American Resistance To Empire

Peshawar’s Pistol-Packin’ “School Marms”

A schoolteacher from Frontier College cocks a handgun during the training session, in which teachers were taught how to use guns, take cover and return fire

Women trained to use Kalashnikovs and handguns… to defend their CLASSROOMS:

The female teachers taught to kill in the aftermath of Pakistani Taliban massacre

daily mail

  • Teachers in Peshawar are being taught to use assault rifles and handguns
  • They learn the basics of how to take cover and return fire at terrorists
  • The government-led initiative is a response to last month’s deadly attack
  • On December 16 terrorists stormed Public Army School, killing 145 people

Armed to the teeth with handguns and assault rifles, these are the Pakistani teachers trained to kill in defence of their classrooms.

Following a government announcement that teachers in Peshawar, Pakistan, will be armed and receive combat training to ‘engage’ terrorists, this is the first group pictured to undergo their instruction.

The initiative is a response to the December 16 tragedy in which a group of terrorists stormed the city’s Public Army School, massacring 145 people, including 132 schoolchildren.

Two teachers practice aiming an assault rifle as they receive their weapons training

The women, in Peshawar, Pakistan, practice releasing the magazines and reloading the guns

The announcement that teachers and school staff members would receive arms training in the region was a response to last month’s deadly terrorist attack, in which 132 schoolchildren were killed. Pictured are two teachers learning how to use a handgun and an assault rifle

Officials in Peshawar, capital of Khyber Pakthunkhwa province, said the move would allow teachers to fight off terrorists ‘for [an] initial five to 10 minutes’ before back-up arrives.

The group of eight teachers were trained by an instructor in how to use various handguns and Kalashnikovs, as well as the principles of taking cover before returning fire.

Pictures show the group, from Frontier College, assembling, loading and looking down the sights of the guns at the behest of a weapons instructor.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa information minister Mushtaq Ahmad Ghani has said the training would allow school staff members to ‘engage’ attackers for five to ten minutes before law enforcement personnel could respond.

He told reporters on January 13: ‘The provincial cabinet has decided to allow teachers and other staff members to keep their licensed weapons with them so that in case of any eventuality they could engage attackers for initial five to 10 minutes before personnel of law-enforcement agencies will show up to respond to the attack.’

The 35,000 educational institutions – including schools, colleges and universities – across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have been ordered to beef up security following the brutal attack on the Army Public School.

Mr Ghani also announced earlier this month that authorities would build walls at least 8ft high around government-run education institutions, and would also introduce community policing systems whereby civilians with experience operating weapons would be trained and paid to guard educational facilities.

Private sector schools, colleges and universities have meanwhile been issued with strict guidelines with requirements including having guards, Mr Ghani said, adding that schools’ licenses could be revoked if they did not follow the rules.

In response to the Taliban attack, Pakistan’s parliament last week passed a constitutional amendment approving the establishment of military courts to hear terrorism-related cases.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also lifted the country’s six-year-old moratorium on the use of the death penalty, reinstating it for terror cases in the wake of the slaughter at the school.

However, critics have warned the move to arm teachers could put children at even greater risk, as well as affect teachers’ performance at work.

Two teachers watch on as they are taught how to operate a handgun, training which will allow them to ‘engage’ terrorists should their school come under attack

As the group of eight teachers listens intently, a weapons instructor demonstrates how to fire a Kalashnikov

This group were the first set of teachers to undergo the training as part of a new government initiative

Funeral prayers in Pakistan as PM vows to continue war on terror

Taliban Capture Mind-Washed Guantanamo (Former) Taliban, Recruiting For “Islamic State”

Taliban capture IS leader Mullah Rauf, 45 supporters


LASHKARGAH (Pajhwok): The Taliban on Wednesday captured Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim, an Islamic State (IS) ally, along with 45 supporters in the Kajaki district of southern Helmand province, a reliable source confided to Pajhwok Afghan News.

However, security officials expressed unawareness about the detention of Rauf, who became a recruiter for the IS group in Afghanistan after falling out with the Taliban. Rauf, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, was a military commander in Herat and Kabul during Taliban’s regime.

He recently joined the IS, a jihadi group which controls large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria, and has been leading hundreds of masked gunmen in northern districts of Helmand.

A Taliban commander in Helmand, wishing anonymity, told Pajhwok Afghan News they disarmed Rauf and his 45 gunmen and detained them on Wednesday in compliance with directives from the Taliban’s governor for Helmand, Mullah Abdul Rahim Akhund.

He said the men were in their custody and their fate would be decided by Taliban religious leaders and judges.

The Taliban commander said they had been directed to arrest Mullah Rauf because he was against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban’s official name. He said Mullah Rauf was involved in anti-Islamic activities.

A tribal elder in Kajaki, Abdul Ahad Masoomi, also a member of the provincial reform committee, told Pajhwok Afghan News that harsh differences had recently surfaced between local militants and Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim group.

“Mullah Khadim, who claims allegiance to Daesh (Arabic acronym for IS) forcibly assembled local residents on Thursday last in the Kakaji’s Azan area and told the people that Mullah Omar no longer exists and they should now support him.”

Masoomi said Mullah Rauf and his masked gunmen arrived in the area in dozens of vehicles. A day after (on Friday) they left, Taliban insurgents arrived in the area and told residents that Rauf was an infidel and no one should support him, according to the elder.

Masoomi said he had no knowledge of Rauf’s arrest, but confirmed he had serious differences with his former colleagues.

Kajaki police chief Faizullah Akhund said differences among Taliban and masked gunmen had recently deepened, but they had no information about Rauf’s detention.

He said Taliban’s governor Mullah Akhund on Wednesday visited Olang area and held a meeting with local Taliban leaders, but no details of the meeting were available.

Pajhwok tried to seek comment from Taliban’s overall spokesman Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, but did not succeed.

But this scribe was able to find a message Ahmadi had sent to local Taliban. In the message, Ahmadi confirmed Mullah Rauf had been arrested.

Pajhwok received the message from local Taliban sources. “Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim has been detained along with 45 associates and their fate will be decided later,” the message says.

An official at the provincial National Directorate of Security (NDS) also confirmed harsh differences between the two groups, but had no information about Mullah Rauf’s detention.

A senior official in Helmand said Mullah Rauf had been one of Mullah Omar’s close aides. He was detained during Taliban’s last year in power in northern Afghanistan and was handed over to the US.

He was held for seven years in Guantanamo Bay detention centre and was released in 2007 and flown back to Kabul where he remained under Afghan government’s observation. But Rauf fled to Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Balochistan province, and was appointed as a member of Taliban’s Quetta Council and head of the military council.

However, he developed differences with the Taliban and was expelled from the movement before joining the IS.

There Can Be Only One “Islamic State,” According To Mullah Omar

[SEE: Taliban capture IS leader Mullah Rauf, 45 supporters ]

Ex-Gitmo detainee leads contingent of Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan

Long war journal


A former Guantanamo detainee, Mullah Raouf Khadim, is reportedly leading a contingent of Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan’s southern province of Helmand. Khadim’s role was first reported by The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press (AP).

Raouf had served as a top Taliban military leader until he and his allies lost an internal power struggle, paving the way for him to switch allegiances.

“A number of tribal leaders, jihadi commanders and some ulema [religious leaders] and other people have contacted me to tell me that Mullah Raouf had contacted them and invited them to join him,” the AP quoted Gen. Mahmood Khan, an Afghan military official, as saying.

Raouf’s fighters have reportedly engaged in skirmishes with their Taliban counterparts.

The Taliban is trying to thwart Raouf’s recruiting efforts on behalf of the Islamic State. It is not clear if Raouf has developed operational ties to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s organization, or if his allegiance is more aspirational. The Islamic State has been attempting to cut into the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s dominant share of the jihadist market in the region since last year, when al Qaeda officially disowned the Islamic State.

The revelation of Raouf’s role came just days before the top US military commander in Afghanistan warned of the Islamic State’s recruiting efforts.

“We are seeing reports of some recruiting” on behalf of the Islamic State, General John Campbell told the Army Times. “There have been some night letter drops, there have been reports of people trying to recruit both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, quite frankly.”

General Campbell stated that the Islamic State has a “hard message to sell” in Afghanistan. “The Taliban have their allegiance to Mullah Omar and a different philosophy and ideology than [the Islamic State], but, potentially, there are people who are disgruntled with the Taliban, they haven’t seen [Taliban commander] Mullah Omar in years, or they want to go a different way,” said Campbell.

Separately, Ariana TV in Kabul quoted Campbell as saying that “young Taliban” members may be wooed into the Islamic State’s ranks.

Raouf concealed his Taliban role while detained at Guantanamo

Raouf spent several years at Guantanamo, but was transferred to Afghanistan in 2007.

The AP cites an Afghan official as noting that Raouf “was a corps commander during the Taliban’s 1996-2001 rule” of Afghanistan. During hearings at Guantanamo, however, Raouf hid his Taliban role. [See LWJ report, Former Gitmo detainee turned Taliban leader threatens Afghan elders.]

“I am not a member of the Taliban,” Raouf said during his combatant status review tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo. During his administrative review board (ARB) hearing, Raouf also denied receiving any weapons training or fighting for the Taliban. He said that he had merely served food from a nearby bakery to the Taliban’s soldiers.

“I wish there was a way I could prove to you that I will not be a danger anymore,” Raouf told military officials. He said he wanted to work with the Karzai government, which was then in power. “If they do not mind, I’d love to go there and help them out with the new government and work for them.”

According to a leaked Oct. 26, 2004 threat assessment authored by Joint Task Force – Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), Raouf was able to accurately identify several high-level Taliban leaders and “admitted involvement in the production and sales of opium, as well as association with criminal elements within the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.”

Raouf was “generally cooperative” during interrogations or debriefings, but he was “uncooperative in terms of discussing his complete involvement with the Taliban and the opium trade.” He remained “vague and inconsistent when questioned on high-level Taliban leadership or topics of a sensitive nature.” Raouf also “evaded answering questions regarding his role and leadership within the Taliban.”

The JTF-GTMO team suspected, however, that there was more to Raouf’s story. He was deemed a “medium” threat (as opposed to high or low) to the US, its interests and allies. And JTF-GTMO recommended that he be transferred to the control of another country for continued detention.

Ties to the so-called “Taliban Five”

JTF-GTMO’s threat assessment connects Raouf to at least two members of the so-called “Taliban Five,” a group of senior Taliban officials who were exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. [See LWJ report, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchanged for top 5 Taliban commanders at Gitmo.]

The leaked file notes that Raouf was “associated” with Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s chief of staff and commanded a few thousand fighters.

Other senior Taliban commanders identified Raouf during their time in custody at Guantanamo. Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa is one of them. Khairkhwa identified Raouf as “a possible military leader, military commander, or possibly even as mayor of Khost,” Afghanistan but apparently never explained Raouf’s true role.

Both Fazl and Khairkwa are members of the “Taliban Five” and were transferred to Qatar last year.

Raouf has worked closely with another senior Taliban leader known as Mullah Abdul Qayoum Zakir. Like Raouf, Zakir was once held at Guantanamo and attempted to hide the true extent of his role within the Taliban while in custody. [See LWJ report, The Gitmo Files: 2 of Afghanistan’s most wanted hid leadership roles while in US custody.]

After being transferred to Afghanistan, both Raouf and Zakir quickly emerged as top Taliban commanders once again. At one point, Zakir led the Taliban’s efforts to counter the coalition’s surge of forces in southern Afghanistan.

However, both Raouf and Zakir were removed from the senior leadership positions they held within the Taliban after leaving Guantanamo. In April 2014, the Taliban announced that Zakir had resigned from his position as the head of the Taliban’s military commission due to “ill health.” It has been reported that in reality Zakir was forced out. [See LWJ report, Head of Taliban’s military commission resigns due to ‘ill health’.]

Today, Raouf claims he is loyal to the Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s Islamic State. And he is not the only ex-Guantanamo detainee who is attempting to expand the Islamic State’s influence into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Muslim Dost, who was also once held in Cuba, has been helping Baghdadi’s organization by recruiting and spreading its propaganda throughout the region.

The Perversely Bestial, Inhuman Nature of CIA Guantanamo Torturers


Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag


Samir Naji is a Yemeni accused of serving in Osama bin Laden’s security detail and has been imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay. He was cleared for release in 2009, but remains in detention. The following first-person testimony, recorded during his most recent meeting with lawyers from the international human rights organization Reprieve, has just been released by prison censors. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.

Also see
: Closing Guantanamo: Who’s left and what’s in the way

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (CNN)I’ve heard that the Senate report on CIA torture is 6,000 pages long. My story, though, takes place elsewhere: in Guantanamo, away from the CIA program that the report covers. The 6,000 pages of the Senate report are just the start of what Americans have to accept happened in their name.

It starts and ends in the silence of a tiny, freezing cold cell, alone. That’s when you hold yourself in a ball, and fight to ignore the confusion of what has just happened to you, and the fear of what might be coming next. Or the fear that comes when you realize that no one is coming to help; that the life, family and friends you knew are all far, far away.

The cell door opens. The next session, seemingly the 100th in a row. I think my first period of interrogation lasted three full months. Two teams of interrogators running shifts, day and night.

Each session begins with shouting, to wake me up. Then they hit me on the face and the back. I am so desperate for sleep, my head is swimming. There are photographs of faces stuck all around the walls of this room. They demand that I identify the individuals, but I can barely focus to see if I might know them. The shouting and the insults get louder, and then they nod to a man in the corner. He injects me twice in the arm with some unknown substance. It’s the last thing I know.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. This time the guards enter, making awful honking noises, like wild animals.

I tried to refuse to eat the little food they bring me, in protest at all this. The interrogator laughs at me, but then turns angry; he swears loudly, and pours an army meal pack over my head. They tell the man in the corner to start feeding me intravenously. He inserts the tube in two different places on my arm and makes it bleed.

Closing Guantanamo: Who’s left and what’s in the way

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. This time the guards push me on the floor and take turns trampling over my back.

I tell the interrogators that I can’t face not eating any more. They throw food on the floor of the room and tell me to eat like a pig. They won’t let me go to the restroom. They watch as it gets more painful, and laugh as they get the translator to describe how they will rape me if I pee in my pants.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. They make me stand and salute the American flag.

I’m in a sort of cinema room, where I have to watch videos of other prisoners being abused. Then they tell me that I have to dance for them, and run in circles whilst they pull on my chains. Every time I try and refuse, they touch me in my most private areas.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. It has rained, and there are muddy puddles everywhere. I’m shackled, so I can’t really walk; they deliberately drag me through the muddy puddles.

Now it’s the pornography room. Awful pictures everywhere. There is one with a man and a donkey. I’m stripped naked and have my beard shaved, in a gratuitous insult to my religion. I’m shown pornographic pictures of women. I’m told to make the noises of different animals, and when I refuse, they just hit me. It ends with them pouring cold water all over me.

Hours later in my cell, I am discovered, nearly frozen. The doctor tells them to bring me urgently to the clinic, where I am given a blanket and treatment. Over the next hours, they observe me as I warm up. They are just waiting for the moment that they can sign off on my return to interrogation.

Four years ago, six U.S. government security agencies sat together and reviewed my case. Their conclusion? That I was innocent of any crime and should be released. The dirty and sadistic methods I endured — which were then taken directly to Abu Ghraib — achieved nothing, except to shame that American flag hanging in the prison corridor, which I was made to salute.

One hundred and thirty-six prisoners are still being held at Guantanamo, whilst the politicians squabble over how to black out the Senate report. America cannot keep hiding from its past, and its present, like this. Our stories, and our continued detention, cannot be made to disappear.

READ: CIA misled public on torture, Senate report says

Tsipras says Barbaros must leave for talks to resume

Tsipras says Barbaros must leave for talks to resume (Update)

Cyprus mail

Tsipras says Barbaros must leave for talks to resume  (Update)Alexis Tsipras

By Jean Christou

Greek Prime Minister Alexia Tsipras was quoted on Friday as saying it was important that the Turkish seismic vessel Barbaros leave the sea area around Cyprus so that talks could resume.

Tsipras who is due in Cyprus on Monday on his first official visit abroad since being elected on an anti-bailout platform last Sunday, gave an interview to Turkish newspaper Sabah.

The Barbaros has been anchored off Famagusta port in the north since December 30 but earlier this week Turkish Cypriot ‘foreign minister’ Ozdil Nami said it might resume explorations soon given the continued deadlock in the Cyprus talks.

In his interview with Sabah, Tsipras was quoted as saying that Greece supported negotiations facilitated by the UN and on the basis of UN Resolutions for a “bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with a single administration, single citizenship and a single international identity”.

“We must actively support an increase of mutual confidence on the island,” he said. “The materialisation of this, however, is becoming much more difficult with activities such as the violation of the Republic of Cyprus’ sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone… by the Barbaros vessel which belongs to Turkey. The ship’s abandoning of the area and the leaving open of all diplomatic channels for the resumption of the negotiations is of significant importance,” Tsipras added.

As regards Greece’s relations with Turkey and whether he planned to continue détente with Athens, Tsipras said Athens had repeatedly underlined the necessity of an active and multidimensional Greek foreign policy which supported peace and stability in the region.
He said Syriza’s manifesto explicitly says that it actively supported the peaceful resolution of disputes with neighbouring countries within the framework of international law.

The Greek government would attach great importance to the development of cooperation between Greece and Turkey in the fields of economy, culture, tourism, education, migration, transportation, energy and environment, he said.

However he made it clear that the only way to take another step forward in creating confidence was respecting each other’s sovereign rights and the principle of good neighbourliness. He also made reference to the fact that in 2014, Turkish violations of Greek air space had tripled compared to 2013.
When he visits Cyprus next week, Tsipras visit would reaffirm close cooperation between Nicosia and Athens, government spokesman spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said on Friday.

During his visit, Tsipras, will have a private meeting with President Nicos Anastasiades followed by a meeting between the delegations of the two countries, the spokesman said.

The Greek side will also meet the political parties.
“We look forward to the visit of the new Greek Prime Minister and we are certain that through the discussion that will take place the close cooperation that exists between the two countries over the years will be demonstrated,” the spokesman said.

He said the Cyprus problem, Turkey ‘s violation of the island’s exclusive economic zone, as well as the economy would be discussed during the talks.
On Russia, he said the “overwhelming majority of the EU member states, even the large states, had the same position as Greece and Cyprus related to the approach for the solution of the problem that exists in the region.” He was referring to Greece and Cyprus’ opposition to further sanctions on Russia.

Georgia is on the verge of a government crisis

0d560d3cb05aa6383acc2449452950ad al3

Georgia is on the verge of a government crisis


Giorgi Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza

The 29-year-old Interior Minister of Georgia, Alexander Chikaidze, has resigned, confirming his inability to investigate two awful murders which are separated by 10 years. He was thought to be the youngest, but the most powerful minister in the government of the 33-year-old premier Irakli Garibashvili. The murders are the shooting of 22-year-old Zurab Vazagashvili during a special operation near the Tbilisi tennis courts on May 2nd 2006, and the murder of his father Yuri Vazagashvili, who was blown up on his son’s grave several days ago in their family village of Karafila.

According to the military expert Irakli Aladashvili, the murderers fixed a fragmentation hand grenade without a safety-pin ring under the grave-stone. They knew well that Yuri Vazagashvili visited his son’s grave almost every day; and he would have noted that the gravestone had been shifted and would have tried to put it back. That’s when the grenade exploded. The murder caused a sharp reaction in the country. The Interior Minister declared that he couldn’t stay on in his position, as employees of his ministry couldn’t find the murderers without delay. However, Chikaidze named other reasons for his resignation – accusations of lobbying interests and concealing top officials of the Interior Ministry who participated in the “liquidation” of 2006, when Zurab Vazagashvili was killed. Yuri Vazagashvili himself blamed the Ministry for this ahead of the terrorist attack in the Karafila cemetery.

The resignation of the Interior Minister was inevitable, but undesirable for Premier Garibashvili in the situation, considering the heavy reaction of the Georgian press, which doubted the efficiency of the government.

Alexander Chikaidze is the fourth minister to withdraw from the Cabinet. Before him, the ministers of defense, foreign affairs, and the state minister for European integration resigned or were dismissed. According to the Georgian constitution, in case of the resignation of six ministers, the parliament should hold a vote of confidence in the government. And today it is difficult to predict the result of any possible vote. Moreover, the billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is thought to be the real head of the government and the ruling Georgian Dream coalition, is concerned about the ability of key ministers to solve ths problems which face the country.

