Proof of Jordanian Gendarme Force In Bahrain


source link

Jordanian Political Forces’ Position on Bahrain Uprising: 

Analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood Group,

Youth and Partisan Forces


Fuad Hussein
(Jordanian Writer)

10 May 2012

Jordan’s official and popular stands on the Bahraini events were conflicting; the Jordanian Government›s official stand was absolutely biased in favor of the Bahraini Government owing to the nature of the unique relations between the two Royal Regimes. As a result, the Bahraini security and military structure depended in many respects on Jordan; particularly in terms of training and recruitment. Meanwhile, the position of the Jordanian Street, especially moves launched by youths spearheading the Jordanian Spring, was supportive of the Bahraini moves without any reservation.
The Jordan Parliament stand in this regard has been compatible with the Government stand. It is no surprise especially if we take into consideration the statements made by several Jordanian official figures that the Jordanian Parliamentary Elections of 2007 and 2010 were forged (1).
On the whole, all political parties were initially supportive and backed the Bahraini people›s moves in line with their stance towards all Arab Spring movements. But stances thereafter started showing some difference and distinction, especially after accession to power by the Muslim Brotherhood in both of Egypt and Tunisia along with the outbreak of riots in Syria. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood Group in Jordan has changed its stance, thereby showing full-scale turnaround and taking sides with the Brotherhood Coalition that is aligned with the Gulf Petrodollars advocated by both Turkey and the West. However, the Pan-Arab and Leftist parties along with the Street movement reflecting the Jordanian Spring remained supportive of the Bahraini street movement.

The Official Position

The official relations between Jordan and Bahrain
have historically been extraordinarily strong and
more unique than Jordan›s relations with

other Gulf countries. Thus, Jordan has since the
beginning of riots in Bahrain assumed a position
evidently in favor of the Regime in Manama. After
one week of the beginning of protests in Bahrain
on 14 February 2011, the Jordanian Government
invited the Bahraini Opposition for «a dialogue
with the Government and for responding positively
to an initiative launched by the Bahraini Monarch:
Hamad Ben Essa Al Khalifa»(2).
What is of interest about the invitation
addressed by the Jordanian Government through
Jordan›s Minister of Foreign Affairs Naser Joudeh
is his affirmation of «Jordan›s absolute rejection of
foreign interference in Bahrain›s internal affairs.»
Apparently, this stance involves double-standard
approach to the Arab Revolutions which invoked
the grudge and criticism of both politicians and
writers. While official Jordanian zeal for the
Libyan revolution has reached the point of military
involvement, the official stance on the protests in
Bahrain has been quite the contrary.
Jordan›s official position on the Bahrain events
has been compatible with the nature of Jordan›s
unique relations with the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) States which are built on the basis
of benefiting such countries from Jordan›s human
and vocational expertise, in general, and military
and security capabilities, in particular.
Jordan›s biased position in favor of the Bahraini
Regime›s alternatives at the expense of the
popular moves has been adopted on the grounds
of Jordan›s realization that the GCC, which is
thinking of developing such equation into a
Federation to face up to the tempests striking the
Arab World from the Ocean to the Gulf, will not
allow the downfall of any member thereof into the
claws of the Arab Spring, and will not eventually
allow the downfall of the Regime in Bahrain for
considerations related to possible infection with
the spread of the democracy syndrome, apart from
retaining balance of power in the region.
The popular position on the Bahrain protests
has been quite different from the official stance
in the sense that the Jordanian street has rapped
the official stance on the Bahraini moves, and
also rapped the alleged official involvement for
quelling the Bahraini moves, especially after local
and Arab media reports indicating participation
by Jordan Gendarmerie Forces in curbing
demonstrations there and that some demonstrators
suffered injuries in such confrontations.
«Khabar Jo», Jordan News Website, spoke about
a condition of severe resentment and tension on
the part of families of Jordan Gendarmerie troops
who returned from Bahrain with injuries as such
families arrived at Marka Military Airport to
welcome their sons(3).
Kuwaiti Newspaper (Al QABAS) later reported
three Jordanian Gendarmerie troops to have been
injured during their participation in quelling
the Bahraini demonstrators. This was followed
by news reports carried by the (Bahrain Mirror)
Website that three thousand elements from
the Jordan Gendarmerie participated with the
Peninsula Shield forces for quelling the Bahraini
The Jordanian Government rapidly denied
any military participation by Jordan to curb
the Bahraini moves, and also denied reports on
Jordan›s acceptance of a financial offer in return
for participation by its security forces in thwarting
the Bahraini movement. The first Government
denial came through Government Spokesman
Taher Al Adwan who affirmed to Jordanian media

