways, India’s post-1947 foreign policy has struggled to overcome the geopolitical consequences of 1947 after which India became a prisoner of geography unable to forge continental geoeconomic or geopolitical links with its western periphery and beyond.

Fortunately, peninsular India has historically always provided options to craft maritime lines of communication between India and the world. Indeed, over 90 percent of India’s trade and all of its oil imports rely on maritime transportation networks. Thus, it is only logical for India to explore maritime energy routes.

In 2009, Gas Authority of India (GAIL) entered into a Principles of Cooperation agreement with South Asia Gas Enterprises (SAGE) to explore the technical viability of laying a deep-sea pipeline from West Asia across the Arabian Sea to India. According to SAGE, the cost of a pipeline from Oman to India, a project first studied in 1995, would be $4 billion (TAPI is estimated at $8-10 billion).

The gas tariff would also be lower since transit or security costs become negligible. Oman’s access to the Arabian Sea makes it a natural export hub for gas-rich states like Qatar, Turkmenistan and Iran. A direct coastal pipeline from Iran to India is not only technically challenging given the depth and turbulence of the Indus Canyon, but would also require Pakistan’s acquiescence since it would traverse near the latter’s exclusive economic zone.

In March 2011, the union petroleum minister stated in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House), “So far technical feasibility of the [Oman-India] project has not been established” and “not much progress has been made since” mid-2009. Has India’s inability to de-hyphenate its Tehran ties from its US-policy reduced the attractiveness of this project?

Russia’s strategy of systematically investing in routes that bypass politically volatile or unfriendly transit states can serve as a lesson for India. In 2005, Moscow and Berlin came together to collaborate on a project that sought to overcome the financial and geopolitical costs of transiting large volumes of natural gas through Central and Eastern Europe.

Until recently, 70% of Russian gas was transiting through Ukraine and Poland. The 1,200-kilometer Nord Stream sub-sea pipeline network, which became operational in 2011, has directly connected Eurasia’s largest energy supplier to the economic heart of Europe through the Baltic Sea.

India’s proximity to energy rich West Asia is a geopolitical advantage that most nations can only aspire for. Lines of communication, however, do not just arise spontaneously but are always the outcome of sustained political, economic and even military commitment to specific routes that are deemed stable and relatively inexpensive to sustain. This is the essence of geostrategy.

Moreover, advancement in offshore technologies and high hydrocarbon prices has made deepwater pipelines a viable proposition. Finally, the growing capabilities of the Indian navy will only complement a political initiative to pursue a sub-sea link between West Asia and India’s west coast.

It would be absurd if public diplomacy that is apparently guiding Delhi’s calculus on TAPI deflects attention from the more urgent need for a secure maritime energy line of communication to India’s economy. A subsea pipeline deserves more than a perfunctory assessment.

Zorawar Daulet Singh is Research Fellow at the Center for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi(

13 Charred Bodies Found Inside Kazakh Border Guard Post

Charred bodies of soldiers found in Kazakhstan

Police in Kazakhstan have opened an investigation into the death of 13 people at a remote military outpost near the border with China.

Charred bodies of soldiers found in Kazakhstan

Former Soviet Kazakhstan shares a long border with China Photo: ALAMY

By , Central Asia correspondent

2:31PM BST 31 May 2012

Media quoted Colonel Turganbek Stambekov, first deputy chief of the Kazakh border guard service, as saying that the charred remains of 12 soldiers and one hunter had been found at the outpost.

The outpost, though, can house 15 soldiers, local media said, although Colonel Stambekov didn’t say whether the security services were looking for three missing soldiers.

He also said the cause of the fire, and whether it was deliberate or accidental, was still unknown.

Former Soviet Kazakhstan shares a long border with China. The outpost where the bodies were found was located in the sparsely populated and mountainous southeast of the country.