And the problems are growing, including the devaluation of the lari and the fact that Georgia doesn’t have the opportunity to export wine to the Russian market at the old ruble prices anymore. However, considering the political tradition of the last 25 years, the cases of the murders of father and son Vazagashvili could be a trigger for blowing up a whole complex of accumulated problems. Georgians are difficult to get out onto the streets because of 20% devaluation or inflation, but they are easily stirred up by arguments: “Georgia is on the edge of a government crisis, while the authorities cannot do anything!”

The young premier and his team found themselves in a difficult situation. It is not easy to punish officials of the Interior Ministry and officers of the special forces who participated in the operation of 2006. Today they take the top positions in power structures and they have their own view on the incident: “Zurab Vazagashvili was armed, opened fire on policemen, and they had to respond.” The father of the shot young man didn’t agree with this view. For many years he has been fighting for truth. He became one of the opposition leaders, and contributed a lot to the victory of Georgian Dream in the parliamentary elections in October 2012. It is impossible to ignore his demands, but the arrest and sentencing of the participants of the special operation could lead to indignation on the part of the police as a united consolidated corporation or sabotage by the police, i.e. a worsening of the criminal situation in the country.

However, the choice has to be made. The murder of Yuri Vazagashvili is not being investigated, and the circumstance is stirring up social dissatisfaction. They say that people whom he had been criticizing for years blew him up.

The new Interior Minister Vakhtang Gomelauri (the former head of personal security of Ivanishvili) ordered the dismissal of a few top officials of the ministry, who were involved in the bloody operation near the courts. The same decision was made concerning the prosecutors who investigated the case 9 years ago and found that the police acted legally and reasonably. The near future will tell whether these measures will be sufficient to calm down society.

Two Russian “Bear” Bombers Buzz the English Channel

UK summons Russia after two bombers fly over English Channel and ‘disrupt civil aircrafts’

the independent

Government source said incident was viewed as “a significant escalation”


Heather Saul

The UK summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign Office after two Russian bombers flew over the English Channel, “causing disruption to civil aviation”.

A British government source claimed the incident was being considered “a significant escalation” and marked a change in strategy since Russian aircraft usually confine themselves to flying close to Scotland.

RAF Typhoons were scrambled to escort the two Russian Tu-95 bombers “throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest”, a spokeswoman said.

“It was very dangerous. Civil aircraft flying to the UK had to be rerouted. The Russians were flying with their transponders turned off so could only be seen on military radar. They haven’t flown this far south before,” the source was quoted by Reuters as saying.

The TU-95 bombers are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. An FCO spokesperson said the bombers manoeuvres are part of an “increasing pattern of out of area operations by Russian aircraft”.

It said Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko was called to account for the incident.

A statement read: “While the Russian planes did not enter sovereign UK airspace and were escorted by RAF Typhoons throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest, the Russian planes caused disruption to civil aviation. That is why we summoned the Russian Ambassador today to account for the incident.”

Mr Yakovenko insisted that the patrols were routine and “stressed that the concerns of the British side are not understandable given that two Russian military aircraft were on a routine air patrol duty over the high seas of the Atlantic Ocean”.

He argued it “cannot be regarded as threatening, destabilising or disruptive.”

Last year, Nato conducted more than 100 interceptions of Russian aircraft, about three times as many as in 2013, amid increased tensions between the West and Moscow over the Ukraine crisis.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said in December he was concerned by “the extremely aggressive” probing of Britain’s airspace by Russian military aircraft after a spate of interceptions off the Scottish coast.

Hammond, a former defence minister, had previously said the sharp increase in such activity in recent years was because of a Kremlin military overhaul that had been overlooked by many.

In December, Swedish authorities said a Russian military jet nearly collided with a commercial passenger airplane in international airspace near southern Sweden. Russia insisted its jet had kept at a safe distance.

Additional reporting by Reuters

Haphazard US Yemen “Kill List” Targeting To Lose Its Half-Assed Intelligence Guidance

[SEE: Killed, Then Rekilled, Then Killed Again–the truth about OBAMA’S MURDER BY DRONE IN YEMEN]

Exclusive: U.S. armed drone program in Yemen facing intelligence gaps


WASHINGTON Followers of the Houthi movement demonstrate to show support to the movement in Sanaa January 23, 2015.  REUTERS/Khaled AbdullahFollowers of the Houthi movement demonstrate to show support to the movement in Sanaa January 23, 2015.  Credit: Reuters/Khaled Abdullah


(Reuters) – The United States is facing increasing difficulty acquiring intelligence needed to run its stealth drone program in Yemen, undermining a campaign against the most lethal branch of al Qaeda after Houthi rebels seized control of parts of the country’s security apparatus, U.S. officials say.

Gaps in on-the-ground intelligence could slow America’s fight against a resurgent al Qaeda in Yemen and heighten the risk of errant strikes that kill the wrong people and stoke anti-U.S. sentiment, potentially making the militants even stronger in areas where al Qaeda is already growing.

Iran-backed Houthi rebels have taken up positions in and around several defense and intelligence installations whose teams had previously cooperated with Washington, cutting off key sources of information for drone-missile attacks, the officials told Reuters.

Turmoil in the wake of last week’s collapse of a U.S.-backed Yemeni government after days of clashes in the capital Sanaa, has already forced the U.S. State Department to reduce staff and operations at the U.S. Embassy.

U.S. officials told Reuters last week that Washington has also halted some counter-terrorism operations, but described the measures as temporary.

The turmoil has also cast doubt over the future of a key partnership for Washington in the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. Only last September President Barack Obama touted cooperation with Yemen as a model in counter-terrorism.

AQAP claimed responsibility for shootings this month in Paris that killed 17 people and has been accused of plotting attacks against American interests.

The crisis in the Arab world’s poorest country threatens to create a power vacuum that could allow AQAP to expand, while pushing Yemen toward a broader conflict between majority Sunni Muslims and minority Shi’ite Houthis, who are hostile to both the United States and al Qaeda.

U.S. officials said training of Yemeni special forces had ground to a halt in the capital, though some joint activities were continuing in the Sunni-controlled south.

Many U.S. personnel remain in place with Yemeni government forces at the southern al-Anaad air base, an intelligence post for monitoring the Al Qaeda group.

Stephen Seche, who served as U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 2007 to 2010 and now works in Washington at a law firm, said, however, he expected collaboration between U.S. and Yemeni intelligence services to suffer.

“If there’s no leadership, there’s no clear direction, there’s no real motivation to do that,” he said.


The White House and the Pentagon have said counter-terrorism efforts in Yemen will be undeterred by turmoil in the country.

“We do continue to have an ongoing security relationship with the national security infrastructure in Yemen. Some of which, much of which, is still functioning,” White House Josh Earnest told reporters.

Some U.S. officials, however, privately say the reduced intelligence sharing could undermine the armed-drone program.

Information has dried up from Yemeni security offices in Sanaa and there has been less cooperation from local security services outside the capital, the officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Houthis have erected checkpoints at entrances at security institutions and have stationed operatives inside, Yemeni officials say. Rebels also surround the homes of the defense minister and the head of the National Security Bureau.

U.S. authorities treat some Yemeni intelligence leads with skepticism, concerned local officials might be trying to settle scores, and typically seek corroboration from multiple sources, the officials said.

But they will now be forced to rely more on surveillance drones, spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping, as well as their own “human intelligence” sources on the ground, said one official with direct knowledge of the operations.

With little or no prospects of working with the Houthis, Washington will also face trouble mounting raids on al Qaeda hideouts similar to those carried out in the past by U.S.-trained Yemeni special forces working close with U.S. officials.

The United States will maintain some security cooperation in southern Yemen, an al Qaeda stronghold and where former president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi retains some support, even while the rebels control the capital and much of the north, the officials said.

The U.S. officials added that they can continue drone strikes such as Monday’s attack on a car in eastern Yemen that killed three men believed to be al Qaeda militants, including one identified as a youth by a Yemeni rights group.

The Central Intelligence Agency, which conducts the bulk of drone operations in Yemen, has no drone bases on Yemeni soil but operates from Saudi Arabia and Djibouti, U.S. officials say.

They also insist that while “collateral damage” is always a risk in counter terrorism operations, they do the utmost to avoid civilian casualties.

“There must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set,” said Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

Nineteen U.S. drone strikes killed 124 militants and four civilians in Yemen in 2014, according to the New America Foundation, which maintains a database of drone operations.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Dubai and Warren Strobel in Washington; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Jason Szep and Tomasz Janowski)


Killed, Then Rekilled, Then Killed Again–the truth about OBAMA’S MURDER BY DRONE IN YEMEN

yemen drone strikes
DRONE STRIKES (interactive map on site)

victims killed in a December 12, 2013 drone strike in central Yemen Victims of Dec. 2013 drone strike in Central Yemen

You Never Die Twice



Delivering Justice. Saving Lives

You Never Die Twice PDF


Each of us only lives once. It sometimes appears, however, that the covert US Kill List allows a man to die twice. Public reports suggest some men on the Kill List have‘died’ as many as seven times.  The Kill List is a covert US programme that selects individual targets for assassination. The list is personally approved by President Obama and requires no public presentation of evidence or judicial oversight. Targets often die in covert drone strikes in foreign countries and are never notified of what they are accused to have done.  Information on the Kill List and drone strikes is limited to media reporting and anonymous leaks by US, Pakistani and Yemeni officials. Nevertheless, by sifting this information, we found 41 names of men who seemed to have achieved the impossible: to have ‘died,’ in public reporting, not just once, not just twice, but again and again.  Reports indicate that each assassination target ‘died’ on average more than three times before their actual death.  This raises a stark question. With each failed attempt to assassinate a man on the Kill List, who filled the body bag in his place? In fact, it is more accurate to say ‘body bags’: many other lives are sacrificed in the effort to erase a name from the Kill List. In one case, it took seven drone strikes before the US killed its target. In those strikes, as many as 164 people died, including 11 children.  In total, as many as 1,147 people may have been killed during attempts to kill 41 men, accounting for a quarter of all possible drone strike casualties in Pakistan and Yemen. In Yemen, strikes against just 17 targets accounted for almost half of all confirmed civilian casualties. Yet evidence suggests that at least four of these 17 men are still alive.  Similarly, in Pakistan, 221 people, including 103 children, have been killed in attempts to kill four men, three of whom are still alive and a fourth of whom died from natural causes.

One individual, Fahd al Quso, was reported killed in both Yemen and Pakistan. In four attempts to kill al Quso, 48 people potentially lost their lives.

Other key findings include:

Twenty-four men were reported killed or targeted multiple times in Pakistan. Missed strikes on these men killed 874 people. They resulted in the deaths of 142 children

•Seventeen men in Yemen were reported killed or targeted multiple times. Missile strikes on these men killed 273 others and accounted for almost half of all confirmed civilian casualties and 100% of all recorded child deaths.

•In targeting Ayman al Zawahiri, the CIA killed 76 children and 29 adults. They failed twice and Ayman al Zawahiri is reportedly still alive.

•In the six attempts it took the US to kill Qari Hussain, a deputy commander of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), 128 people were killed. including 13 children.

•Baitullah Mehsud was directly targeted as many as seven times, during which 164 people were killed, including 11 children.

•From 2004-2013, children suffered disproportionately in Pakistan. The pursuit of 14 targets killed 142 children. Only six of these children died in strikes that successfully killed their target (21% success rate).

Moscow Embraces New Radical Left Greek Govt

While Obama agrees with Tsipras, Lavrov invites Kotzias to Moscow!


failed revolution

by system failure
US President Barack Obama congratulated the new Greek PM Alexis Tsipras, stating that he agrees with the termination of austerity. From
Greek media report that US President Barack Obama and new Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras had a phone conversation Wednesday evening.”
According to TV channel STAR, Obama told Tsipras that Europe must steer away from austerity and pursue growth; Obama said he would help with this policy change, adding that the two countries’ finance ministers should be in touch.”
The TV channel reported that Obama told Tsipras to take a rest after such a tough election campaign, adding jokingly that he also started young and now hair had turned gray. Tsipras reportedly replied that it would be difficult to rest, because he had great challenges ahead.”
The “style” of conversation and the statements by Obama show that the US will seek to cooperate with the new government despite that already showed signs of fast approach with Russia. (
On the other hand, Putin sees rather a good opportunity to take advantage of the new Greek government and the traditional relations between Greece and Russia, in order to upgrade significantly the role of his country in the critical geopolitical area of East Mediterranean.
The developments are fast and the latest move by the Russians is the invitation to the new Greek minister of foreign affairs, Nikos Kotzias, by Sergey Lavrov to visit Moscow. Kotzias is well-known for his positions concerning a stronger approach between Greece and Russia and Lavrov also spoke warmly about Alexis Tsipras who met him in Moscow when he was the leader in opposition. (
Under such circumstances, the US leadership usually makes clear that any NATO government should fully align with NATO decisions without questions, by imposing tremendous pressure. This time, Obama started rather softly and friendly with Tsipras for a number of reasons.
The first reason, is that the US truly and strongly disagree with the German line of cruel austerity: “This explains the recent statement by the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, speaking about growth through consumption, criticizing indirectly the austerity policies in Europe, and the expected reaction of Schaeuble, …”, when at the same time the relations with Germany are not in the best shape. (
The second reason, is that the US have to deal with a new Leftist government, an unknown X. All previous US leaderships were dealing with easy manageable corrupt governments in Greece of the Right-center and the Socialist-center of the political spectrum. The various US think tanks probably were unable to find the necessary time to examine the new political landscape due to the rapid enlargement of the radical Left inside the crisis. For this reason, and because the US already changed their approach, even against “hostile” countries (Iran, Cuba), Obama may not risk, at least for the moment, to lose Greece in the geopolitical battle, especially when he has to deal with tough open fronts in Ukraine and Middle East.
Meanwhile, the American (IMF) side made further steps to re-approach Greece, as Reza Moghadam has requested that 50% of the Greek debt be written off:
Mr. Moghadam was the IMF’s European Department Director until 2014 and supervisor of Poul Thomsen.”
In a letter he sent to the Financial Times on the 26th of January, Mr. Moghadam admits that both Greek bailout programs (of 2010 and 2012) were based on overly optimistic assumptions on growth, inflation, fiscal efforts and social cohesion. The former IMF officer also assumed his share of responsibility, as he was involved in the troika talks between 2010 and 2014.”
Despite the major fiscal reform and greatest restructuring of the private debt in history, the debt remains excessive compared to projections on fiscal surpluses, which directly affect social cohesion and thus any prospects of a financial recovery. Mr. Moghadam believes that on a political level the recovery is impossible, as the excessive debts block investments and create mistrust. As such, Mr. Moghadam argues that a significant haircut is necessary, in exchange for reforms. Should the debt be less than 110% GDP, as agreed in 2012, then it will became sustainable. The Morgan Stanley officer then underlined the importance of Europe overcoming its taboos on debt relief.”

Israel Attacks Southern Lebanon After Hezbollah Targets Army Convoy

Israel Attacks Southern Lebanon After Hezbollah Targets Army Convoy


A Lebanese army soldier uses his binoculars as smoke from Israeli shelling covers the Lebanese town of al-Majidiyeh on the Lebanese border with Israel in the Wazzani area on January 28, 2015. AFP/Ali Dia

Updated at 3:27 pm (GMT+2): Israel hit Lebanon with a number of rockets after an anti-tank missile was fired at an Israel Occupation Forces (IOF) convoy near the Lebanon border on Wednesday.

The Israeli army said on its Twitter feed that an “initial reports indicate a military vehicle was hit, apparently by an anti-tank missile in the area of Har Dov,” using Israel’s term for the Shebaa Farms which is also close to the ceasefire line with Syria.

Click here to follow Al-Akhbar English‘s live blog of the situation.

IOF spokesman Peter Lerner confirmed on Twitter that there were “casualties” on the Israeli side, without expanding on whether soldiers were killed or wounded.

Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement claimed the attack.

“At 11:25 (0925 GMT) this morning, the Quneitra martyrs of the Islamic Resistance (Hezbollah) targeted an Israeli military convoy in the Shebaa Farms composed of several vehicles which was transporting several Zionist soldiers and officers,” Hezbollah said in a statement broadcast on the group’s Al-Manar television channel

Al-Manar said nine Israeli vehicles were targeted in the attack. Al-Mayadeen news channel’s Director Ghassan Ben Jeddo, said at least 15 Israeli soldiers have been killed.

There were conflicting reports on whether an Israeli soldier was abducted during the attack. Al-Akhbar English could not independently confirm the information at this time.

The Shebaa Farms area is a mountainous, narrow sliver of land rich in water resources measuring 25 square kilometers (10 square miles). It has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East war.

An Israeli security source, meanwhile, said a number of people were wounded in the incident after their vehicles came under “very heavy fire at close range,” saying the incident was still ongoing.

He said it was not clear whether the vehicles had been hit by an anti-tank missile, a rocket or a mortar, but said Israeli forces had returned fire, hitting targets across the border.

Israeli newspaper the Jerusalem Post said the Israeli army fired at the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Shouba.

Two sources told AFP that more than a dozen shells had been fired on Lebanese border villages and that Israeli warplanes were flying over the area.

A spokesperson for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which monitors the Lebanese-Israeli border, reported that one of its soldiers, a Spanish citizen, was killed after sustaining serious wounds by Israeli shelling in the border village of Abbasieh.

“At least 15 shells have been fired against five villages in the south,” one security source said, adding that the village of Majidiyeh was hardest hit.

Another security source said the Israeli army was firing a new shell into the area about every two minutes, and was also firing artillery.

The Lebanese army is deployed in all five villages that were shelled, but it was unclear whether Hezbollah had a presence there.

Al-Mayadeen said the Israeli strikes were ongoing.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that mortar shells had hit the village of Ghajar, which straddles the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Images broadcast from the scene showed large plumes of white smoke billowing across the area and police sealed off several roads close to the border in northern Israel.

Political responses

UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti said the head of UNIFIL was in close contact with all parties and had urged “maximum restraint” to prevent an escalation.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was ready to act “with force” following the border attack.

Referring to the bloody Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip this summer, Netanyahu added: “I suggest that all those who are challenging us on our northern border, look at what happened in Gaza, not far from the city of Sderot.”

“Hamas suffered the most serious blow since it was founded this past summer and the [IOF] is prepared to act on every front.”

Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking in Beijing, said Israel should respond in a “forceful and disproportionate manner.”

Meanwhile, former Lebanese President Michel Sleiman warned in a statement on Facebook against “actions” that would lead to a breach of UN Resolution 1701. Resolution 1701 marked the ceasefire that ended the 2006 July War between Israel and Hezbollah.

He also stressed that Lebanon has “no interest” in conflicts that would allow Israel and “terrorist groups” to take advantage of Lebanon’s “relatively stable political situation, which has been enhanced lately by internal dialogue.”

Retaliation for Israeli attacks in Syria

The attack came hours after Israeli aircraft struck alleged Syrian army artillery positions early on Wednesday, and one day after rockets were launched at the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

On January 18, an Israeli airstrike on the Syrian city of Quneitra killed six fighters of Lebanon’s resistance movement Hezbollah, including a commander and the son of assassinated senior commander Imad Mughniyeh, as well as Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Mohammad Ali Allahdadi.

The Hezbollah brigade which carried out the attack, the Quneitra martyrs of the Islamic Resistance, was named in reference to the deadly strike in Quneitra, indicating that Wednesday’s attack was in retaliation for the killing of its members.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah had previously warned Israel against any “stupid” moves in Lebanon and Syria, vowing to retaliate and make sure Israel pays the price for any aggression against the neighboring countries.

Israeli airstrikes on Syria “target the whole of the resistance axis,” Nasrallah said in reference to Syria, Iran and his government, who are sworn enemies of Israel.

“The repeated bombings that struck several targets in Syria are a major violation, and we consider that any strike against Syria is a strike against the whole of the resistance axis, not just against Syria,” he said, adding the “axis is capable of responding” anytime.

Since the airstrike, troops and civilians in northern Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine and the occupied Golan Heights have been on heightened alert and Israel has deployed an Iron Dome rocket interceptor unit near the Syrian border.

The last Israeli war on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, most of them civilians, and 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers.

Nasrallah is expected to deliver a speech on January 30 regarding the Israeli strikes.