that Jordan has not sent forces to the Kingdom of
By the same token, Dr. Mohammad Al Halaiqa,
Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee at the
Jordan House of Deputies (former Deputy Prime
Minister), denied in a statement made to journalists
alleged presence of Jordanian forces in Bahrain,
saying: «Jordanian support allegedly provided to
Bahrain through military forces is unfounded and
is not based on any evidence whatsoever»(6).
At the military level, Director of the General
Department of Gendarmerie Forces, General
Tawfiq Tawalbeh denied any participation by the
Jordanian Gendarmerie Forces in the Bahrain
The Jordanian denial has not been of any value
for two reasons; First: Reports recurrently made
on participation by the Jordanian Gendarmerie
forces in quelling the Bahrain moves coincided
with declaring the proposal for Jordan›s Ascension
to the GCC. It was indicated by the majority of
analyses which the Arab and international media
published then that annexation of Jordan to the
GCC was intended to benefit from Jordan›s security
expertise and military capabilities to face up to the
internal and external risks to which some GCC
States are exposed, especially Bahrain and Saudi
Arabia. Therefore, Bahrain Minister of Foreign
Affairs Sheikh Khaled Ben Ahmad Al Khalifa has
been prompted to deny such reports, saying:
«There are no military objectives behind Jordan›s
ascension to the GCC, and there are no military
objectives for annexing Jordan and Morocco to
the GCC of Arab States towards confronting the
Iranian interference in the (GCC) States”.
in Khost Explosion which a Jordanian physician
carried out against a group of senior US Intelligence
officers at Khost Base of Afghanistan. However,
the Jordanian Government used to claim earlier
that participation by its forces in Afghanistan was
limited to providing humanitarian aid and relief
work. (For further details on Jordanian involvement
in Afghanistan, see(9) ).
What lend credence to the Jordanian street’s
doubts of probable participation by Jordanian
forces in the Bahraini security effort to curb
the moves is the news report which the British
Newspaper, THE INDEPENDANT published on
terminating the employment contracts of 90
Jordanian officers working within the Bahraini
Security Forces for their role in dealing with the


Arab “Leaders” Reveal Their True Zionist Loyalties In Deadly Gazan “Soap Opera” (Psyop)

[The Palestinians are the sacrificial lamb of the Arab world, to be slain on the altar of appeasement, sacrificed to the god of Fascist Israel, all in the grand Abrahamic tradition.  If the new “Islamist” leader of Egypt was a really good Muslim, he would throw open the Rafah gates, enabling the arming of Hamas on the same scale that Erdogan has funneled to the Syrian terrorists.  The Arab royals are hypocrites, unequaled in the natural order.  Qatar and the Saudis are not scurrying around, maneuvering themselves in between Hamas and the IDF in order trying to prevent a regional war (because a region-wide war is their goal in arming the Syrian terrorists), it is to protect their own interests.  It is not in their interests to prevent harm from coming to the Palestinians, because they obviously don’t give a damn how many Palestinians die.   To the contrary, it is clearly in their interests to do everything in their power to help the Zionists in the US and Israel to create their “Greater Middle East.”   The Pig of Qatar and the Great Pretenders of Riyadh are only concerned with protecting their partnership with the Israelis and the secret deals they have made with the US.  The Arab Zionists have done their parts to carefully set-up this latest Israeli psyop, in order to sway world opinion in favor of their new puppet, the “peacemaker” from Egypt, and to win popular sympathies for the Fascism of Netanyahu and for “Israel defending itself.”   After all, this latest round of violence was started by Netanyahu whenever Obama and Pentagon leaders publicly refuted the idea that bombing Iran was “defending Israel” back on September 2 (SEE: Tel Aviv Shocked To See Top General Unload Zionist Baggage).  Exactly three days later,  this latest round of hostilities began with an Israeli airstrike on the Gaza Strip, killing three men alleged to be “militants” preparing to fire a “Qassam” rocket (SEE: Qassams Are Road Flares ).  Everything that followed was just retaliation and counter-retaliation, set into motion by an IDF airstrike in Gaza, NOT by Palestinian water pipe flung across the Israeli border.  The Qatari Pig visited Gaza on oct 23, followed by Bahraini prince Nasser Bin Hamad Al Khalifa on Oct 30, to set-up this latest escalation with the Zionist-friendly Hamas government, in order to avoid future mistakes at over-escalation, which would thus render all conflict management plans moot.  Hamas is a traitor government, as are the Saudi, Qatari and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood regimes.]