All Six SCO Countries To Participate In “Peace Mission 2012” Next Week In Tajikistan

SCO Armed Forces to Stage “Peace Mission 2012” Drill

Web Editor: yangyang66
Armed forces from Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states will hold the “Peace Mission 2012” drill in Tajikistan from June 8 to 14, Ministry of Defense spokesman Yang Yujun announced Thursday.The drill is a joint anti-terrorism military exercise launched under the SCO framework, Yang said, adding that the drill will involve more than 2,000 military personnel from China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Yang said the drill will focus on the preparation and implementation of joint anti-terrorism action in mountainous areas in the context of a regional crisis incurred by terrorist activity.

Yang said defense and security cooperation is an important part of relations conducted between SCO member states, adding that members have established a mechanism allowing for meetings between defense ministers and held meetings between SCO military chiefs over the last decade.

Member states have staged eight anti-terrorism drills, held five security forums and conducted exchanges concerning defense cooperation and personnel training, he said.

Defense and security cooperation has deepened military trust among SCO member states and enhanced their ability to cope with new challenges, he said, adding that cooperation has played a positive role in safeguarding regional peace and stability.

Over the last decade, the SCO’s drills have developed from company-level tactical exercises to multilevel exercises featuring strategic consultation, battle preparation and simulated combat, he said, adding that the venues and varieties of soldiers involved in the drills have also evolved.

The drills have cemented and deepened SCO defense and security cooperation, strengthened the cohesiveness of the organization and increased mutual strategic trust between China and other SCO member states, Yang said.

State of the Taliban: The secret US Forces report

[The following should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is reportedly a product of a “US Operations Team,” under the authority of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command ).  It is more likely, therefore, that it is a propaganda document, originally intended to be “leaked” to the press, even though it is allegedly a “Classified” document.  As reported below, the original SOF document contains a line of code to enable some sort of tracking, so perhaps more timid readers would want to avoid that, no matter what the report contained, settle for reading the summary.  Despite this, it could be useful in helping us understand the Taliban, on both sides of the border.  A link to the full report is included.]

State of the Taliban: The secret US Forces report

State of Pakistan

We are pleased to publish copy of a classified internal document prepared by a special operations team of the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan.

What the Report Means

The report, “State of the Taliban: January 6, 2012,” is part of a regularly published series on the insurgency that’s based on the interrogations of thousands of detainees. It offers an unvarnished glimpse into the inner beliefs of the military establishment in Afghanistan for two reasons: First, as a classified document, it was intended solely for internal consumption, and second, it was put together by a special operations team working under the Joint Special Operations Command, which is responsible for the US military’s most secretive and demanding special forces missions, including the one that killed Osama bin Laden last year.

The special operations team that authored the report, known as Joint Task Force 3-10, allegedly helps oversee a “black site” prison at the largest US military base in the country, located at Bagram air base, just north of Kabul. In the introduction, the report describes how it was put together:

“Throughout the year, TF 3-10 conducted over 27,000 interrogations of over 4,000 Taliban, Al Qaeda, foreign fighters and civilians. As this document is derived directly from insurgents, it should be considered informational and not necessarily analytical.”

While, as the authors note, the report is intended to be a presentation of the information they’ve gathered from detainees, in certain passages it clearly includes their own views and analysis. And though the ‘black sites’ operated by the CIA and special forces in Afghanistan have in the past been associated with detainee abuse, overall the interrogators seem notably sympathetic to the detainees’ motivations and understanding of Afghan politics and culture.

1. Who are the Taliban?

The report is remarkable for its clear-eyed view of the insurgency, a far cry from the caricature that often features in military press releases. Rather than merciless fanatics, the Taliban are portrayed as a nuanced and complex phenomenon — one deeply involved in violence and criminality, but also pragmatic and evolving, with a deep base of support among ordinary Afghans. It portrays them as motivated both by nationalistic and religious grounds:

“[Afghan government] corruption, abuse of power and suspected lack of commitment to Islam continue to provoke significant anti-government sentiment. The Taliban will be hostile to any government which appears to act as an agent of foreign powers to instill Western values.”