(Al-Akhbar, AFP, Reuters)

Obama Pushing Economic “Nuclear Option,” Extorting EU Partners To Cut Russia from SWIFT Program

[SEE: Obama Waging Lawyer’s War To Brand Putin As “WAR CRIMINAL” Without Implicating Himself]

Russian PM vows ‘unrestricted’ response if banned from SWIFT payment system


Russia’s response to a possible cut-off from the SWIFT international banking payment system will be “unrestricted,” Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev vowed. The West is pushing for hitting Moscow with more sanctions as the Ukraine crisis deteriorates.

“We will see what happens, but of course if such decisions are made, I want to note that our economic reaction and generally any other reaction will be unrestricted,” the Russian prime minister said on Tuesday, calling on the government to “work out concrete decisions which would help our economy in those conditions.”

READ MORE: S&P downgrade ‘groundlessly pessimistic’ – Russian finance minister

Calls to disconnect Russian banks from the global interbank SWIFT system came amid the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West, and the introduction of sanctions in response to Moscow’s alleged role in the Ukraine conflict.

Thus, last August the UK proposed to exclude Russia from the SWIFT system as a part of sanctions imposed on the country due to the situation in eastern Ukraine.

However, SWIFT has said it does not intend to switch Russia off from the system, adding that a number of countries have pressured it to do so. It has insisted it is not joining the anti-Russian sanctions.

In October, Belgium-based SWIFT stressed it has “no authority to make sanctions decisions.”

At the end of last year, Andrey Kostin – the head of VTB Russia’s second largest bank – warned that in his “personal opinion,” excluding Russia from the global SWIFT banking transaction system is another form of sanctions and would mean “war.”

Back in December, Russia’s Central Bank launched a new SWIFT-style payment service aimed at moving away from Western financial dominance.

READ MORE: CBR launches SWIFT alternative for domestic payments

The possibility of cutting Russia out of SWIFT, as well as a list of other anti-Russia measures, will be on the table during a meeting of EU foreign ministers on January 29. To be imposed, the new sanctions must be approved by all 28 EU countries.

SWIFT provides a network that enables financial institutions to send and receive information about financial transactions in a secure, standardized, and reliable way. SWIFT is a cooperative society under Belgian law and is owned by its member financial institutions. It has offices around the world. The system is comprised of over 10,000 financial organizations from 210 countries.

‘Political’ downgrade

Speaking of the recent developments in Russia’s economy, the prime minister has called S&P’s downgrade of Russia’s credit rating a “political decision.”

“What is it if not a political decision?” he questioned. “We will of course go through this, but it is bad that in a whole it complicates the situation in the country and, honestly speaking, in the world,” Medvedev said.

Also on Tuesday, the prime minister signed a decree containing the main points of the government’s anti-crisis plan, press secretary Natalia Timakova said. The document will be published on Wednesday, when Medvedev plans to discuss details with regional leaders and members of the United Russia party.

Norway to help run Lebanon oil, gas sector

Norway to help run Lebanon oil, gas sector

daily star LEB

BEIRUT: Lebanon and Norway signed a three-year agreement Tuesday under which Oslo will support the Lebanese government’s efforts to develop its infant oil and gas sector.

A statement from Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry said the deal was signed between Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, Energy Minister Arthur Nazarian and Norway’s Foreign Ministry State Secretary Bard Pederson.

The signing ushered in the second phase of the “oil for development” project under which Norway will offer technical support to the Lebanese Petroleum Administration and pertinent ministries, including the Energy, Environment and Finance ministries.

Nazarian said Lebanon would benefit from Norway’s know-how and expertise in order to manage its oil resources in the most sustainable and profitable way.

“The Norwegian government was quick to respond to Lebanon’s demand for more expertise [in the oil sector],” Nazarian said at the signing ceremony at Palis Boustros, the seat of Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry.

Pederson meanwhile praised the “great cooperation” between Lebanon and Norway, stressing that his country “will transfer all its oil expertise to Lebanon to enable it to manage its oil resources in a way that would bring great benefits to all the Lebanese people.”

Norway has been involved in helping develop Lebanon’s oil and gas sector since 2006.

– See more at:

Turkey Set To Receive “Turkish Stream” Fuel By Dec. 2016

Gazprom hammers out new sub-Black Sea pipeline agreement in Turkey

oil and gas tech

Submitted by Paddy Harris

A meeting between the head of Gazprom and the Turkish government has approved the proposed route of the new Russia-Turkey pipeline via the Black Sea

On January 28 Gazprom will submit a notice requesting a conduct of FEED operations for the new Turkish offshore section

A meeting between the head of Gazprom and the Turkish government has approved the proposed route of the new Russia-Turkey pipeline via the Black Sea

On January 28 Gazprom will submit a notice requesting a conduct of FEED operations for the new Turkish offshore section

Ankara hosted the working meeting between Alexey Miller, chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee and Taner Yildiz, Turkish minister of energy and natural resources, which discussed the main issues of constructing a new gas pipeline across the Black Sea towards Turkey.

“The joint construction of the gas transportation facilities within such an important project would create the strategic infrastructure partnership between Gazprom and Botas,” said Miller. “The talks were friendly and constructive. Both parties are keen to hit the target. Our priorities – to study the route’s options in Turkey, to define the location of the landfall facilities, gas delivery points for Turkish consumers and border crossings between Turkey and Greece.”

The four strings will have an aggregate capacity of 63 billion cubic metres a year. Six-hundred-and-sixty kilometres of the pipeline’s route will be laid within the old corridor of South Stream and 250 kilometres within a new corridor towards the European part of Turkey.

On January 28 Gazprom will submit a notice requesting a conduct of FEED operations for the new Turkish offshore section. Gazprom will be solely responsible for the construction of the offshore section. Turkish gas transportation facilities will be built jointly.

The project stakes will be distributed in the course of the future talks. Botas is approved to represent the Turkish party. Gazprom and Botas will develop the project schedule within seven days.

“We agreed to plan our work in such a way that would allow us to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement on the gas pipeline in the second quarter this year, therefore the first gas would come to Turkey in December 2016,” added Miller.

“In this respect, the first string’s throughput capacity of 15.75 billion cubic metres will be exclusively intended for Turkish consumers. Considering the state of readiness of the Russkaya compressor station and the pipeline’s offshore section, this deadline is absolutely real.”

Turkey is Gazprom’s second largest sales market behind Germany. In 2014 Gazprom supplied Turkey with 27.4 billion cubic metres of natural gas.

Turkey currently receives Russian natural gas via the Blue Stream and the Trans-Balkan gas pipelines.

On December 1, 2014 Gazprom and Turkish company Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation signed the Memorandum of Understanding on constructing an offshore gas pipeline across the Black Sea towards Turkey.


The gas pipeline will have a capacity of 63 billion cubic metres, with nearly 50 billion cubic metres to be conveyed to a gas hub on the border between Turkey and Greece. Gazprom Russkaya will be in charge of the gas pipeline construction.

Related topics:






Got a news tip? Email

Related Pipeline News Articles

Search this site:


Greece and Russia to restore relations under the new government

Greece and Russia to restore relations under the new government


failed revolution

globinfo freexchange
Only a few days in power and the new Greek government under Alexis Tsipras shows that is not willing to play the role of the puppet. Through a statement, the Greek government correctly expressed its dissatisfaction about the way the EU handled the issue of possible new sanctions against Russia.
From Reuters:
The new Greek government of leftwing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras complained to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on Tuesday, saying it had not been consulted about a statement on the growing crisis in Ukraine.
In a rare joint statement, EU leaders voiced concern about the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine and condemned the killing of civilians in the ‘indiscriminate shelling’ of Mariupol. They asked their foreign ministers to consider possible new sanctions against Russia in response although a final decision is expected to be left until a summit next month.
Fresh from his election victory, Tsipras was sworn in as prime minister on Monday and only unveiled his cabinet on Tuesday. But his office said the EU should still have secured consent from Athens before issuing a statement in the name of European member states. “In this context, we underline that it does not have our country’s consent. Dissatisfaction with the handling of this was expressed in a telephone conversation between the prime minister and the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Mogherini,” the statement said.
Greek-Russian relations were downgraded significantly under previous Antonis Samaras government. Former government followed immediately Western sanctions against Russia, something that triggered Russia’s response to block many Greek products from the Russian market. (
Tsipras shows that he is willing to walk towards an opposite direction and restore the relations with Russians. The latest fast response is not accidental, as in the critical position of the minister of foreign affairs has been placed Nikos Kotzias, who is quite known for his positions concerning a stronger approach between Greece and Russia.
Kotzias expressed also his “anti-Troika” feelings in the past, stating that the Troika lenders in Greece serve specific interests, something that was actually confirmed by a government official three years later:
The leader of the anti-memorandum party EPAM (United People’s Front), Dimitris Kazakis, stated that this was a first positive reaction by the Greek government, while extends the field of actions that the government should take, claiming that Tsipras government should use veto against the rest of the EU in order to stop the escalation of the slaughter by the neo-nazis in Ukraine, and restore relations with Russia. (
On the other side, Putin shows that he wants to take the opportunity of the new government in power and restore relations with Greece, upgrading Russia’s role in the East Mediterranean. He rushed to send congratulations to Tsipras and made previously a move which shows that he wants to put Greece back in the game:
Also from Moscow Times:
Greece’s new prime minister, Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras, established contact with Russia prior to being elected. Like other leaders of formerly fringe European political parties, Tsipras was received as a highly honored guest by the Kremlin. The leftist leader met with Russian officials in Moscow last May, including Valentina Matviyenko, chair of the Russian parliament’s upper house who had served as Russia’s ambassador to Greece in the late 1990s.
Greek objection to sanctions against Russia is in part motivated by the losses the country has suffered over Russia’s subsequent ban on a range of food products from the European Union, according to Syriza officials. Kostas Isihos, the party’s foreign policy boss, told government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta on Monday that Greek farmers, whose exports to Russia include fruit and olive oil, had lost some 430 million euros because of the sanctions.
Putin warmly congratulated Tsipras on his victory Monday, expressing confidence “that Russia and Greece will continue to develop their traditionally constructive cooperation in all areas and will work together effectively to resolve current European and global problems,” according to the Kremlin’s website. Putin also referred to “current difficult conditions” and wished Tsipras success in working in them.
If Russia didn’t have its own economic crisis, it might be willing to financially support the new Greek government’s anti-austerity measures,” said Vasily Koltashov, head of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements’ economic research center. “It is unlikely that Greece views Russia as a useful partner right now. Chances are that they view Russia as a partner in [economic] trouble.”
Moscow also shows that seeks to restore relations with Cyprus after the bail-in fiasco with the Cypriot banks that brought big losses to the Russian depositors.
From globalpost:
Moscow is seeking military facilities on Cyprus, Russian ambassador Nicosia Stanislav Osadchiy said on Wednesday.
But Osadchiy said his country’s consultations with the foreign ministry of Cyprus were presently centered on bilateral agreements to be signed when the eastern Mediterranean island’s president, Nicos Anastasiades, visits Moscow on Feb. 25. Osadchiy did not specify the kind of facilities Moscow wanted Cyprus to provide.
Russia is interested in an agreement providing military facilitation similar to the ones in place with France and Germany,” Osacdhiy said. “The matter is being discussed,” he added.
As Tsipras stated that the first country he will visit will be Cyprus, everything shows that we may see in future the shaping of the geopolitical triangle of Greece-Cyprus-Russia, containing common interests in the fields of economy, security and energy.

Obama Waging Lawyer’s War To Brand Putin As “WAR CRIMINAL” Without Implicating Himself

[From the selection of news headlines given below, it is apparent that Obama’s war against Putin has taken a new, even riskier path.  Instead of continuing to simply threaten, bribe and browbeat the EU allies into closing ranks behind his scheme to isolate Putin, he intends to attempt to charge Putin with “WAR CRIMES” in the UN Security Council, branding him a “ROGUE,” Russia an “AGGRESSOR STATE” and the Novo-Russians (Eastern Ukrainian) as “TERRORISTS,” terms which Obama himself has already been branded with hundreds of times on the battlefield of the free Internet. 

Thanks to Obama a battle for a “Free Europe” will be settled upon the “Ukrainian battlefield,” by “Good Guys,” who are really “Bad Guys” of the worst sort, expecting us to believe and support them, as they turn Europe into a new tinderbox, for no good reason.  When it all boils down, there is no reason for the division and animosity between Ukraine and Russia, except for the pain left over from mistakes that are now past and the universal Ukrainians unwillingness to pay the real cost of keeping their homes warm in the wintertime.]

Ukrainian MPs call on UN, NATO & PACE to recognize Russia as ‘aggressor state’

Russia Is Turning Into a Rogue State

US Official:’ A Free Europe Rises or Falls With Ukraine’

Pro-Russian rebels officially labelled terrorists by Ukraine government

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Secretariat

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Resolution “On the Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the United Nations, European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, GUAM Parliamentary Assembly and international parliaments on

recognizing the Russian Federation the aggressor state”

( Information Department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Secretariat )

The people’s deputies adopted the Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the United Nations, European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, GUAM Parliamentary Assembly and international parliaments on recognizing the Russian Federation the aggressor state.

271 people’s deputy voted in favor.




The Saudi palace coup

New king Salman has moved rapidly to install allies from his Sudairi clan and begun shifts in policy but time is not on his side

King Abdullah’s writ lasted all of 12 hours. Within that period the Sudairis, a rich and politically powerful clan within the House of Saud, which had been weakened by the late king, burst back into prominence. Its a palace coup in all but name.

Salman moved swiftly to undo the work of his half-brother. He decided not to change his crown prince Muqrin, who was picked by King Abdullah, but he may choose to deal with him later. However, he swiftly appointed another leading figure from the Sudairi clan. Mohammed Bin Nayef, the interior minister, is to be his deputy crown prince. It is no secret that Abdullah wanted his son Meteb for that position, but now he is out.

More significantly, Salman, himself a Sudairi, attempted to secure the second generation by giving his 35-year-old son Mohammed the powerful fiefdom of the defence ministry. The second post Mohammed got was arguably more important still. He is now general secretary of the royal court. All of these changes were announced before Abdullah was even buried.

The general secretaryship was the position held by the Cardinal Richelieu of Abdullah’s royal court, Khalid al-Tuwaijri. It was a lucrative business handed down from father to son and started by Abdul Aziz al-Tuwaijri. The Tuwaijris became the king’s gatekeepers. No royal audience could be held without their permission, involvement or knowledge. Tuwaijri was the key player in foreign intrigues, subverting the Egyptian revolution, sending in troops to crush the uprising in Bahrain, financing ISIL in Syria in the early stages of the civil war through his previous ally, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Salman suffers from Alzheimers

The link between Tuwaijri and the Gulf region’s fellow neo-con Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, was close. Tuwaijri is now out, and his long list of foreign clients – starting with the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi – may well feel a cooler air blowing from Riyadh. Sisi failed to attend the funeral on Friday. Just a matter of bad weather?

Salman’s state of health is cause for concern, which is why the power he has given his son is more significant than other appointments announced. Aged 79, Salman is known to have Alzheimers, but the exact state of his dementia is a source of speculation. He is known to have held cogent conversations as recently as last October. But he can also forget what he said minutes ago, or faces he has known all his life, according to other witnesses. This is typical of the disease. I understand the number of hospital visits in the last few months has increased and that he did not walk around, as he did before.

So his ability to steer the ship of state, in a centralised country where no institutions, political parties or even national politics exist is open to question. But one indication of a change of direction may lie in two attempts recently to establish links with Egyptian opposition figures.

Reaching out to Egypt’s opposition

I am told that senior advisers to Salman approached an Egyptian liberal opposition politician and had a separate meeting with a lawyer. Neither of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but have working contacts with it. Talks were held in Saudi Arabia in the last two months about how reconciliation could be managed. No initiative was agreed, but the talks themselves were an indication of a more pragmatic, or less belligerent, approach by Salman and his advisers. It was understood that these meetings were preparatory to a possible initiative Salman may announce once he was in power.

The policy of the late king was to declare the Brotherhood terrorist organisation on a par with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Even before the Sudairis made their move, a power struggle within the House of Saud was apparent. Early on Thursday evening, rumours on Twitter that the king was dead flooded the internet, which is the primary source of political information in the kingdom. There were official denials when a Saudi journalist on al-Watan newspaper tweeted the information.

The palace’s hand was forced when two emirs tweeted that the king was dead. MBC TV network cut broadcasting and put the Quran on screen, a sign of mourning, while national television kept on with normal programming. This was a sign that one clan in the royal family wanted the news out quickly and the other clan was stalling for more negotiations.

Crisis south of the border

The need for a change of course is all too apparent. On the very night of the royal drama, a political earthquake was taking place in Saudi Arabia’s backyard, Yemen. President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, his prime minister and government resigned after days of virtual house arrest by Houthi militia. Hadi’s resignation leaves two forces in control of the country, both of them armed to the teeth: an Iranian-backed militia which gets its training from Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda, posing as the defender of Sunni muslims.

It is a disaster for Saudi Arabia and what is left of the ability of the Gulf Cooperation Council to make any deal stick. Their foreign ministers met only the day before. Yemen’s former strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was levered out of power three years ago and who according to leaked telephone calls, advised the Houthis on how to grab power, is now calling for fresh elections, and there were already calls on Thursday night for the south to split away from the North. Yemen, in other words, has officially become the Middle East’s fourth failed state.

The meteoric rise of the Houthis in Yemen was not the result of spontaneous combustion. It was planned and plotted months ago by Saleh and the United Arab Emirates. Saleh’s son, the Yemeni ambassador to the UAE, was a key figure in this foreign intrigue, and as I reported before, he met an Iranian delegation in Rome. This was picked up by US intelligence and communicated to Hadi. The year before, the then Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar flew a leading member of the Houthi delegation via London for a meeting. Incredible as it seemed, the Saudis were re-opening contact with an Iranian-backed Zaydi or Shia sect with whom they had once fought bitter wars.

The Saudi/Emirati plan was to use the Houthis to engage and destroy their real target which was Islah, the Islamist party and chief representative of the Sunni tribes in Yemen. As elsewhere in the Arab world, the entire focus of Abdullah foreign policy after 2011 was to stop the Arab Spring in its tracks in Tunisia and Egypt and crush all forces capable of mounting an effective opposition in the Gulf States. Everything else, including the rise of Saudi’s foremost regional rival Iran, became subservient to that paramount aim to crush democratic political Islam.

The Yemen plan backfired when Islah refused to take up arms to resist the Houthi advance. As a result, the Houthis took more control than they were expected to, and the result is that Yemen stands on the brink of civil war. Al-Qaeda’s claim to be the only fighters prepared to defend Sunni tribesmen has just been given a major boost.

The possibility of change

It is too early to tell whether King Salman is capable of, or even is aware of, the need for changing course. All one can say with any confidence is that some of the key figures who stage-managed the kingdom’s disastrous foreign intrigues are now out. Meteb’s influence is limited, while Tuwaijiri is out.

It is in no-one’s interests for chaos to spread into the kingdom itself. Maybe it is just coincidence that Abdullah died almost on the eve of the anniversary of the January 25 revolution in Egypt. But the timing of his death is a symbol. The royal family should learn that the mood of change that started on January 25 is unstoppable. The best defence against revolution is to lead genuine tangible political reform within the kingdom. Allow it to modernise, to build national politics, political parties, real competitive elections, to let Saudis take a greater share of power, to free political prisoners.

There are two theories about the slow train crash which the Middle East has become. One is that dictatorship, autocracy and occupation are the bulwarks against the swirling chaos of civil war and population displacement. The other is that dictators are the cause of instability and extremism.

Abdullah was evidence in chief for the second theory. His reign left Saudi Arabia weaker internally and surrounded by enemies as never before. Can Salman make a difference? It’s a big task, but there may be people around him who see the need for a fundamental change in course. It will be the only way a Saudi king will get the backing of his people. He may in the process turn himself into a figurehead, a constitutional monarch, but he will generate stability in the kingdom and the region.

– David Hearst is editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent. 

– See more at:

Bashar al-Assad Refutes Western Media Lies In Foreign Affairs Interview

Syria’s President Speaks

A Conversation With Bashar al-Assad

foreign affairs

The president in Damascus, January 2015.

The president in Damascus, January 2015. (Media and Communications Office, Presidency of Syria)

The civil war in Syria will soon enter its fifth year, with no end in sight. On January 20, Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to discuss the conflict in an exclusive interview.