New Arab Leaders Scramble to Contain Gaza Conflict


After another night of rocket attacks into Gaza by Israel, WSJ’s Matt Bradley reports Saturday, November 17th, from the destroyed Hamas cabinet office and the Palestine Sports Club in the Gaza Strip. Via WSJ’s #WorldStream.

The Middle East’s emerging political forces mobilized in Cairo and in Gaza on Saturday to press for an end to the escalating conflict between Hamas and Israel.

In Gaza, hostilities continued, with Israeli airstrikes pounding the coastal strip for a fourth straight day and Palestinian militants firing dozens of rockets at Israel, including another two aimed at Tel Aviv. The toll reached 40 Palestinians dead and 345 wounded, and three Israelis dead.

There were hints that the pace of combat operations could be slowing, perhaps as a result of the Cairo-led efforts to mediate a cease-fire. In Gaza, the ferocity and number of airstrikes seemed to dip. Hamas said government institutions in Gaza would resume regular work hours on Sunday, a surprising decision given that Israel has targeted some government offices in the past 24 hours.

Germany To Deploy US Patriot Missile Batteries To Turkey’s Syrian Border

[Germany has a way of working in the background as America’s most efficient puppet state–Fuckin’ Nazis.]
The Patrios anti-missile and -aircraft system Germany could reportedly send (Photo: Andreas Noll)

Germany plans to deploy surface-to-air missiles along Turkey’s border with Syria, a German newspaper reported Saturday, citing an unnamed source. Officials from NATO, Turkey and Germany did not confirm the report.

The Munich-based daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Saturday that Germany planned to deploy Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile units and up to 170 troops to operate them. Turkey, which has become a temporary home to more than 100,000 Syrian refugees and traded rocket fire with Syria’s military, is scheduled to make its formal request to NATO on Monday, the newspaper reported.

In response to the article, a spokesman said Germany’s Defense Ministry would consider the request and confirmed that, within NATO, only the US, the Netherlands and Germany have the Patriot model specified in the report.


“If NATO were to ask Germany, we would consider that and bear in mind our duties in the alliance,” the ministry spokesperson said.

The newspaper reported that German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière had discussed the issue Thursday at a meeting with his French, Polish, Italian and Spanish counterparts. He told them that, if the deployment were agreed, it would aim solely to protect Turkey and not to interfere in the Syrian conflict.

Nearly two weeks ago, Turkey had announced that it would like NATO support in the form of surface-to-air missiles.

Despite the German media flurry on Saturday surrounding Turkey’s reported plans to step up its defense against Syria, a NATO spokesperson said she could not confirm the newspaper’s report.

“There hasn’t been a request from Turkey,” NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said in response to the report. “If there is a request from Turkey, of course allies will consider it.”

mkg/kms (dpa, Reuters, AFP)



Alleged gun running to jihadists could dwarf ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal


By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM — The speculation surrounding the sudden resignation of the CIA chief, General David Petraeus,
is focusing in large part on his role in an alleged cover up of the attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi this past September.

Perhaps being overlooked is the CIA’s possible role in purportedly using the Benghazi mission to coordinate U.S. aid to opposition insurgent groups acting in Syria amid information those same insurgents consist in significant part of jihadists, including groups openly acting under the al-Qaida umbrella.

One week before he was slated to testify before Congress on the Benghazi debacle, Petraeus  on Friday night announced his resignation citing an extramarital affair.

Rep. Peter King, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, charged in an interview with CNN that Petraeus is “at the center of this, and there are answers that only he has.”  King was referring to the Benghazi attacks.

Asked if he will still call for Petraeus testify despite his resignation, Rep. King replied, “Absolutely, to me, he’s an absolutely necessary witness.”

Patraeus resigned at a time the U.S. intelligence community is facing criticism over both its response to the assault in Benghazi and whether it had early warnings of al-Qaida plans to attack the U.S. mission in that country.

The White House and multiple State Department officials had immediately blamed a crude film about the Islamic figure Mohammad for what they claimed were popular protests that preceded the attacks on the U.S. mission.

According to new, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials, no such popular demonstration took place the night of the attack. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.

That Benghazi compound is repeatedly referred by the news media to as a “consulate.”

However, as KleinOnline reported , the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one, according to informed Middle East security officials.

Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, the security officials said.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

In his remarks on the attack, Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission.”

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.

Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.

On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.

“I’m happy to announce that starting on Monday, August 27, we are ready to offer a full range of consular services to Libyans,” stated Stevens at the ceremony in Tripoli. “This means non-immigrant visas, as well as assistance to Americans residing in, or visiting, Libya.”

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

The State Department website lists no consulate in Benghazi.

Last month, the State Department gave a vivid account of Stevens’ final day during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It was disclosed that about an hour before the attack began, Stevens concluded his final meeting of the day with a Turkish diplomat. Turkey has been leading the insurgency against Assad’s regime.

In September, KleinOnline broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed on Sept. 11 in an attack blamed on Islamists.

One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.

The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.

Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels

As KleinOnline reported, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.

Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. Earlier this month, Obama announced $50 million more in aid to the Syrian rebels.

During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.

In August, KleinOnline quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at least 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.

Also last month, KleinOnline reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.

There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.

KleinOnline reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.

The military official told KleinOnline that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:

  • Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
  • Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
  • Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Americans Training “Anti-Jihadi” Force, or International Terrorist Force?

Reuters/Reuters – An exterior view of the U.S. consulate, which was attacked and set on fire by gunmen yesterday, in Benghazi September 12, 2012. REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori 

Americans tour base to recruit Libyan anti-militant force

By Hadeel Al Shalchi | Reuters

TRIPOLI (Reuters) – U.S. officials in Libya have begun to look for recruits for a commando force which they plan to train to fight militants, a former commander of Libyan rebels who toppled Muammar Gaddafi said on Tuesday.

After a wave of anti-American violence in the Arab world in September during which the U.S. ambassador to Libya died in an Islamist militant attack, President Barack Obama took measures to improve the security of U.S. diplomatic installations in the region.

A team of about 10 Americans from the embassy in Tripoli visited a paramilitary base in the eastern city of Benghazi 10 days ago to interview and get to know potential recruits, according to militia commander Fathi al-Obeidi.

“The American team asked us for a tour of our base and we granted them permission to walk around freely,” he told Reuters.

“They stood with many of our men taking down information. They asked them about their ages, backgrounds, their tribal loyalties. They wanted to know what kind of training they had received, if any.”

The Pentagon declined comment on any recent visit by a U.S. delegation to Benghazi, referring queries to the State Department. At the same time, it acknowledged a need to develop Libyan special operations forces.

“But a final decision on the program has not been made, and many details, like the ultimate size, composition and mission of the force are still to be determined,” said Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel James Gregory.

Obeidi is a commander with Libya’s Shield, an umbrella group for various armed militias that refused to join the official army after the war that ousted Gaddafi last year, saying it was still being run by Gaddafi loyalists.

He also helped a team of U.S. marines in September lead a rescue effort that saved a group of Americans hiding in a safe house after an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens died.

Obeidi said the interviewers also took note of the types of uniforms the men were wearing and asked about their opinion on security in Libya.

He said that the team of American officials included the U.S. charge d’affaires Laurence Pope and the future head trainer of the Libyan special forces team.

“I’ve been asked to help pick about 400 of these young men between the ages of 19 and 25 to train for this force,” he said. “They could be trained either in Libya or abroad.”

The force may be required to fight jihadi militants like those accused in the September 11 assault on the consulate.

Gregory said only that U.S. officials in Libya would work with Libyans “to assess their needs and develop options for ways the U.S. can support them through this transitional period.”

“Obviously, this is still a fluid environment and everything can change,” he said.


Obama moved after the September violence to beef up protection of U.S. diplomatic installations in the Arab world, sending in Marine contingents to several embassies and temporarily reducing the number of U.S. personnel at some posts.

The consulate assault became a highly politicized issue in the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Republican challenger Mitt Romney accusing Obama of taking weeks to acknowledge that the incident was a “terrorist” attack, rather than violence prompted by anger over an anti-Islam film.

It occurred during a wave of Muslim protest across the Arab world over the film produced in California, which also sparked violence against U.S. diplomatic missions in Tunisia and Egypt.

However, official emails obtained by Reuters showed that the White House and State Department were advised two hours after the consulate attack that an Islamist militant group had claimed responsibility.

Obama and other U.S. officials have acknowledged that the attack was a “terrorist” act by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

He also vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi attack.

But Washington may struggle to decide whom to target. The increasingly diffuse nature of al Qaeda, its allies and sympathizers complicates the job of identifying precisely which individuals and groups were behind the attacks. (Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington. Editing by Mark Heinrich and Christopher Wilson)