The report makes clear the distinction between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, whose influence is seen as dissipating under the pressure of military strikes and the loss of much of its core leadership:

“In most regions of Afghanistan, Taliban leaders have no interest in associating with Al Qaeda. Working with Al Qaeda invites targeting, and Al Qaeda personnel are no longer the adept and versatile fighters and commanders they once were. Even Taliban groups with historically close ties to Al Qaeda, such as the Haqqani Network, have had little or no interaction with them in the last two years.”

Regarding the Haqqani Network—which was accused by US officials of being behind the attack on the embassy—the report also tones down much of the hype about the Haqqanis being a distinct and uniquely dangerous force—the so-called “Sopranos of the Afghanistan war”—stating that the group is deeply linked with the rest of the Taliban:

“Though the Haqqani Network maintains its own identity and history, it remains an integral part of the Taliban. Haqqani Network personnel changes, areas of responsibility, funding, operations , and strategy are directed by the Taliban leadership in Quetta, Pakistan.”

As the report notes, the term ‘Haqqani Network’ is not even used by its members:

“The Haqqani Network will not independently reconcile, nor are they authorized to act as spokesmen for the Taliban as a whole. Haqqani Network members refer to themselves only as Taliban. The term Haqqani Network is unknown within the group.”

2. Who funds the Taliban?

The report puts to rest the oft-repeated idea of “ten-dollar Taliban,” that is, that the insurgency is largely composed of poor Afghan men who are bribed in order to fight. “The Taliban do not fight for financial gain,” it states. “Almost without exception, Taliban members do not receive salaries or other financial incentives for their work.”

The largest source of the insurgency’s funding, according to the report, comes from donations collected door-to-door in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as from wealthy Arab donors in the Gulf region. It downplays direct Taliban involvement in the narcotics trade, but notes that they do collect taxes from opium production in regions they control. It also states that corruption fed by international spending helps fund the insurgency.

3. Is the Taliban winning or losing?

The report’s authors do appear to believe that the US-led military strategy has been having an effect on the insurgency, pressuring many of them to downgrade their operations or go to ground in Pakistan. Unsurprisingly, they see the kill-capture campaign as playing a key role:

“Unrelenting, pinpoint ISAF operations targeting specific command elements have had a demonstrable effect on the insurgents’ ability to conduct operations.”

At the same time however, there is a sense that, despite the vast number of insurgents who’ve been killed or captured, the Taliban’s momentum remains unchecked.

“Though the Taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation, funding , and tactical proficiency remains intact. […] Despite numerous tactical setbacks, surrender is far from their collective mindset. […] As opposed to years past, detainees have become more confident in not only their potential to win, but the virtue of their cause.”

Indeed, the report is far more pessimistic about the Afghan government:

“Many Afghans are already bracing themselves for an eventual return of the Taliban. [The Afghan government] continues to declare its willingness to fight, yet many of its personnel have secretly reached out to insurgents, seeking long-term options in the event of a possible Taliban victory. The Taliban recognize this trend and formalized a reconciliation system of their own.”

4. How does Pakistan help the Taliban?

The report levels harsh accusations of Pakistani cooperation with the insurgency, specifically with the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, noting that “senior Taliban leaders meet regularly with ISI personnel who advise on strategy and relay any pertinent concerns of the Government of Pakistan.”

At the same time though, the report is more cautious when it comes to the nature of the link between the ISI and the Taliban:

“Despite widespread open-source reports to the contrary, detainees have provided little evidence of direct ISI funding of Taliban operations or training of Taliban personnel. Similarly, there have been no credible reports from detainees in 2011 of ISI directly providing weapons to the Taliban. Rather, the majority of ISI support appears to be through intermediaries.”

The fact is that these militant groups have an existence independent of the Pakistani government in the border areas, where in many cases they enjoy deep sympathy among and roots within the local population. Nor would substantial logistical from an outside party support be necessary to maintain their low-intensity guerilla operations and occasional high-profile attacks.