I would like to start by asking you about the war. It has now been going on for almost four years, and you know the statistics: more than 200,000 people have been killed, a million wounded, and more than three million Syrians have fled the country, according to the UN. Your forces have also suffered heavy casualties. The war cannot go on forever. How do you see the war ending?
All wars anywhere in the world have ended with a political solution, because war itself is not the solution; war is one of the instruments of politics. So you end with a political solution. That’s how we see it. That is the headline.

You don’t think that this war will end militarily?
No. Any war ends with a political solution.

Your country is increasingly divided into three ministates: one controlled by the government, one controlled by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and one controlled by the more secular Sunni and Kurdish opposition. How will 

you ever put Syria back together again?
First of all, this image is not accurate, because you cannot talk about ministates without talking about the people who live within those states. The Syrian people are still with the unity of Syria; they still support the government. The factions you refer to control some areas, but they move from one place to another—they are not stable, and there are no clear lines of separation between different forces. Sometimes they mingle with each other and they move. But the main issue is about the population. The population still supports the state regardless of whether they support it politically or not; I mean they support the state as the representative of the unity of Syria. So as long as you have the Syrian people believing in unity, any government and any official can unify Syria. If the people are divided into two, three, or four groups, no one can unify this country. That’s how we see it.

You really think that the Sunnis and the Kurds still believe in a unified Syria?
If you go to Damascus now, you can see all the different, let’s say, colors of our society living together. So the divisions in Syria are not based on sectarian or ethnic grounds. And even in the Kurdish area you are talking about, we have two different colors: we have Arabs more than Kurds. So it’s not about the ethnicity; it’s about the factions that control certain areas militarily.

A year ago, both the opposition and foreign governments were insisting that you step down as a precondition to talks. They no longer are. Diplomats are now looking for an interim settlement that would allow you to keep a role. Just today, The New York Times had an article that talked about increased U.S. support for the Russian and UN peace initiatives. The article refers to “the West’s quiet retreat from its demands that Syria’s president step down immediately.” Given this shift in the Western attitude, are you now more open to a negotiated solution to the conflict that leads to a political transition?
From the very beginning, we were open. We engaged in dialogue with every party in Syria. Party doesn’t mean political party; it could be a party, a current, or some personality; it could be any political entity. We changed the constitution, and we are open to anything. But when you want to do something, it’s not about the opposition or about the government; it’s about the Syrians. Sometimes you might have a majority that doesn’t belong to any side. So when you want to make a change, as long as you’re talking about a national problem, every Syrian must have a say in it. When you have a dialogue, it’s not between the government and the opposition; it’s between the different Syrian parties and entities. That’s how we look at dialogue. This is first. Second, whatever solution you want to make, at the end you should go back to the people through a referendum, because you’re talking about the constitution, changing the political system, whatever. You have to go back to the Syrian people. So engaging in a dialogue is different from taking decisions, which is not done by the government or the opposition.

So you’re saying that you would not agree to any kind of political transition unless there is a referendum that supports it?
Exactly. The people should make the decision, not anyone else.

Does that mean there’s no room for negotiations?
No, we will go to Russia, we will go to these negotiations, but there is another question here: Who do you negotiate with? As a government, we have institutions, we have an army, and we have influence, positive or negative, in any direction, at any time. Whereas the people we are going to negotiate with, who do they represent? That’s the question. When you talk about the opposition, it has to have meaning. The opposition in general has to have representatives in the local administration, in the parliament, in institutions; they have to have grass roots to represent on their behalf. In the current crisis, you have to ask about the opposition’s influence on the ground. You have to go back to what the rebels announced publicly, when they said many times that the opposition doesn’t represent us—they have no influence. If you want to talk about fruitful dialogue, it’s going to be between the government and those rebels. There is another point. Opposition means national; it means working for the interests of the Syrian people. It cannot be an opposition if it’s a puppet of Qatar or Saudi Arabia or any Western country, including the United States, paid from the outside. It should be Syrian. We have a national opposition. I’m not excluding it; I’m not saying every opposition is not legitimate. But you have to separate the national and the puppets. Not every dialogue is fruitful.

Does that mean you would not want to meet with opposition forces that are backed by outside countries?
We are going to meet with everyone. We don’t have conditions.

No conditions?
No conditions.

You would meet with everyone?
Yes, we’re going to meet with everyone. But you have to ask each one of them: Who do you represent? That’s what I mean.

If I’m correct, the deputy of the UN representative Staffan de Mistura is in Syria now. They’re proposing as an interim measure a cease-fire and a freeze in Aleppo. Would you agree to that?
Yes, of course. We implemented that before de Mistura was assigned to his mission. We implemented it in another city called Homs, another big city. We implemented it on smaller scales in different, let’s say, suburbs, villages, and so on, and it succeeded. So the idea is very good, but it depends on the details. De Mistura came to Syria with headlines. We agreed upon certain headlines, and now we are waiting for him to bring a detailed plan or schedule—A-to-Z plan, let’s say. We are discussing this with his deputy.

In the past, you insisted as a precondition for a cease-fire that the rebels lay down their weapons first, which obviously from their perspective was a nonstarter. Is that still your precondition?
We choose different scenarios or different reconciliations. In some areas, we allowed them to leave inhabited areas in order to prevent casualties among civilians. They left these areas with their armaments. In other areas, they gave up their armaments and they left. It depends on what they offer and what you offer.

I’m not clear on your answer. Would you insist that they lay down their weapons?
No, no. That’s not what I mean. In some areas, they left the area with their armaments—that is what I mean.

Are you optimistic about the Moscow talks?
What is going on in Moscow is not negotiations about the solution; it’s only preparations for the conference.

So talks about talks?
Exactly—how to prepare for the talks. So when you start talking about the conference, what are the principles of the conference? I’ll go back to the same point. Let me be frank: some of the groups are puppets, as I said, of other countries. They have to implement that agenda, and I know that many countries, like France, for example, do not have any interest in making that conference succeed. So they will give them orders to make them fail. You have other personalities who only represent themselves; they don’t represent anyone in Syria. Some of them never lived in Syria, and they know nothing about the country. Of course, you have some other personalities who work for the national interest. So when you talk about the opposition as one entity, who’s going to have influence on the other? That is the question. It’s not clear yet. So optimism would be an exaggeration. I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic. I would say we have hope, in every action.

It seems that in recent days, the Americans have become more supportive of the Moscow talks. Initially, they were not. Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry said something to suggest that the United States hopes that the talks go forward and that they are successful.
They always say things, but it’s about what they’re going to do. And you know there’s mistrust between the Syrians and the U.S. So just wait till we see what will happen at the conference.

So what do you see as the best way to strike a deal between all the different parties in Syria?
It’s to deal directly with the rebels, but you have two different kinds of rebels. Now, the majority are al Qaeda, which is ISIS and al-Nusra, with other similar factions that belong to al Qaeda but are smaller. Now, what’s left, what Obama called the “fantasy,” what he called the “moderate opposition”—it’s not an opposition; they are rebels. Most of them joined al Qaeda, and some of them rejoined the army recently. During the last week, a lot of them left those groups and came to the army.

Are these former defectors who came back?
Yes, they came back to the army. They said, “We don’t want to fight anymore.” So what’s left of those is very little. At the end, can you negotiate with al Qaeda, and others? They are not ready to negotiate; they have their own plan. The reconciliation that we started and Mr. de Mistura is going to continue is the practical solution on the ground. This is the first point. Second, you have to implement the Security Council resolution, no. 2170, on al-Nusra and ISIS, which was issued a few months ago, and this resolution is very clear about preventing anyone from supporting these factions militarily, financially, or logistically. Yet this is what Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are still doing. If it’s not implemented, we cannot talk about a real solution, because there will be obstacles as long as they spend money. So this is how we can start. Third, the Western countries should remove the umbrella still referred to by some as “supporting the moderate opposition.” They know we have mainly al Qaeda, ISIS, and al-Nusra.

Would you be prepared to take any confidence-building measures in advance of the talks? For example, prisoner exchanges, or ending the use of barrel bombs, or releasing political prisoners, in order to build confidence on the other side that you’re willing to negotiate in good faith?
It’s not a personal relationship; it’s about mechanisms. In politics, you only talk about mechanisms. You don’t have to trust someone to do something. If you have a clear mechanism, you can reach a result. That is what the people want. So the question is, what is the mechanism that we can put in place? This takes us back to the same question: Who are they? What do they represent? What’s their influence? What is the point of building trust with people with no influence?

When two parties come together, it’s often very useful for one party to show the other that it’s really interested in making progress by taking steps unilaterally to try and bring down the temperature. The measures that I described would have that effect.
You have something concrete, and that is reconciliation. People gave up their armaments; we gave them amnesty; they live normal lives. It is a real example. So this is a measure of confidence. On the other hand, what is the relation between that opposition and the prisoners? There’s no relation. They are not their prisoners anyway. So it is completely a different issue.

So have you offered amnesty to fighters?
Yes, of course, and we did it many times.

How many—do you have numbers?
I don’t have the precise numbers, but it’s thousands, not hundreds, thousands of militants.

And are you prepared to say to the entire opposition that if you lay down your weapons, you will be safe?
Yes, I said it publicly in one of my speeches.

And how can you guarantee their safety? Because they have reasons to distrust your government.
You cannot. But at the end, let’s say that if more than 50 percent succeed, more than 50 percent in such circumstances would be a success. So that’s how. Nothing is absolute. You have to expect some negative aspects, but they are not the major aspects.

Let me change the subject slightly. Hezbollah, Iran’s Quds Force, and Iranian-trained Shiite militias are all now playing significant roles in the fight against rebels here in Syria. Given this involvement, are you worried about Iran’s influence over the country? After all, Iraq or even Lebanon shows that once a foreign military power becomes established in a country, it can be very difficult to get them to leave again.
Iran is an important country in this region, and it was influential before the crisis. Its influence is not related to the crisis; it’s related to its role, its political position in general. When you talk about influence, various factors make a certain country influential. In the Middle East, in our region, you have the same society, the same ideology, many similar things, the same tribes, going across borders. So if you have influence on one factor, your influence will be crossing the border. This is part of our nature. It’s not related to the conflict. Of course, when there is conflict and anarchy, another country will be more influential in your country. When you don’t have the will to have a sovereign country, you will have that influence. Now, the answer to your question is, Iran doesn’t have any ambitions in Syria, and as a country, as Syria, we would never allow any country to influence our sovereignty. We wouldn’t accept it, and the Iranians don’t want it either. We allow cooperation. But if you allowed any country to have influence, why not allow the Americans to have influence in Syria? That’s the problem with the Americans and with the West: they want to have influence without cooperation.

Let me just push you a little bit further. Last week, a commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, of their airspace command, Hajizadeh, said in an interview in Der Spiegel that Iran’s supreme leader has ordered his forces to build and operate missile plants in Syria. That suggests that Iran is playing a greater role and doing it on its own.
No, no. Playing a role through cooperation is different from playing a role through hegemony.

So everything that Iran is doing … ?
Of course, in full cooperation with the Syrian government, and that’s always the case.

Now Iran is one thing to deal with because it’s a country. But you also have militias, which are substate actors and therefore more complicated. One problem with working with these groups is that, unlike a government, they may not be willing to cooperate and it’s not always clear who to talk to. Are you worried about your ability to control these forces and to rein them in if you need to? And, a related question, this week, Israel attacked Hezbollah forces in the Golan Heights, and the Israelis suggest that they attacked them because Hezbollah was planning an attack on Israel from Syrian territory. Doesn’t this also highlight the danger of allowing militias with their own agendas, not necessarily your agenda, to come into the war?
Do you mean Syrian, or any other militias in general?

I mean especially Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite militias.
It’s natural to say that only the institutions of the government, of the state, let’s say, are the guarantee for stability and to put things in order. Any other factor that would play a role in parallel with the government could be positive, could be good in certain circumstances, but it will always have side effects, negative side effects. That is a natural thing. And having militias who support the government is a side effect of the war. You have it, but you’re going to try to control this side effect. Nobody will feel more comfortable than if they are dealing with government institutions, including the army and the police and so on. But talking about what happened in Quneitra is something completely different. Never has an operation against Israel happened through the Golan Heights since the cease-fire in 1974. It has never happened. So for Israel to allege that there was a plan for an operation—that’s a far cry from reality, just an excuse, because they wanted to assassinate somebody from Hezbollah.

But the Israelis have been very careful since the war began to not get involved except when they felt their interests were directly threatened.
That’s not true, because they’ve been attacking Syria now for nearly two years, without any reason.

But in each case, they say it’s because Hezbollah was being given weapons from Iran through Syria.
They attacked army positions. What is the relation between Hezbollah and the army?

Those were cases where the army accidentally shelled …
Those are false allegations.

So what do you think Israel’s agenda is?
They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they make an attack in order to undermine the army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke: “How can you say that al Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force.”

To return to my question about militias, do you feel confident that you’ll be able to control them when this war ends? Because after all, to have effective sovereignty, any government has to have what’s called a monopoly of force, and that’s very hard when you have these independent armed groups running around.
That’s self-evident: the state cannot fulfill its commitment to society if it’s not the only master of order.

But you see in Iraq how hard that is. It is now very difficult for the government to control all the Shiite militias that were empowered during the war.
There’s a very important reason in Iraq: it’s because Paul Bremer didn’t create a constitution for the state; he created one for factions. Whereas in Syria, why did the army stand fast for four years in spite of this embargo, this war, tens of countries around the world attacking Syria and supporting the rebels? Because it has a real constitution, a real, secular constitution. That is the reason. In Iraq, it is sectarian. When you talk about a sectarian constitution, it’s not a constitution.

But what will you do about these militias when the war ends?
Things should go back to normal, like before the war.

And you’re confident … ?
Yes. We don’t have any other option. That is the role of the government. This is self-evident.

What impact are falling oil prices having on the war in Syria? After all, your two closest allies and supporters, Iran and Russia, are very dependent on oil prices, and they have suffered tremendous damage to their budgets in recent months as the price of oil has fallen. Do you worry about their ability to continue helping you?
No, because they don’t give us money, so it has no effect on Syria. Even if they are going to help us, it would be in the form of loans. We’re like any other country: we have loans. Sometimes we pay; sometimes we take loans.

But their military support costs them money, and if they have less money to pay for their own militaries, won’t that become a problem?
No, because when you pay for armaments or any other goods, you don’t have a problem.

So you’re saying everything you’re getting from the Russians and the Iranians … ?
So far, we haven’t seen any changes, so what the influence is on them, I cannot answer.

You’ve said in past interviews that you and your government have made mistakes in the course of the war. What are those mistakes? Is there anything that you regret?
Every government, every person, makes mistakes, so that’s again self-evident; it’s a given. But if you want to talk about political mistakes, you have to ask yourself, what are the major decisions that you took since the crisis started? We took three main decisions: First of all, to be open to all dialogue. Second, we changed the constitution and the law according to what many in the opposition were saying, allegedly, that this is the reason of the crisis. Third, we took the decision to defend our country, to defend ourself, to fight terrorists. So I don’t think those three decisions can be described as wrong or mistakes. If you want to talk about practice, any official in any place can make mistakes, but there’s a difference between practice mistakes and policy mistakes.

Can you describe some of the practical mistakes?
I would have to go back to officials on the ground; there’s nothing in my mind. I would rather talk about policies.

Do you feel there have been any policy mistakes that you’re responsible for?
I mentioned the major decisions.

But you said those are not mistakes.
To defend the country from terrorism? If I wanted to say that it’s a mistake, then to be correct would be to support the terrorists.

I’m just wondering if there’s anything you did that you wish in retrospect you had done differently.
Regarding these three main decisions, they were correct, and I am confident about this.

In terms of lower-level practical mistakes, are people being held accountable, say, for human rights abuses, for the excessive use of force, or the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, those kinds of things?
Yes. Some people were detained because they breached the law in that regard, and that happens of course in such circumstances.

In terms of their treatment of civilians or protesters, is that what you’re referring to?
Yes, during the protests at the very beginning, yes.

Since the United States began its air campaign against the Islamic State, Syria and the United States have become strange kinds of partners and are effectively cooperating in that aspect of the fight. Do you see the potential for increased cooperation with the United States?
Yes, the potential is definitely always there, because we’ve been talking about or asking for international cooperation against terrorism for 30 years. But this potential needs will. The question that we have is, how much will does the United States have to really fight terrorism on the ground? So far, we haven’t seen anything concrete in spite of the attacks on ISIS in northern Syria. There’s nothing concrete. What we’ve seen so far is just, let’s say, window-dressing, nothing real. Since the beginning of these attacks, ISIS has gained more land in Syria and Iraq.

What about the air strikes on Kobani? Those have been effective in slowing down ISIS.
Kobani is a small city, with about 50,000 inhabitants. It’s been more than three months since the beginning of the attacks, and they haven’t finished. Same areas, same al Qaeda factions occupying them—the Syrian army liberated in less than three weeks. It means they’re not serious about fighting terrorism.

So are you saying you want greater U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS?
It’s not about greater involvement by the military, because it’s not only about the military; it’s about politics. It’s about how much the United States wants to influence the Turks. Because if the terrorists can withstand the air strikes for this period, it means that the Turks keep sending them armaments and money. Did the United States put any pressure on Turkey to stop the support of al Qaeda? They didn’t; they haven’t. So it’s not only about military involvement. This is first. Second, if you want to talk about the military involvement, American officials publicly acknowledge that without troops on the ground, they cannot achieve anything concrete. Which troops on the grounds are you depending on?

So are you suggesting there should be U.S. troops on the ground?
Not U.S. troops. I’m talking about the principle, the military principle. I’m not saying American troops. If you want to say I want to make war on terrorism, you have to have troops on the ground. The question you have to ask the Americans is, which troops are you going to depend on? Definitely, it has to be Syrian troops. This is our land; this is our country. We are responsible. We don’t ask for American troops at all.

So what would you like to see from the United States? You mentioned more pressure on Turkey …
Pressure on Turkey, pressure on Saudi Arabia, pressure on Qatar to stop supporting the rebels. Second, to make legal cooperation with Syria and start by asking permission from our government to make such attacks. They didn’t, so it’s illegal.

I’m sorry, I’m not clear on that point. You want them to make legal … ?
Of course, if you want to make any kind of action in another country, you ask their permission.

I see. So a formal agreement between Washington and Damascus to allow for air strikes?
The format we can discuss later, but you start with permission. Is it an agreement? Is it a treaty? That’s another issue.

And would you be willing to take steps to make cooperation easier with Washington?
With any country that is serious about fighting terrorism, we are ready to make cooperation, if they’re serious.

What steps would you be prepared to make to show Washington that you’re willing to cooperate?
I think they are the ones who have to show the will. We are already fighting on the ground; we don’t have to show that.

The United States is currently training 5,000 Syrian fighters who are scheduled to enter Syria in May. Now, U.S. General John Allen has been very careful to say that these troops will not be directed at the Syrian government, but will be focused on ISIS alone. What will you do when these troops enter the country? Will you allow them to enter? Will you attack them?
Any troops that don’t work in cooperation with the Syrian army are illegal and should be fought. That’s very clear.

Even if this brings you into conflict with the United States?
Without cooperation with Syrian troops, they are illegal, and are puppets of another country, so they are going to be fought like any other illegal militia fighting against the Syrian army. But that brings another question, about those troops. Obama said that they are a fantasy. How did fantasy become reality?

I think with this kind of training program.
But you can’t make extremism moderate.

There are still some moderate members of the opposition. They are weaker and weaker all the time, but I think the U.S. government is trying very carefully to ensure that the fighters it trains are not radicals.
But the question is, why is the moderate opposition—if you call them opposition; we call them rebels—why are they weaker and weaker? They are still weaker because of developments in the Syrian crisis. Bringing 5,000 from the outside will make most of them defect and join ISIS and other groups, which is what happened during the last year. So that’s why I said it’s still illusory. It is not the 5,000 that are illusory but the idea itself that is illusory.

Part of what makes Washington so reluctant to cooperate with you more formally are the allegations of serious human rights abuses by your government. These allegations aren’t just from the U.S. government; they are also from the UN Human Rights Commission, the independent Special Investigative Commission of the UN. You are familiar with these allegations, I’m sure. They include denying access for relief groups to refugee camps, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, photo evidence provided by the defector code-named Caesar, who made a presentation to the U.S. Congress showing terrible torture and abuse in Syrian prisons. Are you prepared to take action on these issues in order to make cooperation with the United States easier?
The funny thing about this administration is that it’s the first one in history to build its evaluation and later decisions on social media. We call it a social media administration, which is not politics. None of these allegations you mentioned are concrete; all of them are allegations. You can bring photos from anyone and say this is torture. Who took the pictures? Who is he? Nobody knows. There is no verification of any of this evidence, so it’s all allegations without evidence.

But Caesar’s photos have been looked at by independent European investigators.
No, no. It’s funded by Qatar, and they say it’s an anonymous source. So nothing is clear or proven. The pictures are not clear which person they show. They’re just pictures of a head, for example, with some skulls. Who said this is done by the government, not by the rebels? Who said this is a Syrian victim, not someone else? For example, photos published at the beginning of the crisis were from Iraq and Yemen. Second, the United States in particular and the West in general are in no position to talk about human rights. They are responsible for most of the killings in the region, especially the United States after getting into Iraq, and the United Kingdom after invading Libya, and the situation in Yemen, and what happened in Egypt in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorism in Tunisia. All these problems happened because of the United States. They were the first ones to trample international law and Security Council resolutions, not us.

That may or may not be true, but those are separate issues, and that does not absolve your government of responsibility.
No, no. The United States accused, so we have to answer that part. I’m not saying if there’s any human rights breach or infringement, the government has no responsibility. That is another issue. The second part of your question is about the allegations. They’re still allegations. If you want me to answer, I have to answer about something that is concrete, proved, and verified.

Are you prepared to categorically deny that there’s torture and abuse of prisoners in Syria?
If there’s any unbiased and fair way to verify all those allegations, of course we are ready. That would be in our interest.

What impact would a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal have on Syria?
Nothing, because the crisis here was never part of the negotiations, and Iran refused to make it such. And that is correct, because there is no link between the two.

But many in the United States anticipate that if Iran and the United States strike a deal, it will make cooperation between the two countries much easier. People therefore wonder if Iran might decide to reduce its support for Syria as a favor to the U.S. government.
We have never had any positive information about such a thing, never. I cannot discuss something which I don’t have any information about.

Describe whether you think the war is going well from the government’s perspective. Independent analysts have suggested that your government currently controls 45 to 50 percent of the territory of Syria.
First of all, if you want to describe the arena—it’s not a war between two countries, between two armies where you have an incursion and you lost some territory that you want to regain. It’s not like this. We’re talking about rebels that infiltrate areas inhabited by civilians. You have Syrian terrorists that support foreign terrorists to come and hide among civilians. They launch what you call guerrilla attacks. That is the shape of this war, so you cannot look at it as being about territory. Second, wherever the Syrian army has wanted to go, it has succeeded. But the Syrian army cannot have a presence on every kilometer of Syrian territory. That’s impossible. We made some advances in the past two years. But if you want to ask me, “Is it going well?” I say that every war is bad, because you always lose, you always have destruction in a war. The main question is, what have we won in this war? What we won in this war is that the Syrian people have rejected the terrorists; the Syrian people support their government more; the Syrian people support their army more. Before talking about winning territory, talk about winning the hearts and minds and the support of the Syrian people. That’s what we have won. What’s left is logistical; it’s technical. That is a matter of time. The war is moving in a positive way. But that doesn’t mean you’re not losing on the national level. Because you lose lives, you lose infrastructure; the war itself has very bad social effects.

Do you think you will eventually defeat the rebels militarily?
If they don’t have external support, and no, let’s say, supply and recruitment of new terrorists within Syria, there will be no problem defeating them. Even today we don’t have a problem militarily. The problem is that they still have this continuous supply, mainly from Turkey.

So Turkey seems to be the neighbor that you’re most concerned about?
Exactly. Logistically, and about terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but through Turkey.

Do you blame Erdogan personally? This is a man you once had a fairly good relationship with.
Yes. Because he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which is the base of al Qaeda; it was the first political Islamic organization that promoted violent political Islam in the early twentieth century. He belongs strongly and is a staunch believer in these values. He’s very fanatical, and that’s why he still supports ISIS. He is personally responsible for what happened.

Do you see any other potential partners in the region? For example, General el-Sisi in Egypt?
I wouldn’t talk about him personally, but as long as Egypt and the Egyptian army and the government are fighting the same kind of terrorists as in Iraq, of course, we can consider these countries eligible to cooperate with in fighting the same enemy.

Two final questions, if I may. Can you imagine a scenario in which Syria returns to the status quo as it was before the fighting started almost four years ago?
In what sense?

In the sense that Syria is whole again, it is not divided, it controls its borders, it starts to rebuild, and it is at peace and a predominantly secular country.
If you look at a military map now, the Syrian army exists in every corner. Not every place; by every corner, I mean north, south, east, west, and between. If you didn’t believe in a unified Syria, that Syria can go back to its previous position, you wouldn’t send the army there, as a government. If you don’t believe in this as a people, you would have seen people in Syria isolated into different ghettos based on ethnic and sectarian or religious identity. As long as this is not the situation, the people live with each other; the army is everywhere; the army is made up of every color of Syrian society, or the Syrian fabric. This means that we all believe Syria should go back to the way it was. We don’t have any other option, because if it doesn’t go back to its previous position, that will affect every surrounding country. It’s one fabric—it’s a domino effect that will have influence from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

If you were able to deliver a message to President Obama today, what would it be?
I think the normal thing that you ask any official in the world is to work for the interests of his people. And the question I would ask any American is, what do you get from supporting terrorists in our country, in our region? What did you get from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood a few years ago in Egypt and other countries? What did you get from supporting someone like Erdogan? One of the officials from your country asked me seven years ago in Syria at the end of a meeting, “How do you think we can solve the problem in Afghanistan?” I told him, “You have to be able to deal with officials who are not puppets, who can tell you no.” So for the United States, only looking for puppet officials and client states is not how you can serve the interests of your country. You are the greatest power in the world now; you have too many things to disseminate around the world: knowledge, innovation, IT, with its positive repercussions. How can you be the best in these fields yet the worst in the political field? This is a contradiction. That is what I think the American people should analyze and question. Why do you fail in every war? You can create war, you can create problems, but you cannot solve any problem. Twenty years of the peace process in Palestine and Israel, and you cannot do anything with this, in spite of the fact that you are a great country.

But in the context of Syria, what would a better policy look like?
One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after more than 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society, like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power.

Europe turns Left as Greece breaks all records

Europe turns Left as Greece breaks all records


failed revolution

A historical moment for Greece and Europe
by system failure
Greece lives historical moments. For the first time, a Leftist party is close to govern the country and its leader will be the youngest prime minister in the history of the country. SYRIZA leader, Alexis Tsipras, was born in 28 July of 1974, only four days after the fall of the military junta in Greece.
In case that SYRIZA will manage to form government eventually, Tsipras will be also the first prime minister born after the end of the military junta, in a 40-year period where the only parties that governed Greece were New Democracy and PASOK. Tsipras represents a whole generation of Greeks, born in the early 70s and lived under New Democracy and PASOK governments so far. Undoubtedly, we are talking about a radical change in the Greek political scene after 40 years.
It seems that the first scenario is the most probable as described: “SYRIZA forms an autonomous government, or, a coalition with the help of the parties of the anti-austerity front. It will be the worse scenario for the global financial mafia as it could trigger an “uncontrolled” general rise of the Left in Europe. In this case, the banking-media dictatorship in Greece will declare war against the new government, try to destabilize it, and throw it from power as soon as possible. […] Especially in the case of scenario 1, the ECB will blackmail the government by threatening that will not purchase government bonds, therefore cut liquidity, in case that Greece choose a different path towards the reconstruction of the social state and labor rights, bringing minimum wage at pre-crisis levels, etc.” (
Unfortunately, the marginal win of SYRIZA makes things more easy for those who will fight strongly against the Leftist party, aiming to throw it from power as soon as possible. Things would be better if the win of SYRIZA would be bigger, giving a wide majority in the Greek parliament.
However, in case that SYRIZA manage to survive from the war and remain ideologically faithful to its principles, it may become an example for Europe and drive other Leftist governments to power. This is a historical chance for Europe to change course and fight against destructive neoliberalism.
Already mentioned that “The mobilization by the global financial mafia this time will be more intense, as its representatives know that a potential Leftist government in Greece who may strongly resist against the austerity policies, could trigger an ‘uncontrolled’ domino rise of the Leftist powers in Europe, who will fight against the neoliberal agenda. Make no mistake, the war will be hard. But there is no alternative. Either the European people will choose to fight determined and united, or, will be surrendered to the plutocrats who will bring the new Dark Ages. The ‘Battle of Greece’ will be decisive …” (
European people have won a decisive battle in Greece, but they must fight harder now to win the war.

US Army Trains World Army To Fight the War for “Pax America”


–the Pentagon Trains the World Armies To Fight the Phantom Threats
–Which we create

ukraine trainingUS Trainers To Deploy To Ukraine

Also Will Begin Shipment of US-funded Armored Vehicles


U.S. Army Africa sponsors African Deployment Partnership Training in Benin/></a></td><br />
                          <td width=U.S. Army Africa sponsors African Deployment Partnership Training in Benin


(Jan. 15, 2015) Marine Maj. Christopher Ross, an infantry officer with the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, looks on as Iraqi army soldiers practice maneuver techniques at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq. Ross is working with Iraq Army officers and noncommisioned officers to develop advanced training for Iraqi army recruits. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. William White)U.S. Troops headed to Syria to aid fight against ISIS


97814 fullUS military returns to Iraq 3 years after withdrawing


brits training peshmergaBritish Army Training The Peshmerga In Northern Iraq


Sweden is home to some 100,000 Kurdish immigrants

Sweden to send military trainers to Kurdistan

“ISIS” Fighters In Standard Issue “Desert Storm” Boots and Fatigues


Under Sec/Def Michael Vickers Hints At Major Intelligence Leap On the Horizon

[VICKERS:US maintains intelligence relationship with Houthis  (THEY ARE ANTI-AL-QAIDA)]

Vickers: Defense Intelligence Enterprise Poised for Historic Transition


By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2015 – The defense intelligence enterprise faces unprecedented geopolitical challenges and technological change and at the same time is poised for its most significant transformation in decades, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers said today.

Click photo for screen-resolution image
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers discussed intelligence in a dynamic world today at the Atlantic Council. DoD file photo by Claudette Roulo.

(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

He expects the transition to posture future U.S. leaders with the capabilities they’ll need to deal with emerging challenges, Vickers said during a discussion on intelligence in a dynamic world this morning at the Atlantic Council.

Today, he noted, the challenges include everything from instability across the broader Middle East and North Africa, sectarian conflict, and wars that end only to begin again, to cyber threats increasing in range and sophistication, and threats to space systems.

The challenges extend to proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems in North Korea and Iran, Russia’s challenge to the European order through proxy war and to the West through information warfare and the development of advanced systems, and the continued rise of China.

Defense Intelligence Transformation

Vickers said the transformation “is something I hope will be one of the hallmarks of my tenure as under secretary of defense for intelligence.”

On the importance of intelligence to national security, the under secretary said intelligence is a major source of U.S. advantage.

“It’s our first line of defense for warning, particularly given the array of global threats we face. It informs policy — every National Security Council meeting we have begins with intelligence briefings,” he added.

Intelligence increasingly drives operations and gives the president “additional options in between force and diplomacy, sometimes with very high leverage,” Vickers said, “and it helps prevent strategic surprise.”

Looking out at America’s next decade, he added, “there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic … but there are lots of storm clouds internationally.”

An Aggregation of Challenges

The biggest challenge to the nation and the intelligence community, the under secretary said, is in the aggregation of challenges.

“It’s not that any one challenge is so daunting,” Vickers added, “it’s that there are six of them that are all diverse, significant, likely to be enduring, they have high asymmetric qualities, and some of them, like cyber, are rather novel and we’re just developing the capabilities we need to deal with them.”

Vickers described the five areas that cover major elements of the defense intelligence transformation, beginning with global coverage, which he said provides the backbone of the defense intelligence system.

“We’ve made significant improvements in our overhead architecture in the past decade and there are even bigger changes to come in the next decade,” he said, adding that he couldn’t go into the details.

Global Coverage

But, Vickers added, “those changes will provide much greater persistence than we have today, much greater integration in terms of the system of systems, and much greater resilience — all important attributes given the importance of our space systems and the threats to them.”

Also in terms of global coverage, he said the department must continue investing in advanced cryptanalytic systems and strengthening its strategic human intelligence capabilities.

“The Department of Defense has invested a lot in the past couple of decades on our tactical and operational HUMINT capabilities, and now we’re reforming our strategic capabilities distributed around the globe,” he added.

Anti-Access/Area Denial

The second area involves working in part with the larger Department of Defense on projecting power into denied areas, “or what we call anti-access/area denial environments, our most significant power-projection challenge,” Vickers explained.

“At one level this is not new, if you go back to U-2 [spy planes] and the advent of satellites. It’s just more modern forms,” he added. “But in addition to systems it’s integration among various systems and the development of new processes in terms of being able to fight in that environment — to find, fix and finish adversary systems.”

The third area is counterterrorism, Vickers said, adding, “We’re not only sustaining but expanding our counterterrorism capabilities, extending the range and the number of our systems while we continue to improve the sensors that give us high fidelity targeting capabilities and multiple intelligence systems.”

Cyber Mission Forces

Cyber mission forces are the fourth area, he said, and the department “is about two-thirds of the way done with [building] cyber mission forces to defend the nation against a major cyber attack, to support the operations of our combatant commanders, and to defend DoD’s networks.”

Vickers added, “We still have some work to do in this area in terms of building the intelligence infrastructure to support these operational forces, but we’re fairly well along.”

The final area involves fighting back against insider threats by modernizing the security system though something called continuous evaluation — a change in how the department does security clearance investigations, he said.

Intent of the Transformation

“It will take some years to implement, but if you think of something like credit checks where you’re constantly updating them, it’s the same basic logic. And we’re strengthening our insider-threat systems within the department and the intelligence community,” the under secretary said.

The intent of the transformation “is not just to deal with the challenges we face and to make sure we sustain the intelligence advantage for our policymakers and operators decades into the future,” Vickers said.

“It’s also to inform and enable some of the new strategic and operational approaches that will be required to deal with these challenges,” he added.

(Follow Cheryl Pellerin on Twitter @PellerinDoDNews)

Contact AuthorBiographies:
Michael G. Vickers


Terrorist Attack On Saudi/Iraqi Border Takes-Out Saudi General In Charge of Border Security

[The alleged ISIS attackers took-out the Saudi General in charge of Iraq border security, possibly the intended target.]

Arar border attack carried out by Saudi ISIS members: sources


Three Saudis and four Syrians are being held in connection with the border attack

File photo shows image of Mamdouh Al-Mutairi (L) and Abdullah Al-Shammari who carried out the attack on Arar border crossing. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat—A deadly attack on Saudi border guards along the Saudi-Iraqi frontier this week was carried out by Saudi members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seeking to cross back into the Kingdom undetected, security sources told Asharq Al-Awsat.

This comes as the Saudi Interior Ministry confirmed that at least three of the four attackers were Saudi nationals. The identities of the three Saudi attackers have been revealed as Mamdouh Al-Mutairi, Abdulrahman Al-Shamrani and Abdullah Al-Shammari. The identity of a fourth attacker, who detonated an explosive belt after being captured, remains unknown.

The attack resulted in the deaths of three Saudi border guards, including commanding officer Gen. Oudah Al-Belawi, and all four attackers. The four men were seeking to infiltrate Saudi territory from Iraq on Monday and were confronted by Saudi border guards close to Arar, capital of the Northern Borders Province.

In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said that the three Saudi nationals left the Kingdom separately in 2013 and that Mutairi was previously arrested for having ties to Al-Qaeda but was released on bail.

Turki also revealed that Abdullah Al-Shammari was the brother of Mutlaq Al-Shammari, a terrorist killed in an exchange of fire with security forces in Mecca in 2006.

Security forces seized automatic weapons, hand grenades and explosive belts, including Iraqi and Syrian bank notes, at the scene of the attack.

The Saudi Interior Ministry on Friday announced that three Saudi nationals and four Syrian nationals had been arrested in Arar in connection with the attack.

“Security investigations with the seven suspects will uncover whether they had any intention to carry out terrorist operations, as well as any other people who might have connections to the attackers,” Turki said.

“At this time, we cannot rule out if they were going to aid and assist the attackers to infiltrate Arar,” he added.

Security sources, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, said that the seven suspects were arrested following information obtained from cell phones that the attackers had been carrying.

The sources also claimed that both Mutairi and Shammari were on the Saudi no-fly list but had managed to sneak out of the country illegally, making their way to Syria where they joined ISIS.

Investigations into the deadly attack, and any ties that the attackers have inside and outside the Kingdom, are ongoing, Turki said.

The official Saudi Press Agency, quoting an Interior Ministry spokesman, confirmed that the attackers were members of the “deviant” group. Official statements have traditionally described Al-Qaeda in such terms, although Riyadh has since expanded the expression to include ISIS.

Remember When There Was A Commie Under Every Bed?–those days are back

As usual, Hollywood is actively assisting the latest fraud to be perpetuated upon the American people, a false revival of the anti-communist “malaria” from the Reagan era, which normally prevails in the brainwashed sheep.  Hollywood has been providing entertainment and audio/visual support to the various fascist administrations who have followed the path of world aggression since at least, WWII.
Their latest task is to vilify Putin and everything Russian, in support of the drive towards WWIII.


The Americans Centers on Russian sleepers operating in the United States in the 1980s.


Allegiance Series Trailer – New TV Series 2015

A rookie CIA analyst doesn’t know that members of his family are part of a Russian sleeper cell.

Yemen president quits, US Prepares To Withdraw Its Destabilization Forces

[US NAVY prepositions amphibious ships for impending evacuation of US personnel from embassies and God knows what (SEE: Amphibious ships positioned closer to Yemen).]

1421951975417696000-(1).jpgYemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi

Yemen president quits, throwing country deeper into chaos



(Reuters) – Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi resigned on Thursday, just days after Houthi rebels battled their way into his presidential palace, plunging the unstable Arab country deeper into chaos and depriving Washington of a key ally against al Qaeda.

Hadi, a former general, blamed the Houthis’ control of Sanaa for impeding his two-year-long attempt to steer Yemen toward stability after years of secessionist and tribal unrest, deepening poverty and U.S. drone strikes on Islamist militants.

The announcement startled the Arabian Peninsula country of 25 million, where the Iran-backed Houthis emerged as the dominant faction by seizing the capital in September and dictating terms to a humiliated Hadi.

“This is a coup,” said Ahmed al-Fatesh, a hotel security supervisor, suggesting Hadi had been bullied from office. “The Houthis took power by force. Hadi is a legitimate president and was elected by more than 6 million Yemenis. Hadi tried to bring the political forces together.”

The Houthi movement said it had no official reaction as yet to Hadi’s resignation, but urged Yemenis to stage mass rallies to show their support on Friday afternoon.

A statement urged the army to “uphold” its responsibilities and called on Houthi fighters to be on alert.

Hadi, who has led a United Nations-mandated bid to make political reforms and bury the autocracy and graft of the past, stood down shortly after Prime Minister Khaled Bahah had offered his government’s resignation, saying it did not want to be dragged into “an unconstructive political maze”.

This was a reference to a standoff between Hadi and the Shi’ite Muslim Houthi movement which this week has been holding the president a virtual prisoner in his official residence.

“We apologize to you personally and to the honorable chamber and to the Yemeni people after we reached a dead end,” a government spokesman quoted Hadi’s resignation letter as saying.

It was addressed to the speaker of parliament, who becomes interim head of state under the Yemeni constitution.

Sultan al-Atwani, one of Hadi’s advisors, told Reuters he had resigned after pressure and threats from the Houthis. He also said parliament would meet on Saturday to decide whether to accept or reject it.

The official Saba news agency said there would be an emergency meeting of parliament on Sunday.

Late on Thursday, Houthi fighters took up positions around the parliament building, residents say.

In the southern city of Aden, unidentified gunmen attacked two military armored vehicles in the early hours of Friday, two local officials told Reuters. Three explosions were heard in Aden during the attack, which was followed by the clashes, said one of the officials, who declined to be identified.