5. Why is Pakistan helping the Taliban?

The report offers the common refrain that Pakistan’s policy in Afghanistan is largely driven by its longstanding rivalry with its neighbor to the east, India. It therefore seeks to ensure that Afghanistan’s government is friendly to itself and hostile to India—criteria that make the administration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai unsatisfactory:

“Hamid Karzai is perceived as deeply influenced by India, Iran and the West, and therefore a potential strategic threat to Pakistani security. Most detainees believe that Pakistan will continue to overlook any concerns with Afghan-focused insurgent groups, in order to undermine [the Afghan government.]”

At the same time, however, the report acknowledges that Pakistan has its own legitimate interests in the current conflict. The Pakistani state is deeply threatened by insurgent groups within its borders, particularly the Tehrik-e Taliban-e Pakistan, which has declared war on the government. In order to subdue the trouble in its border areas—which has been inflamed in part by US drone strikes and the war in Afghanistan—it has attempted to co-opt militant groups and direct their energies outwards:

“The Government of Pakistan has developed an innovative strategy for subduing the TTP through a combination of clandestine diplomacy and intense military action. ISI has directed much of its effort toward undermining the TTP from within, and subsequently redirecting insurgent efforts away from Pakistan.”

6. What about Iran?

Iran has long been alleged to be playing both sides of the conflict in Afghanistan, which the report makes clear:

“The Iranians have provided moderate support to what coalition forces refer to as the Herat Insurgent Faction, or “Mujahedin of Martyr Akbari”, which is a smaller insurgent group operating primarily in Herat and Badghis Provinces. However, Iran has offered far more support to Farsi-speaking groups, many of which currently support [the government of Afghanistan], rather than pro-Taliban elements.”

PART II: The Annotated Excerpts from the Report 

The US and NATO have suffered from a long series of damaging and embarrassing leaks over the years in Afghanistan, from the massive Wikileaks cache, to Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s infamous 2008 memo, to, most recently, a top-secret cable supposedly so sensitive that Ambassador Ryan Crocker sent it via the CIA rather than normal diplomatic channels to the US (where its contents were soon leaked to the Washington Post by military sources hoping to make the case for prolonging the troop deployments.)

There have been rumors that the military has instituted a form of leak-tracing technology that embeds a unique, invisible code in each copy of a document. There is reason to believe that this might be the case with the State of the Taliban Report, so we’ve copied out certain passages, and re-created key images, in order to give you a direct look without potentially compromising our source. (The New York Times copied out the full text here, out of the same concerns.) We’ve also redacted certain information that might compromise sensitive military details or the privacy of individual detainees.

The Maps

 The report includes several satellite images that are meant to illustrate the nature of cooperation between Pakistani security forces and the Taliban. Using the grid coordinates provided in the report, we were able to find open-source satellite imagery of the same areas. We’ve also reprinted the captions from the report, but we’ve redacted the coordinates.

One image shows a Pakistani Army border checkpoint on the border between the Afghan province of Khost and the Pakistan agency of North Waziristan (note how the Pakistani border post is shown on the Afghan side of the border.) The caption describes a common complaint that’s been voiced both by US military brass and soldiers alike — that they’ve observed first-hand a cordial relationship between the Pakistani Army and militants. In many cases, Pakistan’s Frontier Corp and the Taliban are drawn from the same Pashtun tribal groups that straddle the border, so certainly they will share cultural, if not political, affinities with one another. If, as the US has alleged, attackers on the US embassy came from the Haqqani Network, which is based in North Waziristan, they might very well have used this route, or one like it, to enter Afghanistan.

Familial Residence and Meeting Location for Haqqani Network Senior Leadership, North Waziristan Agency, PK (exact coordinates redacted)

The Haqqani family madrassa has a long pedigree going back to the war against the Soviet Union, when it was a locus of mujehadin resistance in the area. Today, the Haqqani Network is alleged to remains closely associated with Pakistan’s intelligence service, and the two share an uneasy coexistence in Miram Shah, the capital of North Waziristan, where the madrassa is located.