The departure of Hadi, a southerner, has caused anger in Aden, a key port city where officials reacted by telling security officers to only obey orders issued in Aden, an implicit snub to institutions in the north, where Sanaa is.

Earlier in the week, Aden closed its ports briefly in protest against Houthi militia attacks on state institutions in Sanaa, calling them an “aggressive coup on the president personally and on the political process as a whole”.

Hadi’s decision marked an abrupt turnaround from Wednesday, when he said he was ready to accept Houthi demands for a bigger stake in constitutional and political arrangements.


That announcement had appeared to ease differences between him and the Houthis, whose rise to power places predominantly-Sunni Yemen within the wider sectarian struggle fought by proxies of Saudi Arabia and Iran in parts of the Middle East.

The Houthis’ defeat of the presidential guards had already added to disarray in a country where the United States is also carrying out drone strikes against one of the most powerful branches of al Qaeda.

The rebels’ rise has resulted in a shift in Yemen’s complex tribal, religious and regional allegiances.

Suspecting Iranian complicity, the Sunni Muslim authorities in Riyadh cut most of their financial aid to Yemen after the Houthis’ takeover of the capital.

In central Yemen, local tribesmen said they were pushing back Houthi fighters in Marib province, which produces half of Yemen’s oil and more than half of its electricity.

The local branch of al Qaeda has responded to the Houthis’ ascent by attacking their forces as well as state, military and intelligence targets.

As Zaydis, a Shi’ite Muslim sect, the Houthis oppose the hardline Sunni Islamists of al Qaeda. However, the Houthis’ assaults on the militants risk raising sectarian feelings in Yemen.

Before Hadi quit, clusters of Houthi fighters were dotted around the perimeter of the presidential palace on Thursday. At Hadi’s residence, sentry points normally manned by presidential guards were empty, while a group of Houthis with an army vehicle were parked at a main entrance.

(Additional reporting by Mostafa Hashem in Cairo, Mohammed Mokhashaf in Aden and Doina Chiacu in Washington; writing by Sami Aboudi and William Maclean; editing by Raissa Kasolowsky, G Crosse, David Stamp and Anna Willard)


Zionist King of Saudi Arabia Finally Goes To Hell

 zionist king ZIONIST KING

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah dies

(CNN)Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud has died, according to an announcement on Saudi state TV. He was 90.

The next king will be Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz, state television reported early Friday.

The announcement of his death comes several weeks after the state-run Saudi Press Agency said Abdullah was suffering from pneumonia and had been admitted to the hospital.

Gazprom to build LNG plant on the Baltic Sea

lng plant

Russia’s Gazprom to build LNG plant on the Baltic Sea



Jan 22 (Reuters) – Russia’s Gazprom said on Thursday it would build a liquefied natural gas plant with an annual capacity of up to 15 million tonnes on the Baltic Sea.

Gazprom, the world’s biggest conventional gas producer, said in a statement the plant would be built near the port of Ust-Luga. (Reporting by Katya Golubkova, editing by Elizabeth Piper)


The Vulture Oil Companies Are Abandoning the Search In Cyprus


[SEE:  Cyprus–No Exploitable Quantities of Hydrocarbons Found So Far ]

Total Oil has struck-out in Blocks 10 and 11 of the Cyprus EEZ.  Italian-South Korean consortium ENI/KOGAS previously came up dry in Block 9, both outfits choosing to drill on either side of Block 12, the location of the Aphrodite gas field, which is adjacent to the Leviathan and Tamar finds.  Turkey has issued a NAVTEX warning which is mostly in Block 8 (SEE BELOW)

NAVTEX 016 15

Maybe now the Vulture Capitalists will pull-up stakes and go torment some other poor Nation.

cyprus block 10, 11

How Yemen Is Making ISIS and al-Qaeda Even More Dangerous

 How Yemen Is Making ISIS and al-Qaeda Even More Dangerous

fiscal times

The Fiscal Times

October 29, 2014

Last month, while the world was busy watching ISIS advance to the Syrian city of Kobani, Houthi rebels seized control of Yemeni capital Sana’a. The Houthis are a religious Zaidi Shia movement with an armed wing, similar to the Sadr movement in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. As the rebels continued their advance, 250 people were killed last weekend in clashes between the rebels and a tribe allied with al-Qaeda.

Experts say the Houthi advance into Sana’a and beyond is a further sign Yemen is descending into a sectarian civil war that will only add to the instability in the Middle East — and could ultimately provide a stronger base for al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as a common enemy that may bring those two terror groups together.

“All the ingredients for a civil war in Yemen are amassed and merging: a fragile government, a divided society, regional rivalry, a history of violence, etc. Furthermore, the Houthi rebels in recent weeks extended their control of areas that are far from their popular base,” said Massaab Al-Aloosy, a Middle Eastern Affairs analyst and former researcher at the World Peace Foundation in Massachusetts.

The U.S. has waged a decade-long drone war in Yemen, but a civil war in the country could raise the risks to the U.S. homeland.

The developments in Yemen echo Iraq in 2006 and 2014 and Syria in 2012, where the Sunni population felt threatened by dominant Shiite militias, creating a receptive hub for the terror groups.

Al-Qaeda in Yemen — now called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) after merging with al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia — is already considered the most dangerous terrorist organization to the U.S. The last several attempts to attack the U.S. were conducted by its operatives, or by people who were inspired by its leaders. The U.S. has waged a decade-long drone war in Yemen, but a civil war in the country could raise the risks to the U.S. homeland.

Among those risks, the current escalation in sectarian violence in Yemen may lead to more al-Qaeda cooperation with ISIS to fight the common Shiite enemy. “I think it is very possible for al-Qaeda to work with ISIS and even with Al Islah Party (the Muslim Brotherhood) to defeat Houthis, not only because it makes sense — they share the same enemy — but because Mohammed Al-Yadomi, leader of Al-Islah party declared the upcoming emergence of ISIS in Yemen and demanded political forces in Yemen to welcome ISIS,” said Ghada Al-Wazeer, a Yemeni American and the former Yemen coordinator at MasterPeace, an international organization based in Cairo that promotes peace in conflict zones.

Some experts think that an ISIS-AQAP alliance has already been formed. “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula recently expressed support for fighters in Iraq and Syria against attacks by the U.S.-led coalition,” says Jasmine Opperman, a researcher at the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium in Florida. “Of greater significance is that AQAP also called for unity as to enable a united front and in the statement referred to IS fighters as ‘brothers.’ This statement tells us that cooperation in Yemen against a common enemy is already at play and to include the U.S. coalition attacks in the statement is the ideal opportunity to call for unity that will justify cooperation within Yemen.”

“The U.S. and the West are faced with a unified jihadist threat that has a capacity not seen before in the history of terrorism. Yemen truly provides the key to this new threat.”

Such cooperation could also result in an even more significant terrorist threat to the U.S. “The U.S. and the West, as well as those living inside the region, are faced with a unified jihadist threat that has a capacity and a reach of consolidated support not seen before in the history of terrorism. Yemen truly provides the key to this new threat,” says Opperman.

Experts portray the increasing sectarian violence in Yemen as part of the larger divide that is currently tearing the Middle East apart. The Houthis have been involved in a decade-long insurgency in northern Yemen, where the population of 25 million is roughly 60 percent Sunnis and 40 percent Shiites. Both sects have ruled the country at times throughout the last 14 centuries.

“It is essential to understand strategically how the map of the Middle East is being redrawn by sectarian violence,” says Professor Colette Mazzucelli of New York University, who specializes in Middle Eastern affairs. “As the Shia Houthi expand their control of Yemen’s territory further south, the Houthi alignment with Tehran, Damascus, Baghdad, and Hezbollah poses a threat to an area dominated by Sunnis. The potential for a clash between the Houthi militants and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is rising, which could plunge Yemen into sectarian civil war.”

Some say the country is already there. Ghada Al-Wazeer, the Yemeni American, is one of them. “Current events in Yemen all come under what we call a civil war,” she says.

“AQAP members are fighting alongside Sunnis under the name ‘Sunni tribes’ in Ibb, Rada’a, Dhamar and Al Bayda to defeat Houthis. The suicide bombing which killed at least 50 people in Sana’a during the Houthi rally also makes the existence of a civil war undeniable. These groups are all oriented along sectarian lines and aim to seize control through violence and armed rebellion. This alone increases the chances of more conflict,” Al-Wazeer said.

AQAP has started to extend its influence into new areas, forging new alliances with tribes also aligned against the Houthis.

Yemen has been in turmoil for years. In January 2011, a revolution broke out as part of the Arab Spring. The country’s youth rose up against former dictator Ali Abdullah Salih, who had ruled the country since 1978. Salih had allowed al-Qaeda to gain a foothold in the country as part of a strategy to hold onto power. A secular Shiite, Salih had used the Muslim Brotherhood, the tribes, his own party, and sometimes al-Qaeda against the Houthis in the north and the separatists in the south to ensure the continuity of his family’s reign.

That strategy couldn’t survive the upheaval of the Arab Spring. Salih stepped down in February 2012, ceding office to his vice president in return for immunity from prosecution. After the Salih government fell, establishing a governable peace was a primary goal for new President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. Hadi, a Sunni, held a national conference in March 2013 to bring all different factions to one table. In January 2014, they agreed to draft a new constitution that would make Yemen a federal country with more power to the provinces, in theory inclusive of all groups and encouraging their participation.

Difficult economic conditions thwarted those plans. In August 2014, the Yemeni government decided to lift its subsidies on fuel. With about half of Yemenis below the poverty line, the Houthi rebels protested the decision and advanced toward the capital, Sana’a. The rebels installed tents and arranged sit-ins, in addition to engaging the army in battles.

On September 21, the Houthis captured Sana’a with little resistance from the army, forcing the Hadi government to resign.

The advancing Houthi rebellion is shifting traditional alliances and leading to new ones. The rebels began targeting opponents in the ranks of the army, the Sunni tribes, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In return, Sunni tribes, the Brotherhood, and AQAP began fighting the Houthis together. The Houthis were also helped by supporters of former dictator Salih who still enjoys significant influence in the army and in politics, and were sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council for being an obstacle to democratic reform in Yemen.

As a result AQAP has started to extend its influence into new areas, forging new alliances with tribes also aligned against the Houthis, said Opperman.

As happened in Iraq and Syria before, the escalating sectarian violence in Yemen might increase the recruitment to al-Qaeda from the Middle East, Europe and other parts of the world. “The current fight in Yemen will re-align the leadership hierarchy of AQAP,” says Fernando Carvajal, a Yemeni affairs specialist at the University of Exeter (UK).

In 2011, AQAP and other groups established an umbrella organization called “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the supporters of Islamic Law. The organization sees Yemen as key to its future. “Ansar al-Sharia elements want to prioritize the fight in Yemen, not only to establish safehavens for the group but also to reposition themselves within the global jihadist movement. Framing the fight in Yemen as a sectarian war on apostates (Houthis) is part of the strategy to expose the work by the group internationally and gain world exposure,” Carvajal says.

“If the spiritual leader of Ansar al-Sharia, Ma’moon Abdulhamid Hatem, manages to lead a successful campaign against the Houthis, it will contribute to his public persona and become a new center of gravity for jihadists.”

THE REAL DEAL–Rafiq Hariri Assassination

Political Assassination

crime scene 1

Crime of the Century

crime scene 2

The Candor Operation

Six Weeks prior to the Murder of  President Rafik Al Hariri


Most of the operations of political assassination and big crimes are planned in a manner that meant to be never revealed or discovered, such as: John Kennedy, Akino, September 11, Yasser Araffat, Rafik Al-Hariri, etc.

Who killed Rafik Al-Hariri?

Ugine Goldman, the Director of the Planning Unit of the C.I.A Supreme Council; Daniel Iceberg, the specialist in uncovering Pentagon secret information & Michael Shober, the anti-terrorist officer in the C.I.A, reveal to us the truth of what happened

American & Israeli Motivations for Political Assassinations in the Middle East:l


  1. After the occupation of Iraq, and following the issuance of UN on Sept 2, 2004, Decree (resolution) 1559, the idea of political assassination was revived in the Middle East through the Israeli Intelligence Agency

    It prepared playing cards with the personalities to be assassinated which included: Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, President Emil Lahoud, President Rafik Al-Hariri, President Yasser Arafat, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, among others. The top card, ace heart, carried the photo of Rafik AlHariri. Next to his photo they wrote the most wanted. Followed by in these play cards; came the politician Ely Habekah whose photo was crossed out, for he was already assassinated in 2002. In this plan; on the electronic site, the American extreme rightist writer, Richard Pearl, and the political commentator, Daniel Pipes participated in collaboration with the Israeli Military Establishment.

  2. This idea was adopted by the Israeli Mossad, then Sharon miniature council of ministers and then C.I.A followed suit.


  3. The idea of political assassination was next blessed and approved by Bush Administration Security Council, since it lent support to the American New Middle East Project which is based upon introducing changes in the demography and geography of the Middle East through chaos, turmoil, uprisings and civil and sectarian fights between Sunnis and Shiites at first then between the other sects and minorities in the Middle East as well, and also through the formation of several weak and puppet political entities in the Middle East, beginning with Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine then extending to other Middle Eastern countries as well, in order to achieve two aims : first, to establish full and direct geographic and political control over the Middle Eastern oil; and second, to spread Israeli hegemony over the miniature divided countries in the Middle East. 

  4. From American perspective, the Syrian Army, situated in Lebanon, was a big obstacle in the face of launching chaos, turmoil and civil fight in this country.

  5. The Syrian government started to withdraw its forces from Lebanon in a radical way following the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. It carried out several withdrawals (six) and repositioned its forces on: June 14, 2001; April 3, 2002; February 19-25.2004; September 27, 2004; and finally on December 18, 2004. In the last withdrawal, and for the first time since 1976, Syria withdrew its intelligence forces out of Lebanon. Security road blocks in and near Beirut International Airport, in Beirut southern suburbs and in the northern coast of Betron city were removed. The withdrawal of the Syrian intelligence forces created a big security gap in Lebanon which led to the penetration of several intelligence Arabic and foreign agencies into Lebanon (American, Israeli, European, Jordan and Saudi). This in addition to the penetration of Al-Qaida Organization and its affiliates into Beirut then into southern and northern Lebanon. This security gap caused the decline and the endanger of security in Beirut and other Lebanese regions two months before Al-Hariri’s assassination. The consecutive withdrawals of the Syrian Army from the various Lebanese zones were in accordance with the recommendations of Al-Taif Conference on Lebanon.

  6. The Syrian opposition to the American occupation of Iraq and the non approval of the Syrian President of the American conditions advanced by the American Secretary of State, Colin Pawell, were two key factors for the American Administration to apply pressure on Syria with the aim of forcing it to withdraw its army from Lebanon; then isolate the Syrian administration; then establishing and supporting a Lebanese opposition to Syrian existence in Lebanon; then establishing and supporting a strong Sunni current to oppose the Shiite current represented by Hezbollah Party which poses a threat to the security of Israel through its missile force.

The Manipulation of the UN as a Tool in the New Middle East Project:

  1. In that context, it wasn’t foreseen to attack Syria militarily according to a decision the American Administration took in 2004, so they turned to the United Nations and its decrees and to the political and economic penalties as a means to isolate Syria, weaken it and destroy its regional influence represented: first, in Lebanon through Hezbollah and Amal. Second, Movement; in the occupied Palestinian territories through Hamas and the other Palestinian opposition parties; and third, in Iraq through its tribal and political weight

The United Nations, together with its Security Council, have been used as tools to exert pressure on Syria and Iran. This has been adopted after signing the agreement between Britain and the USA in alliance with France and Germany in the presence of Israel during 2003, after the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq which has been climaxed with the issuance of Decree 1559 on September 2, 2004,  and the decrees that followed.

2.The American Secretary of State, together with the American Embassy in Beirut, coordinated with some Lebanese personalities including Qorna Shahwan, who was received in Los Angeles; Michael Oun, who was received in Chicago; Patriarch Safeer, who was received in Washington; in addition to the Sunni current led by Rafik Al- Hariri, along with the Social Progressive Party led by Walid Jumblatt, all whom the Americans coordinated with during meetings in the American Embassy in Beirut. These events were followed by imposing the American penalties onSyria, and the adoption of Shalom Plan on which basis Decree 1559 was issued.

3.The “Pristol” opposition coalition was formed with the support and blessings of Rafik Al-Hariri to confront the Syrian support to extend President Emil Lahoud’s term, on Sept 3, 2004, for three additional years.

Picking the Political Assassination Victim in the New Middle East Project:

  1. President Rafik Al-Hariri disappointed first the American Administration, then the French one, by participating himself, his ministers and his Parliament members in the efforts to extend President Emil Lahoud’s term. 
  2. The non attendance of President Rafik Al-Hariri of the meetings of the Pristol opposition block; the certainty of his leaving the opposition; and his frequent and repeated encounters in December and January with Sheikh Hassan Nasr Allah, increased the outrage and fear of the American Administration. Therefore, the assassination process was accelerated, especially since Al-Hariri withdrew his support of the Pristol block, as he himself declared to the Lebanese Newspaper “Al Safir”. 
  3. Also the opposition of President Rafik Al-Hariri for the (Bechtel & Jacob) Project to build an American base in south Tripoli “Patron”, and his opposition to the construction of the largest American Embassy in the Middle East in Lebanon, again increased the outrage and fears of the American Administration. Accordingly, the C.I.A. excluded for the moment the idea of assassinating the Shiite Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah; given the difficulty of that task, and adopted instead the idea of eliminating the Sunni President Rafik Al-Hariri; for he was an easy target, and because that venture was more profitable from the point of view of its results and outcomes that help the realization of the New Middle East Project. 
  4. On Aug 29, 2004, the electronic site of “the American comity for freedom of Lebanon “, nicknamed Rafik Al-Hariri “the foremost  Lebanese  agent that  works for Syria.”
  5. The assassination of Al-Hariri was a decision taken by the American Administration and Sharon government. National Security Advisor Aide, Eliot Abrams, played a key role linking the White House and Sharon Intelligence offic

The C.I.A. (UN Branch) Plans for the Assassination of Rafik Al-Hariri:

  1. While the parliamentary committees were convening in Beirut, the C.I.A. (UN Branch) , made a terrestrial map and a satellite map for the district of San George, Venezia Intercontinental Hotel and the surrounding buildings in collaboration with the Israeli Mossad (Unit 504). Next, they determined the daily appointments, timings and meetings of Rafik AlHariri. The new UN Building (Alaskwa) comprising 8 floors with glass facades was used for monitoring Hariri’s movements from and to the Lebanese Parliament, including all roads and cross roads.