The Detainees

Sprinkled throughout the report are boxes with photos of detainees, along with a snippet from their interrogations. (Again, these are reproductions of the images.):

This hapless detainee’s tale of woe is increasingly typical of the foreigners who smuggle themselves to Afghanistan with the intent of doing jihad against the US forces there. Al Qaeda’s central leadership has been decimated and fractured by US military pressure, and they have little operational ability to field forces in Afghanistan, like they once did. Instead, individuals like this Moroccan-German are more likely to end up with one of the ad-hoc foreign fighter groups that are associated with a small number of Taliban fronts. This individual was picked up in Zabul Province, which is one of the only areas in southern Afghanistan where foreign fighters are active.

This is strange because Burhannudin Rabbani is the former leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by a turban-bomb wearing militant last year—in other words, a staunch opponent of the Taliban.

That being said, in Afghanistan there are almost always a multiplicity of clandestine and confusing ties between ostensible enemies—given the number of different factions, and the constantly shifting alliances, you never know when you may need each other. It’s possible that this guy got picked up by the US for being in communication with the insurgency.

In any case, while it may be a little hyperbolic, his warnings about a civil war and a split along regional lines point towards a gloomy possible future for Afghanistan—a repeat of what happened after the Soviets left. We know how that turned out.


Please click on the link below to read the full report (minus some images redacted)

FULL REPORT ” State of the Taliban”

Acknowledgements: GQ Magazine, New York Times, Guardian

Syria: The terror operation of Jeffrey Feltman

Formally, the U.S. regime has agreed on an UN observer mission of up to 300 UN observers in Syria, which use is initially limited to 90 days, which also means that the United States agreed that the UN Observers monitor the ceasefire from all sides and the UN Security Council Resolutions 2042 and 2043rd for a peaceful political process of the situation in Syria.

With the adoption of the UN resolutions on Syria, the Zionist-Wahhabi U.S. plan has failed. The plan included to force a “regime change” in Libya and Syria, implemented  through propaganda, terror, sanctions, and an ultimately genocidal-bombing of the resistance. These steps should prepare the long-planned military regime change in Iran.

The terrorist gangs, which are subordinated to the Zionist U.S. Secretary of State Jeffrey D. Feltman, and which terrorize the Syrian population in fancy names like “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), “Al Qaeda”, or “Farouk Brigade” by bombings and death squads, have in the ongoing democratic process in Syria, despite the massive support of Zionist propaganda and Wahhabi networks, no chance to come to power in Syria, because they are all rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Syrian population.

But behind the scenes, the Zionists and the U.S. government continue to work hard to destabilize Syria, together with the loose combination of the “enemies of the Syrian people” (“Friends of Syria”), in order to fomenting terrorism and the armed violence, because they want to undermine the so-called UN peace plan for Syria.

The recent talks by Jeffrey Feltman with his fascist-Wahhabi friends from the “March 14″ in Lebanon (Beirut) reveal the calculus behind it.
The U.S. reign of terror thinks that it would be useful to further destabilize Syria, at least, until next year (by terrorism), in order to also weaken Iran, at least, temporarily. And by the weakening of Syria, they have also a better chance to reach a “regime change” in Lebanon – at the latest in the Lebanese parliamentary elections in 2013, but a “regime change” in Lebanon is still also possible before this date.

Ultimately, the NATO Allies, who are dominated by Zionists, want the Zionist apartheid regime over Palestine and the Anglo-American dictatorships of Wahhabi-Arabia and Qatar, with the strategy of continuously terrorism in Iran and Syria – of course, also in order to weaken the Lebanese resistance-force, Hezbollah.

Disturbing for these goals is the UN peace plan. The NATO countries agreed on the UN peace plan under the pressure by unmasked propaganda lies in April.

Also disturbing for these goals are the UN observers, who mean a danger for them, because contrary to the strong Zionist and Wahhabi propaganda, it could become more and more clear that the Zionist apartheid regime, the states of the North Atlantic Terror Organization (NATO), under U.S. leadership, as well as the feudal extreme dictatorships, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were behind the murderous terror in Syria in the past 15 months. Thousands of Syrian people are the victims of organized terrorism (under the false flag of democracy and peace).

To end the fragile peace in Syria officially and thus to get rid of those pesky UN Observers, Feltman`s gang implemented a complex terror and propaganda operation in Syria, consisting of at least two operative parts, just on time for the visit by Kofi Annan to Damascus.

The scheduled plan of the “Feltman operation” is assumed to include the following operation steps:

The main part of the “Feltman operation” was to make sure that about 100 heavily armed Feltman bandits enter the village “Hula” (Houla) near the Syrian city of Homs. (al Houleh, allegedly a name of a Syrian region with three villages near Homs). This armed gang had the order to force chaos and bloodshed in this village. They wildly shoot around, put houses on fire and attack a building of the Syrian security forces. These armed “Feltman rebels” also conquered the hospital of the area.

The Feltman-bandits should entrench themselves in the hospital then. During the attack, the UN observers would be alarmed by the news that the Syrian security forces carry out a massacre on opposition supporters and the civil society with heavy weapons in this area near Homs.

The UN observers should come to Hula (Houlah/al-Houleh), thus that they confirm that the Syrian security forces used (contrary to their obligations under the six-point peace plan by Kofi Annan) heavy weapons in the city. The UN Observers should also monitor the withdrawal of the Feltman-terrorists, who should pretend to be Syrian civilians and that they have defended the hospital against the violent Government forces.

This process would then be used to blame the Syrian government, at least, “semi-officially” confirmed by observers from the UN, with a serious breach of UN resolutions, in the commitment to the ceasefire.

The second part of the Feltman-operation was that some terrorists, with a short run-up to the major surgery, go to the nearby villages, such as al-Shumariyeh, and carry out simple massacre of innocent families to push this horrible violence in the shoes of the Syrian government.

The armed charge of this part of the Feltman operation should murder defenseless people, or especially children and women, the more senseless and cruel the better.

Afterwards, the Feltman-terrorists should take videos and pictures with the murdered victims, which were killed by them. The armed gang should pretend that they are neighbors, who just found the victims by accident.

Then they should explain that the victims were members of friendly families of them and also opponents of the Syrian governments, who were just killed by Syrian security forces. These armed people should also strongly indicate that the Syrian security forces are very close to them, namely in Hula, i.e. where the main operation of the complex Feltman-operation takes place, and currently carry out a massacre there, thus that UN observers are urgent and quickly needed in this area.

With the help of the satellite uplinks, which are described as “non-lethal opposition assistance” by the NATO and GCC countries, which also have provided this, the videos, taken by the Feltman-terrorists, should be uploaded to the Internet, so that the videos can be massive disseminated with the help of the Zionist-Wahhabi propaganda apparatus.

Subsequently, the part of the second Feltman operation should flee and also make the prosecution of them more difficult by e.g. arson.

The main task of the second part of the Feltman-operation was to ensure, that the gruesome pictures and videos of the operation in Hula (Houla/el-Houleh) quickly spreads over the whole world and gets disseminated in all media, so that UN observers quickly come to Hula in order that the desired propaganda effect of the local operation works; and e.g. will not fail because of lower coverage.

After the successful completion of the whole operation should the emerging branch of the Feltman-terrorists, called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), make a public statement that it is no more possible for them to comply with the ceasefire of the UN resolution(s).

The co-operating regimes of states of NATO and the GCC should then condemn the Syrian government and declare their solidarity with the Feltman-terrorists. Afterwards, the governments should declare in a new UN Security meeting that they drop the previously UN Resolutions and stop the observer mission.

Of course, this should also include that they declare in public to supply the Feltman-terrorists in Syria with weapons and that they threaten Syria again, like it happened at the previous UN resolutions, with an aggressive war on humanitarian reasons.

The ceasefire agreement would thus officially ended, the UN observer mission to monitor the ceasefire would be over and the progress of the disturbing campaign of the UN observers in Syria, which were counterproductive for the terror plans, would also be no more problem, though perhaps not immediately, but no later than the end of the 90-day period.