  2. The C.I.A doesn’t have the capabilities for carrying out such an operation without local Lebanese help. The Israeli Mossad offered such help through their agents in the disbanded Southern Lebanese Army (Israeli Assassination Unit 504) whom have been trained in Israel. 
  3. Despite the presence of those Lebanese elements who are loyal to the Mossad; such an operation must be carried in a suicidal manner that can’t be entrusted to those elements of the Mossad. Therefore, it was agreed to have the participation of some Lebanese and Palestinian elements of the “Nasra and Jihad” Group that makes part of “Gond AlSham” militia, centered around Saida, south Lebanon, in the district of Tammeer, Ein Al-Helwa, in order to carry out such suicidal operation. 
  4. President Rafik Al-Hariri, in the Sunni Religious Circles, is considered to represent Saudi Arabia in Lebanon. He was chosen with the approval of Syria. It is well known that Saudi Arabia opposes the Islamic extremists and it is at war with Al-Qaida Organization. In that context, the C.I.A. in the American Embassy in Riyadh, in collaboration with the Australian Intelligence Agency and the Saudi Security Forces, contacted Al-Oteebi (Saud Al-Oteebi, the head of Al-Qaida branch in Saudi Arabia) & Al-Ghamdi Cells in Mecca. This contact was made through two C.I.A elements of Lebanese origin and with a terrorist façade. The reason was to secure a meeting to be attended by Lebanese extremists carrying Australian passports who will visit Mecca for worship.  Planning and financing were made under the nomination of Al-Qaida. Next Al-Oteebi Cell was liquidated by the Saudi Security Forces and the F.B.I. The hardest venture for the American C.I.A. was to enlist Lebanese extremists in the assassination plan without being discovered later on. Accordingly, orders and executive steps remained piecemeal, vague and unclear without fixing time, place or target. Al-Oteebi, Gond AlSham and the Australian Lebanese extremists groups were all unaware of the common link between them and the American Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A). The Australian Lebanese extremists, who were seven persons, were accommodated in a flat in Beirut, four weeks before the operation, with the help of two elements (a Lebanese and a Palestinian) of Gond Al-Sham group in coordination also with Sheikh Al Gozo. 
  5. A Mitsubishi stolen truck was stolen and transported from Japan via UAE to Lebanon on October, 12, 2004. It was assembled by elements of the C.I.A in the American Embassy in Beirut, where it was equipped with several electronic devices that included: C-GUARD EXP device which is a special and counter jamming device; a thermometer; an electronic shocker; a specially developed mini navigator; a transceiver linked with the satellites via GPS-11; and a transceiver linked with unit 8200 AWACS Planes. The truck was next handed over to the Israeli Mossad. The connecting elements were always Lebanese working for the Mossad, under cover of the Federal Bureau Investigation (F.B.I) situated in the American Embassy in Beirut. 
  6. Three charges of T.N.T. mixed with phosphorus, having a destructive power of one ton, were transported at consecutive times, through a narrow passage in the Israeli mine fields, by Lebanese agents working for the Mossad whose chief directly supervised the operation together with Chief of the Intelligence of the Israeli Army, Mayer Daghan. The explosives were assembled, transported and handed over by the Mossad agents and elements of Gond Al-Sham group and the seven Australian Lebanese, in the district of Al Tameer, Saida, in a place beyond the control of the Lebanese army and Hezbollah security. 
  7. Two months after Syrian security withdrawals, and on day 17, Friday Jan 28, 2005, before his assassination, Rafik Al-Hariri was informed with the necessity of visiting Washington for consultation and coordination with the American Foreign Ministry and President Bush. The American Ambassador in Beirut asked President Rafik Al-Hariri to come over to the Embassy to arrange for the forthcoming meeting in Washington. On the day 13, on Tuesday Feb 1, 2005, before the assassination, President Rafik Al-Hariri visited the American Embassy in Beirut to meet the Ambassador Feldman and to have the diplomatic visa stamped on his passport for the entry of the USA. In an ordinary routine act, his cellular phone was taken from him upon his entry in the Embassy. During the meeting that lasted for one hour, AlHariri cell phone was bugged with a closed-circuit electronic chip and a navigator, thus AlHariri’s movements were monitored by the satellites and the Awacs. Also, the memory of Hariri’s cellular phone chip was copied in order to spy on the calls he  receives in order to know his movements in advance. Thus, Hariri’s movements became under control and monitoring, and completely clear unsecured. 
  8. The crime theater was monitored from the ground, from sea and from air by the satellites and the Awacs. 
  9. On Day 4 prior to Hariri’s  assassination (Thursday February 10, 2005), Terry Rod Larson (UN supreme emissary) warned Al Hariri of the bad situation and advised his to be cautious. The UN had appointed Larson to supervise the implementation of  the Security Council Resolution No. 1559. 
  10.  The assassination operation which was planned for on Friday February 11, 2005, was postponed for three days due to a misunderstanding between the Lebanese elements working for the Mossad and the Australian Lebanese elements, whom one of them would carry out the suicidal operation, and the operations center in the UN headquarters and the American Embassy in Beirut. This because of the heavy traffic after President Rafik Al-Hariri had left Mohammed Al Amin  Mosque following Friday Prayer. 
  11. Monday February 14, 2005, was the first of three days for the Parliament to debate the new electoral law. 
  12. At 11:55 on the morning of February 14, 2005, Yehia Al Arab (Abu Tarek), the chief body guard of Al Hariri,  informed Al Hariri that Mr. Naguib Fregi, the UN Speaker in Beirut, and some newsmen are awaiting him in the Actuel Café located at the other side of the Nejma Square. AlHariri told Abu Tarek that he will soon join them. He was then sitting in the main room of the Parliament together with Marawan Hamada,  Ghazi AlAreedi and other colleagues discussing the electoral law. 
  13.  At 12:15 on the same day, Naguib Fregi, an elegant Tunisian that smokes cigars and manages the Information Center (Of the UN branch of the C.I.A), was meeting some outstanding Lebanese newsmen to inform them about the results of a meeting that was held the previous Thursday between Terry Rod Larson and President Bashar AlAssad. Four outstanding journalists were sitting around the table in the Café with Fregi, among them Ali Hamada, from Al Nahar Lebanese Newspaper, and Walid Shuker, from Al-Hayat Newspaper. While they were talking, Abu Tarek, Al-Hariri’s bodyguard, entered the Actuel Café and informed Fregi that Al-Hariri will come within few minutes. It was customary that Fregi and Hariri take the opportunity from time to time to exchange views and information. 
  14.  At 12:35 on the same day, Hariri crossed Nejma Square towards the Actuel Café , entered it and discussed with the journalists, the Parliament affairs. However, Naguib Fregi, asked Hariri to talk with him separately about Hezbollah and its disarmament. Hariri advised Fregi that the UN must deal directly with it, and told him to make sure to tell the Americans about it before he goes lest they would worry. 
  15.  At 12:42 p.m., Hariri’s motorcade was waiting on one side of the road near the Parliament. Abu Tarek informed the motorcade police officer and his assistant with the road that they should follow to return to Quraitem. That was the last encounter for Hariri with the First Watchman (the C.I.A. agent in the UN Branch), Naguib Fregi, who in his turn informed the Second Watchman in the UN headquarter, on the eighth floor, who  checked  what he watches directly and indirectly via an electronic monitoring screen connected with satellites.  He watched the exit of  Hariri’s motorcade from Nejma Square through the road leading to San George. In his turn he passed on the information to the Third Watchman situated on the motorcade way. On the screen, there were two illuminated dots: a red one representing the Mitsubishi truck movement, and a green representing Hariri’s movements. In the monitoring and control center, watching the screen connected with satellites, there was the security officer of the C.I.A. , UN Branch, Ugine Goldman. On the same terminal, in the American Embassy in Beirut, another monitoring screen was being watched by Robert Miller, from the Federal Bureau Investigation (F.B.I). 
  16.  At 12:53 p.m., we follow up what happened during the last minutes that preceded Hariri’s assassination before the movement of Hariri’s motorcade. The conversation ended in the Actuel Café and Hariri left accompanied by Basel Flihan. They walked towards the awaiting motorcade. Flihan entered the armored Mercedes car and accommodated himself in the front passenger seat, whereas, Hariri was smilingly waving to Fregi and the newsmen from the driver seat of the car. At the motorcade end there was an ambulance, a modified Chevrolet, which carried Rashid Hamoud, an emergency specialist in the American University Hospital. Its driver was Mahmoud Aweini. The second medical assistant was Mazen AlZahabi. A Toyota Land Cruiser, was leading the procession carrying four of the internal security police officers. It was followed by a Mercedes S-500, driven by Amer Shehada, accompanied by two private guards: Mohammed Reda, in the front seat, and Hassan Agiuz in the rear seat. Hariri’s armored Mercedes S-600 was the third in the procession, followed by other two Mercedes cars, each carries three private guards. Abu Tarek was sitting  in the front seat of the fourth car. The private guards sitting in the front seats were carrying machine pistols of the type “ Hilker & Couch”, which are small and light weight weapons, whereas those on the rear seats were carrying a “ Berta Glouk”  9 mm automatic pistol, that is hanged in a pouch near the shoulder.
  17. As the procession went around the Clock Tower in the middle of the square, and then up the street, passing by the Italian Embassy towards the northern direction, the Second Watchman, observed  from the building of the UN (the C.I.A. branch), that the procession is directing northward. Accordingly he made a communication from a cellular phone. It was the first of four calls he made in the next few minutes. That who were receiving the calls were the group of the Third Watchman, in the neighborhood, covering all possible ways that Hariri’s procession might take in the direction of Quretem. In the next few minutes, the Lebanese Mossad (Unit 504), closed down the other two roads leading to Quretem by placing barricades belonging to Beirut Municipality. The cellular phones of the Watchmen, whose calls were prepaid, were eight phones, and were acquired more than a month before. The calls that were made between these phones were between those Watchmen in order to check and control the movement of Hariri’s procession. The hierarchy of command, management, surveillance and monitoring of Hariri’s procession was as follows: 
    1. The First Watchman : Naguib Fregi from the C.I.A, UN Branch.
    2. The Second Watchman : Ugine Goldman, the C.I.A.; and Robert Miller, the Federal Bureau Investigation F.B.I.
    3. The Third Watchman : Mayer Daghan, Unit 504, the Lebanese Mossad.
    4. The Fourth Watchman : Gond AlSham group and the suicidal (Ahmed Abu Alades and Khaled Taha).

One of the four persons (the Fourth Watchman)  has received a call from ( the Second Watchman)situated in the Nejma Square (the UN building). The driver of a Mitsubishi Canter white vane remained beside San George Hotel awaiting the call. The van moved very slowly on the public road. The cars and the trucks were moving quickly, whereas the van was moving at the speed of 8 km/h in accordance with the Second Watchman instructions. He over passed the small roofed entrance leading to the Beach Club of the San George Hotel. He stopped after few meters according to the instructions.

18.  At 12:55 p. m. : the driver of the white Mitsubishi truck, through the left mirror of his car, that was standing beside San George Hotel for less than a minute, was able to see the gray Toyota Land Cruiser, boarded by the  policemen, increasing in size as it was racing towards the road parallel to the yacht port of the San George Hotel, followed by the Mercedes driven by Amer Shehada, within a time interval less than a fraction of a second. The next car that passed beside the Mitsubishi was the third in the procession – Hariri’s Mercedes S-600 armored car. When it passed parallel to it, the Second Watchman pressed the automatic control key, this before the encounter of the red point with the green point on his monitoring screen, which in turn is connected with the American spy satellite. With an accuracy of milliseconds, the electronic monitoring and ignition circuit situated in the explosive truck was reacting in this second with the electronic and monitoring circuit situated in the Hariri’s motorcade at the moment of the encounter of both victims within the field of black imaginary points.

19.  On day Zero, Monday February 14, 2005 (Valentine Day), the operation was postponed for 20 minutes, for more coordination and control, during Hariri’s stopping Actuel Café after his meetings in the Parliament. With the movement of the monitoring ground group controlling the Mitsubishi truck laden with the explosives, the contacts resumed again and the movements of both Al-Hariris motorcade and the Mitsubishi truck towards the location X were ascertained. At the proper instant and timing, at 12:56:26 Beirut local time on February 14.2005,the detonation of the truck occurred through a complicated electronic network linking the detonator, navigator Al- Hariris cell phone, American satellites and AWACS planes, control room, the truck laden with the explosives and the electronic devices mentioned previously; in addition of the security-TV camera of the HSBC British bank which was already aiming at the cross roads where Al-Hariris motorcade would encounter the Mitsubishi truck laden with explosives, connected with the monitoring ground group. This cipher was there only for confusing and for reception by the receivers using the frequencies used by Al-Hariri’s motorcade and the Mitsubishi truck. The order for explosion was given at the moment the two victims encountered each other, regardless of the instructions that were given to the Mitsubishi truck driver. This order to explode the Mitsubishi truck was given at the moment the truck approached Al-Hariri’s motorcade.

20. Operation Candor was successful; which was the name given for Al-Hariri’s assassination.

21. Six of the Australian Lebanese extremists left Lebanon, leaving behind their colleague who drove the Mitsubishi suicidal truck bomb. They flew out of Beirut International Airport, three hours after Al-Hariri’s assassination, in a hurry without even taking their luggage with them. Their part in the plot was camouflaged by the C.I.A and the Australian Intelligence Agency. In the meanwhile, judge Mozahr and General Rify were messing with the crime theater. As for the suspects, the Palestinian suicidal Ahmed Abu Hades and Khaled Taha were considered lost by the International Investigation Committee. The Witness, Nawar Habib Douna was liquidated in a traffic  accident. He was a cellular phones cards seller in Tripoli, which the assassination group members of the Lebanese Mossad used.

Consequences of Al-Hariri’s Assassination for the New Middle East Project:

  1. The assassination operation succeeded, and, as planned, attention turned to Syria as the primary actor of the assassination. The American Embassy in Lebanon started to turn the Lebanese political forces against Syria, Hezbollah and against the Lebanese President Emil Lahud. The important things for them were to isolate Syria and to force her to withdraw her armed forces from Lebanon; to enforce UN Decree 1559; to hit Hezbollah and to ignite a sectarian turmoil between Sunnis and Shiites. And if it weren’t possible to assassinate Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Shiite; then it was possible to assassinate President Rafik AlHariri, the Sunni, and achieve the same goal!
  2. The operation of AlHariri’s assassination and its consequences were reviewed in their entirety by the C.I.A Supreme Council, when Ambassador Feldman was summoned to Washington for three weeks. The American extraordinary ambassador, Satterfield, was sent to Lebanon to supervise the consecutive explosions in the Christian zones in Beirut.
  3. Robert Miller, was the supreme coordinator and the general manager of the Candor Operation in coordination with the Mossad Chief, General Mayer Daghan.
  4. The American C.I.A. embroiled the United Nations, using the C.I.A. branch there, in the operation of the assassination of Rafik AlHariri.
  5. Gihad ben Ahmed Gebril, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Ali Hassan Saleh; one of the leaders of Hezbollah Party, the Parliament member Ely Hebeqa, commander George Hawi, and Parliament member Gibran Twini were also assassinated with planning from the C.I.A, the UN branch,  and execution by the F.B.I and the Mossad, which murdered also Ezz AlDin Sobhi Sheikh Khalil, one of the leaders of Hamas in Damascus.
  6. Technically, the deep rift theory was adopted in the selection of the assassination location in a manner that causes deep and horizontal destruction. Also, the illusory four black points theory was adopted to ensure that the explosion covers all Al-Hariri’s motorcade. These four black points distributed along the entire road from San George Hotel and the neighboring building. These four points represented the main control for the explosion and arranged the timing for launching the loaded and mobile explosives on the Mitsubishi truck.

The electronic explosion control functions only in case the explosive cars are provided with electronic control devices such as electronic jamming, alarming and monitoring devices, which were available in Al-Hariri’s motorcade. USA and Israel are the only two countries in the region that possess satellites and AWACS planes in addition to control systems with a high degree of technological sophistication. Satellites with AWACS can send signals to detonators with the size of a watch battery. Such technology is monopolized by the USA, Israel and Russia.

The passage of Al-Hariri’s motorcade, which equipped with the highly advanced electronic alarm devices and jamming devices (4 Mega Hz) through the illusory black points, allows the functioning of the explosives. The process of linking the black points with explosives is very complicated and needs very high advanced technology such as systems that can jam the devices protecting Al-Hariri’s motorcade and which depend upon the same source for the protection systems including satellites.

Whether for jamming or exploding, the illusory black points theory to hit the target during explosion, is considered the most recent theory that the Israeli discovered with the help of one of their scientists, Dioth Fasilon, a Russian Jewish scientist in 1999, and it is the same system that the USA developed and supplied the assassination groups with.

• Is it now clear who assassinated Rafik Al-Hariri ?!

• Member of the Administrative Committee of the Association of the
American Arab Physicians.

Shiite Houthis Apparent Winners In Yemen Civil War

Shiite Houthi gunmen seize presidential palace in Yemen’s capital

Xinhua net 

SANAA, Jan. 20 (Xinhua) — The Shiite Houthi group seized on Tuesday the presidential palace one day after it signed a ceasefire deal with the Yemeni government that ended deadly clashes, a government source said.

The Shiite Houthi gunmen entered the palace along with the presidential committee that monitors the ceasefire, a senior official told Xinhua on condition of anonymity, adding that the committee ordered the guards to hand over the compound without resistance.

“No clashes happened as the guards peacefully handed over their arms and left the palace. The Houthis then celebrate by opening fire into the air and firing bombs,” he said.

Heavy gunfire and explosions were heard across the city on Monday while the presidential guards and Houthi fighters clashed near the presidential palace in southern Sanaa.

The Houthi fighters controlled al-Nahdayn mountain on Monday afternoon, which overlooks the presidential palace, which President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi does not live in.

The two sides reached a ceasefire deal, which was in force as of 4 p.m. (1300 GMT) on Monday, after the fighting left nine people killed and 79 others injured, most of them civilians.

A presidential committee comprised of the defense and interior ministers, special security forces commander and president adviser Saleh al-Sammad, a member of the Houthi group, will monitor the ceasefire.

However, Information Minister Nadia al-Sakkaf said Tuesday that Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s residence is under intermittent attacks from Houthi fighters.

“Hadi’s house is under attacks by Houthi gunmen stationing on the top roof of buildings in front of Hadi’s house since three hours ago despite ongoing negotiations with Houthi leaders,” al-Sakkaf said.

The negotiations are focusing on terms for releasing the director of Hadi’s office, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak, who was kidnapped by Houthis earlier this week, in return for changes in the constitution draft and expanding the national authority, she added.

Houthis, who demand more rights for the country’s Zyadi Shiite Muslims, seized Sanaa in September and advanced into central and western parts of the country where Sunni Muslims predominate.

Monday’s clashes were triggered by the kidnapping of bin Mubarak by the Houthis, in a wrangle over the country’s draft constitution.

The Houthi group said in a statement on Sunday that the arrest of bin Mubarak was a necessary step to prevent influential parties from approving the draft constitution.

According to the draft constitution, Yemen will be divided into six federal regions. However, the Houthi group demands that the country be divided into only two regions.

Frankenstein the CIA created–17 January 1999

Frankenstein the CIA created



Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports in Peshawar

17 January 1999

When Clement Rodney Hampton-el, a hospital technician from Brooklyn, New Jersey, returned home from the war in Afghanistan in 1989, he told friends his only desire was to return. Though he had been wounded in the arm and leg by a Russian shell, he said he had failed. He had not achieved martyrdom in the name of Islam.So he found a different theatre for his holy war and achieved a different sort of martyrdom. Three years ago, he was convicted of planning a series of massive explosions in Manhattan and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist.

Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia in 1979, aged 22. Though he saw a considerable amount of combat – around the eastern city of Jalalabad in March 1989 and, earlier, around the border town of Khost – his speciality was logistics.

From his base in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, he used his experience of the construction trade, and his money, to build a series of bases where the mujahideen could be trained by their Pakistani, American and, if some recent press reports are to be believed, British advisers.

One of the camps bin Laden built, known as Al-Badr, was the target of the American missile strikes against him last summer. Now it is used by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a Pakistan-based organisation that trains volunteers to fight in Kashmir.

Some of their recruits kidnapped and almost certainly killed a group of Western hostages a few years ago. The bases are still full of new volunteers, many

Pakistanis. Most of those who were killed in last August’s

strikes were Pakistani.

A Harkut-ul-Mujahideen official said last week that it had Germans and Britons fighting for the cause, as well as Egyptians, Palestinians and Saudis. Muslims from the West as well as from the Middle East and North Africa are regularly stopped by Pakistani police on the road up the Khyber Pass heading for the camps. Hundreds get through. Afghan veterans have now joined bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group.

Some have returned to former battlegrounds, like the university-educated Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, a key figure in the Egyptian al-Jihad terrorist group. Al-Zawahiri ran his own operation during the Afghan war, bringing in and training volunteers from the Middle East. Some of the $500 million the CIA poured into Afghanistan reached his group. Al-Zawahiri has become a close aide of bin Laden and has now returned to Afghanistan to work with him. His al-Jihad group has been linked to the Yemeni kidnappers.

One Saudi journalist who interviewed bin Laden in 1989 remembers three of his close associates going under the names of Abu Mohammed, Abu Hafz and Abu Ahmed. All three fought with bin Laden in the early Eighties, travelled with him to the Sudan and have come back to Afghanistan. Afghan veterans, believed to include men who fought the Americans in Somalia, have also returned.

Other members of al-Quaeda remain overseas. Afghan veterans now linked to bin Laden have been traced by investigators to Pakistan, East Africa, Albania, Chechnya, Algeria, France, the US and Britain.

At least one of the kidnappers in Yemen was reported to have fought in Afghanistan and to be linked to al-Quaeda. Despite reports that bin Laden was effectively funded by the Americans, it is impossible to gauge how much American aid he received. He was not a major figure in the Afghan war. Most American weapons, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, were channelled by the Pakistanis to the Hezb-i-Islami faction of the mujahideen led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Bin Laden was only loosely connected with the group, serving under another Hezb-i-Islami commander known as Engineer Machmud. However, bin Laden’s Office of Services, set up to recruit overseas for the war, received some US cash.