Significant parts of the Feltman-operation succeeded as they were planned. The killing of innocent women and children in al-Shumariyeh was managed by the Feltman-terrorists, without getting caught by Syrian government forces in the horrible act. The massacres were also pushed by the Zionist-Wahhabi propaganda networks as planned; for example, the German news and published this as top news.

This news in the leading media of the NATO countries was also given the needed headlines, so that it was mentioned that forces of the Syrian government could have massacred civilians, women and children in Hula – “Massacres in Syrian Hula: Opposition complains about dozens of dead children” and “Activists speak of massacres – apparently 110 dead after attacks in Syria” and so on.

Notorious lackeys of the Zionist lobby, such as the German and French foreign ministers, also have immediately condemned the Syrian government in public and also very harshly, as it were scheduled.

But in some parts of the Feltman-operation, it did not work as planned.

Some numerous German media in the NATO state Germany have reported, while citing “exile groups”, that strangers went from house to house and that these “insurgents” have indiscriminately murdered people, including children.

This created a risk that contrary to the scheduled scenario to make the Syrian government responsible for the horrible crimes of the Feltman-terrorists, that a “third force” could appear again. But with the crimes of the terrorists, the Syrian government forces should be made responsible, that was the Feltman plan. While heavy weapons like tanks and artillery should be named as murder weapons, because that was the only way to accuse the Syrian government that they have broken the ceasefire.

But the pictures of the murdered children reveal, however, at least in some cases, that they were purposefully murdered by shots from close in or with the help of stabbing, cutting and slashing. Victims of artillery look different.

This mistake leads to new difficulties for the Feltman-terrorists. The attempt to establish the general opinion, that these franctireur (“insurgents”) belong to pro-government forces, which were backed by Syrian security forces, was threatening to fail. It threatened to reach the public, that it actually were the Feltman-terrorists who have committed the horrible crimes.

While numerous German media have subsequently removed the term “insurgents” (franctireur) from their coverage of the Feltman-massacre, some propaganda outlets had this term also in the headlines and all know that the Internet has a persistent memory.

The Feltman-terrorists have made also a mistake in the presentation of the children in their propaganda movies. It is, for example, very evident that the Feltman-terrorists, who have filmed themselves and also have pretended to be neighbors and friends of the dead children and people, handled the bodies of the children like a raw piece of meat and not like friends and neighbors would do it.

Unplanned was also that the Syrian authorities have discovered some victims of the second part of the Feltman-operation already before the start of the operational phase of the main part of this horrible false-flag operation, and therefore the timeline of the story of the Feltman-terrorists has some problems.

Also the UN observers have not reacted in the way as it was scheduled by the Feltman-terrorists. The UN observers did not rushed to help immediately as it was planned by the operation of the Feltman terrorists and despite the cruel policies of the second operation part, so that the withdrawal of the Feltman-terrorists did not work out as planned.

Instead to use the expected propaganda line of the Feltman-terrorist tune, the UN observers condemned the murderous violence without naming a specific party in the conflict as guilty. The UN Observers have condemned the violence in the strongest terms, without accusing one of the sides. They also came to the place when the safety was restored and not on time as it was scheduled by the Feltman-terrorists.

It remains unclear whether the Feltman-terrorists and their NATO-GCC supporters are able to succeed in the manipulating the investigation of the UN Observers. It remains also unclear of the barbaric terrorist operation by Jeffrey Feltman will have the scheduled results – a long-running civil war in Syria to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.

Based on / Source:


Germany must not destroy the European order for a third time

 Germany must not destroy the European order for a third time

By Joschka Fischer

The Daily Star

Europe’s situation is serious – very serious. Who would have thought that British Prime Minister David Cameron would call on eurozone governments to muster the courage to create a fiscal union – with a common budget and tax policy and jointly guaranteed public debt? And Cameron also argues that deeper political integration is the only way to stop the breakup of the euro. And this from a conservative British prime minister! The European house is ablaze, and 10 Downing Street is calling for a rational and resolute response by the fire brigade.

Unfortunately, the fire brigade is being led by Germany, and its chief is Chancellor Angela Merkel. As a result, Europe continues to try to quench the fire with gasoline – German-enforced austerity – with the consequence that, in a mere three years, the eurozone’s financial crisis has become an existential crisis for Europe.

Let’s not delude ourselves: If the euro falls apart, so will the European Union (the world’s largest economy), triggering a global economic crisis on a scale that most people alive today have never experienced. Europe is on the edge of an abyss, and will surely tumble into it unless Germany – and France – alters course.

The recent elections in France and Greece, together with local elections in Italy and continuing unrest in Spain and Ireland, have shown that the public has lost faith in the strict austerity forced upon them by Germany. Merkel’s kill-to-cure remedy has run up against reality – and democracy.

We are once again learning the hard way that this kind of austerity, when applied in the teeth of a major financial crisis, leads only to depression. This insight should have been common knowledge; it was, after all, a major lesson of the austerity policies of President Herbert Hoover in the United States and Chancellor Heinrich Bruning in Weimar Germany in the early 1930s. Unfortunately, however, Germany, of all countries, seems to have forgotten this reality.

As a consequence, chaos looms in Greece, as does the prospect of subsequent bank runs in Spain, Italy and France – and thus a financial avalanche that would bury Europe. And then? Should we write off what more than two generations of Europeans have created – a massive investment in institution-building that has led to the longest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the continent?

One thing is certain: A breakup of the euro and the EU would entail Europe’s exit from the world stage. Germany’s current policy is all the more absurd in view of the bitter political and economic consequences that it would face.

It is up to Germany and France, Merkel and President François Hollande, to decide the future of our continent. Europe’s salvation now depends on a fundamental change in Germany’s economic-policy stance, and in France’s position on political integration and structural reforms.

France will have to say yes to a political union: a common government with common parliamentary control for the eurozone. The eurozone’s national governments already are acting in unison as a de facto government to address the crisis. What is becoming increasingly true in practice should be carried forward and formalized.

Germany, for its part, will have to opt for a fiscal union. Ultimately, that means guaranteeing the eurozone’s survival with Germany’s economic might and assets: unlimited acquisition of the crisis countries’ government bonds by the European Central Bank, Europeanization of national debts via Eurobonds, and growth programs to avoid a eurozone depression and boost recovery.

One can easily imagine the ranting in Germany about this kind of program: Still more debt! Loss of control over our assets! Inflation! It just doesn’t work!

But it does work: Germany’s export-led growth is based on just such programs in the emerging countries and the United States. If China and America had not pumped partly debt-financed money into their economies beginning in 2009, the German economy would have taken a serious hit. Germans must now ask themselves whether they, who have profited the most from European integration, are willing to pay the price for it or would prefer to let it fail.

Beyond political and fiscal unification and short-term growth policies, Europeans urgently need structural reforms aimed at restoring Europe’s competitiveness. Each of these pillars is needed if Europe is to overcome its existential crisis.

Do we Germans understand our pan-European responsibility? It certainly does not look that way. Indeed, rarely has Germany been as isolated as it is now.

Hardly anyone understands our dogmatic austerity policy, which goes against all experience, and we are considered largely off-course, if not heading into oncoming traffic. It is still not too late to change direction, but now we have only days and weeks, perhaps months, to act, rather than years.

Germany destroyed itself – and the European order – twice during the 20th century, and then convinced the West that it had drawn the right conclusions. Only in this manner – reflected most vividly in its embrace of the European project – did Germany win consent for its reunification. It would be both tragic and ironic if a restored Germany, by peaceful means and with the best of intentions, brought about the ruin of the European order a third time.

Joschka Fischer, Germany’s foreign minister and vice-chancellor from 1998 to 2005, was a leader in the German Green Party for almost 20 years.

THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate-Institute for Human Sciences ©

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on May 30, 2012, on page 7.