But according to one American official, concentrating on bin Laden is a mistake. ‘The point is not the individuals,’ he said last week. ‘The point is that we created a whole cadre of trained and motivated people who turned against us. It’s a classic Frankenstein’s monster situation.’

Others point out that the military contribution of the ‘Arabs’, as the overseas volunteers were known, was relatively small. ‘The fighting was done by the Afghans and most of them went back to their fields when Kabul fell to the mujahideen,’ said Kamaal Khan, a Pakistani defence analyst. ‘Ironically, the bulk of American aid went to the least effective fighters, who turned most strongly to bite the hand that fed them.’

6th Georgian Sacrifices Self on the Altar of US Imperialism

[The hypocrisy knows no bounds (SEE: Interior Ministry: Law on mercenaries won’t apply to Georgians fighting for Kyiv).]

One Georgian killed, three wounded in eastern Ukraine

  • Georgian supporters of Ukraine from Tbilisi demonstration in January 2014; Photo by N. Alavidze /,19 Jan 2015 – 11:43, Tbilisi,Georgia

One Georgian fighter has been killed and three others have been wounded following shelling between the Ukrainian Army and pro-Russian separatists near Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, say Georgian soldiers who voluntarily fight alongside the Ukrainian troops.

The deceased man has been named as Tamaz Sukhiashvili, 36, from the Georgian town of Khashuri.

Georgia’s Consulate in Ukraine said it was currently trying to find out additional details about the deceased and wounded Georgians.

It is believed the Georgians served in one of the battalions deployed near Donetsk Airport. The wounded men were taken to hospital for treatment.

Foreign Minister Tamar Beruchashvili offered her condolences to the soldier’s family and said the Georgian Government was actively working on returning the body to Georgia.

“He was a faithful representative of Georgia’s Armed Forces,” Minister Beruchashvili said.

“He played a serious, professional role in Georgia’s peace missions to foreign countries.”

Sukhiashvili served in the Georgian Armed Forces until 2012. He had fought for Georgia in the 2008 Russia-Georgia war and had participated in peace missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. Another Georgian soldier in Ukraine Mamuka Mamulashvili said Sukhiashvili was survived by his wife and two children.

This was the sixth reported death of a Georgian citizen resulting from unrest in Ukraine, although an official number has not been released by authorities.

Previously, five people were reported to have been killed following armed confrontations or during Euromaidan events, including the most recent accident involving former Georgian soldier Aleksandre Grigolashvili.

Marine Le Pen says French govt afraid to use word ‘Islamist’

Le Pen says French govt afraid to use word ‘Islamist’

France 24

© AFP | Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right National Front party

Text by Joseph BAMAT 

The debate in France over how to refer to terrorists who kill others in the name of Islam is heating up after the country’s leading far-right figure took the government to task for shying away from the word “Islamist”.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front (FN) party, has accused the French government of failing to tackle Islamic fundamentalists, in part by its reluctance to call them just that. The controversy over using of the word “Islamist” in tandem with “extremists” or “militants” is not new, but it has moved to the front burner in the wake of France’s recent terrorist attacks – its deadliest in over 50 years.

In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Le Pen specifically targeted Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, but blamed the entire political establishment for allegedly not “looking the enemy in the eye” and for its lack of vigilance.

“It does our Muslim compatriots no favors to fuel suspicions and leave things unspoken. Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side,” she wrote in the op-ed published on Sunday.

Le Pen, in typical fashion, then used the platform to rail against Europe’s system of open internal borders, and “massive waves of immigration, both legal and clandestine”.

Fabius has made no secret of his dislike of the word “Islamic” or “Islamist” when speaking about home-grown or foreign jihadists.

Speaking on Europe 1 radio on January 11, two days after the French-born Kouachi brothers yelled “Allahou Akbar”, or God is great in Arabic, as they gunned down 12 people at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Fabius explained:

“I don’t want to play the role of censor, but I think the word Islamist … is not the right one to use. I call them terrorists. Because as soon as you use the word Islam, you are promoting an idea of continuity between a Muslim – who practises his religion, which is a religion of peace – and something which is an interpretation of the Muslim religion.”

Eye on elections

Contacted by FRANCE 24, the New York Times confirmed that Sunday’s op-ed was Le Pen’s first for the newspaper, but would not say if it considered the far-right figure someone who expressed the views of large segments of French society. Last year represented a milestone for Le Pen’s party, with unprecedented victories in mayoral, EU parliament and senate ballots.

According to French far-right expert Jean-Yves Camus, Le Pen’s opinion piece is the New York Times is part of her election strategy for 2015.

“The only way she can make further gains in local elections in March and regional ones in December is by winning over more conservative voters. She has to show she is more conservative than the right-wing Union for a Popular Movement Party (UMP), so it is no surprise she is attacking the government as well as the previous administration of Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Despite Le Pen’s professed concern for France’s Muslims, whom she said “need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly”, Camus said she was in fact addressing her core constituents.

“The National Front has tried to connect with parts of the so-called Muslim community in France in the past, but so far it has been unsuccessful,” Camus said. “It is a very fragmented group. There is no single spiritual leader and there is no central organisation like the Jewish community in France has had historically.”

“Most Muslim voters in France eventually vote independently, and even if some are very conservative, they eventually realise that the FN is also a xenophobic party.”

Camus said that historically the FN opposed immigration regardless of the country of origin, but in recent years has turned its attention to Islam as a religion and an ideology that it sees as incompatible with European culture.

Daesh vs Islamic State

France’s reluctance to use the words “Islamic” or “Islamist” in connection to terrorism first became a subject of debate last year, when Fabius refused to call the Islamic State militant group by the name they chose for themselves. The armed Sunni-Muslim movement that has taken control over large parts of Syria and Iraq – and made international headlines by beheading Western captives – has been referred to as “Daesh” by France’s foreign ministry since September. Many French media have followed suit.

The word Daesh originates from an acronym for the group in Arabic, but it is by no means neutral. Considered an insult by IS members, the term was invented by the group’s political opponents in Iran and Syria specifically to undermine the notion it has any claim over Islam as a religion or an autonomous state, their self-styled “caliphate”. The word also has negative connotations in Arabic, a fact not lost on Fabius.

Paris is now engaged in a comparable semantic struggle, but on its home turf. The French government has repeatedly urged citizens not to conflate the Charlie Hebdo attackers, who are part of extremist minority, with millions of ordinary French Muslims. It has brandished the gunmen terrorists and called for a clear distinction between them and France’s second largest faith.

“France is not at war against a religion,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared in a rousing speech at the National Assembly on January 13. “France is not at war against Islam and Muslims. France will protect … as it has always done, all its citizens. Those who are believers, like those who are not.”

The government’s concern is proving legitimate. France’s National Observatory Against Islamophobia has recorded an unprecedented rise in anti-Muslim acts across the country in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They have ranged from threats and harassment of women wearing Muslim veils, to shots fired against mosques.

The Paris police prefecture has already banned two protests “against the Islamisation of Europe”, organised by a fringe far-right group and inspired by Germany’s anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde Gives Veiled Threat of Retaliation for Electoral Win By Greek Left

"Collective endeavours are welcome but at the same time a debt is a debt and it is a contract," Lagarde told the Irish Times during a visit to Dublin.
“Collective endeavours are welcome but at the same time a debt is a debt and it is a contract,” Lagarde told the Irish Times during a visit to Dublin.

DUBLIN: International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde on Monday warned of “consequences” if European countries try to renegotiate their debts, ahead of Greek elections which an anti-austerity party is favoured to win.

“Collective endeavours are welcome but at the same time a debt is a debt and it is a contract,” Lagarde told the Irish Times during a visit to Dublin.

“Defaulting, restructuring, changing the terms has consequences on the signature and the confidence in th ..

Russian Defense Minister flies to Iran for signing military cooperation agreement

Russian Defense Minister flies to Iran for signing military cooperation agreement

tass russian news

Crucial issues of global and regional security and measures to step up military and technical cooperation will be discussed at the meeting of the two countries’ defense ministers

russ def min Sergey Shoigu
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu 
© Mikhail Japaridze/TASS

MOSCOW, January 19. /TASS/. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has left for Iran on an official visit for signing a military cooperation agreement.

“While in Tehran Shoigu will hold talks with his Iranian counterpart Hossein Dehgan,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said.

“Crucial issues of global and regional security and measures to step up military and technical cooperation will be discussed at the meeting,” he said.

A military cooperation agreement is to be signed.

Previously, Shoigu and Dehgan met on the sidelines of the third Moscow conference on international security in May 2014. They noted the need for tighter defense cooperation, which, Shoigu said, “has always been of importance” to bilateral relations.

For his part Dehgan said Iran was interested in “propelling cooperation with Russia to a new level.”

Last autumn Shoigu paid his first-ever visit to Pakistan and signed a military cooperation agreement with that country. The Russian defense minister and his Pakistani counterpart, Khawaja Asif, discussed “a range of measures of specific interest.”

Houthi militants surround prime minister’s palace in Sanaa

Houthi militants surround prime minister’s palace in Sanaa

albawaba news

A Houthi militant mans a checkpoint in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, January 18, 2015. (AFP/File)A Houthi militant mans a checkpoint in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, January 18, 2015. (AFP/File)

Yemen’s powerful Houthi movement surrounded the prime minister’s residence after firing on his convoy during deadly clashes with the Yemeni army on Monday, the most intense clashes since the Houthis, took control of the capital in September.

Houthi fighters were in control of all three entrances to the Republican Palace, a building Prime Minister Khalid Bahah has lived in since taking office in October, a government spokesman told AFP, while Houthi representatives negotiated with President Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

“Houthis meet with president to agree on terms for releasing chief of staff in return for changes in constitution and national authority,” Information Minister Nadia Sakkaf said on her Twitter account.

Earlier on Monday, Sakkaf said Houthi fighters had fired on Bahah’s motorcade after he left a meeting with Hadi and a Houthi adviser that had been called to try to resolve bitter disagreements over a draft constitution.

A Yemeni government spokesman slammed the shooting at Bahah’s armored convoy as an assassination attempt.

“The gunmen have surrounded the palace and the prime minister is inside,” government spokesman Rajeh Badi said. Two eyewitnesses confirmed the siege.

Sakkaf earlier told Reuters the presidential palace had come under “direct attack” in what she described as an attempted coup. Hadi was believed to have been at home in another district at the time. “Of course it is an attempted coup,” she said.

Witnesses said the fighting erupted early Monday after Houthis deployed reinforcements near the presidential palace.

The military presidential guard sent troops onto the streets surrounding the palace and outside Hadi’s residence.

A security official said the army intervened when the Houthis allegedly began to set up a new checkpoint near the presidential palace.

But a prominent Houthi chief, Ali al-Imad, accused the presidential guard of provoking the clashes.

“Hadi’s guard is trying to blow up the situation on the security front to create confusion on the political front,” he said on Facebook.

A ceasefire that came into effect after several hours appeared to be holding.

At least nine people were killed, including fighters from both sides, and more than 60 wounded, in an updated toll of Monday’s clashes.

The Houthis’ September takeover made them the country’s de facto top power, and tensions between them and Hadi had been growing since Saturday when they were accused of allegedly abducting his chief of staff, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak.

Mubarak is the secretary general of the national dialogue on a political transition following the 2012 resignation of veteran President Ali Abdullah Saleh after a bloody year-long uprising.

The senior politician was “driven away to an unknown location,” an official from the national dialogue secretariat told AFP on Saturday, adding that the abductors “are suspected of being Houthi militiamen.”

Mubarak’s kidnapping came just before a meeting of the national dialogue secretariat to present a draft constitution dividing Yemen into a six-region federation, which the Houthis oppose.

Houthis, who hail from Yemen’s remote north and fought a decade-long war against the government, rejected the decentralization plan last year, claiming it divides the country into rich and poor regions.

The street battles on Monday marked a new low in the fortunes of the Arabian Peninsula state, plagued by tribal divisions, a separatist challenge in the south and a threat from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which claimed a series of deadly attacks in and outside Yemen, including the January 7 attack in Paris on a French satirical journal.

AQAP, reacting to the loss of its strongholds to Houthi fighters, has accused its opponents of acting as a proxy for both the United States and Iran, threatening renewed violence against them.

The instability in Yemen has raised fears that the country, next to oil-rich Saudi Arabia and key shipping routes from the Suez Canal to the Gulf, could become a failed state along the lines of Somalia
[Al-Akhbar English] © Al-Akhbar. All rights reserved

The anti-fascist struggle is class struggle–Antiwar Internationalist Movement

[SEE:  Preparing a new Gladio for the Left in Greece! ]

Antiwar Internationalist Movement: The anti-fascist struggle is class struggle

dawn gr.

Antiwar Internationalist Movement: The anti-fascist struggle is class struggle

“The battle and the struggle against fascism-nationalism is a struggle against modern totalitarian capitalism and similar manifestations in each field of action,” said in a statement Antiwar Internationalist Movement and notes that “fascism is not a phenomenon but clean face of capitalism “.

Cited entire statement issued by the Movement, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the murder of Paul Fyssas:

“To celebrate the antifascist week and one year after the murder of Paul Fyssas from Nazi gang with the police facing them, it might be a good time to do a review of that period on the subject of fascism and in context, totalitarianism. From this perspective we can not recognize that this period was unfortunately rich in events and situations from which, however, can and should come useful policy conclusions that the antifascist action and the struggle against modern totalitarianism have as possible better targeting and effectiveness of anti-capitalist-antikratika properties rather detached from a purely class analysis against oppression and social destruction we experience in this increasingly totalitarian system.

“The fascist reasonable and practical and stable channel in every aspect of the state and in large parts of the society is going to show the situation, if the revolutionary movement did not stand in the projects of local and foreign capitalist imperialist order to overcome their crisis and further our fully exploited.

From statements in TIF Prime Minister about how important the contribution of military and police in the armor of ‘democracy’ and border security to changes in antiracist baptized bills silence any free speech, fascist mentality and practice takes sovereign state nature of organization and enforcement through and new doctrines of defense and security. Essentially workers’ struggle prohibited democratic rights-Lay freedoms disappear, the claims come outlawed and searches of social liberation come outlawed poinikopoiounaii the new penal code, the University Asylum waived for competitors giving Asylum Market laws and Profit, the promiscuity of companies.

The fascist concentration camps, indirect dips boats with immigrants, refugees from the port and the stewardship-patrol of the main metropolis streets against anyone who looks more miserable by the nationalist ‘desirable’ average person creates a state of war ‘low’ power for immigrants.

The increasingly deepening fascist nationalist intolerance to security forces and the army, by chrysafgites – Nazis in all stratifications Army (ret EP.OP. to generals and current MEPs) to nationalist ‘songs’ of storm trooper and forcing the soldiers of Samothrace to sing from their superiors, and formerly the junta devoutness in Academy amid the celebration of the Polytechnic uprising, compose a mosaic of how the spread of fascism is now firmly on the tougher side enforcement the bourgeois state.

In particular, the prosecution of those who oppose the above as the political persecution of the Solidarity Committee militant exactly as opposed to the modern building of totalitarianism by creating movement in and out of the army, is a sign of nationalism and fascist state functions as the official state now ideology.

The tough battle to promote nationalism and ekfasismou society comes to be with every propaganda tool as all the mainstream media that identify each immigrant -prosfyga with terrorist-jihadists of the ISIS and promote all the dominant conception of Europe fortress.

But you should not stay only in the manifestations of fascism that have to do directly or indirectly with certain fascist ideologies. Although most blatantly make their use and support them from the countries of West and their imperialist unions (EU, NATO, etc.) as in the case of Ukraine which the West actively supports political, economic and military, the fascist government of Kiev . Who chose to declare war on the fifth and most of the population with nationalist and racist criteria and requires all Memoranda EU-IMF, the consequences of which knows better than all our people. But see the resistance of world fascism brings results,

On the other hand we have new data. The targeted THE CLASS ENEMY!

Totalitarianism in contemporary capitalism does not directly require the use of classical nationalist tools always to hit the real class enemy who are exploiting subjects and those who are opposed to the very nature and existence of this system. As recently showed the uprising in Ferguson, Missouri in the US, the state machine has begun to reorganize in order to fight the enemy in the most modern mutation of capitalism, which is none other than the ‘internal enemy disobedient’, the working class, impoverished segments society and people in general are disobedient to, bourgeois legality and oppression, dictates.

With practices fueled by war and ethnic cleansing (training American police by Israeli soldiers in dealing with protesters from their experiences in Gaza, military police tactics in attack against impoverished residents in Brazilian favelas) and the police militarization or policed ​​by the army, two bodies increasingly becomes more blurred the difference between them because of the role that now show the clean face of capitalism and the dominance of neoliberal doctrines for continuous social competition at all costs.

What must be understood is that the battle and the struggle against fascism-nationalism is a struggle against modern totalitarian capitalism and similar manifestations in each field of action.

This fight should be a global anticapitalist perspective if we want to attack the roots and move to create the anti-fascist movement in society by linking immigrants in this race as an organic part of it. By creating solidarity infrastructure and racing centers in modern metropolises of impoverished and desperate people and in confrontation with which prospect of defeat. By connecting youth struggles and workers with the antifascist struggle.

You need to create the infrastructure and the necessary resistance movements in and out of the army, the soldiers’ committees and the creation of antifascist front in the army until the creation of an anti-war anti-capitalist movement that has the potential to put a brake on urban plans for holding inside or outside the imperialist interventions.

All these require a basic condition to understand that fascism is not a phenomenon but the clean face of capitalism and that this period is not just a difficult time but the principle of complete mutation of capitalism to a higher stage of domination and exploitation towards of subjects.





Co-financed by Greece and the European Union.

US Plans To Hijack Moscow’s Syrian Peace Conference

The Syrian people have won two successive wars in four years. Yet the country does not yet know peace. Not only are Washington “liberal hawks” doing everything in their power to prolong the crisis, but they have devised a plan to prepare a third war. Thierry Meyssan reveals here how they intend to use to their advantage the peace conference planned to be held in Moscow in late January 2015.

JPEG - 16.8 kb
Former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General John R. Allen conspired with General David Petraeus to sabotage the Syria peace plan at the Geneva 1 Conference. President Barack Obama had him placed under surveillance and managed to prevent his appointment as head of NATO. However, he managed to stay in office despite the charges against him (while Petraeus was forced to resign from the leadership of the CIA). Become commander of the anti-Daesh Military Coalition, he supports the shenanigans that General Petraeus leads from the Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Global Institute. He is director of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the think tank of “liberal hawks”.

When, in 2001, President George W. Bush decided to place Syria on his list of targets to destroy, he had three objectives:
- Breaking the “Axis of Resistance” and encouraging Israeli expansion;
- Laying hands on the huge gas reserves;
- Reshaping the “Broader Middle East”.

The war plans failed in 2005 and 2006, eventually taking the form of the “Arab Spring” in 2011: a 4th generation type of warfare which was to carry the Muslim Brotherhood to power. However, after a year of media manipulation, the Syrian people came out of their torpor and supported their army. France withdrew from the game after the release of Baba Amr, while the United States and Russia shared the region at the Geneva 1 Conference (June 2012). But to everyone’s surprise, Israel managed to upset the negotiating table by leaning on the new French president, Francois Hollande, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CIA Director David Petraeus. A second war, of a Nicaraguan type this time (that is to say, fuelled by the continual arrival of new mercenaries) again bloodied the region. Anyway, this second war also failed without leading to lasting peace. On the contrary, John Kerry changed the format of the Geneva 2 conference two days before and tried to turn it into a pro-Saudi forum. In this disorder came the third war, that of Daesh: suddenly a small group of a few hundred jihadists turned into a vast army of over 200,000 well equipped men and launched an attack on the Sunni part of Iraq and the Syrian Desert.

Several months ago, I explained that the Daesh project corresponds with the new US map of the division of the Middle East, published by Robin Wright in The New York Times in 2013 [1]. In continuation of the Sykes-Picot, the US plan aimed to further drastically reduce Syria. Also, when the US – after having waited for Daesh to complete the ethnic cleansing in Iraq for which they had been created – began bombing the jihadists, the question arose as to whether the liberated areas of Daesh would or would not be returned to Baghdad and to Damascus.

As the United States has refused to coordinate its military action against Daesh with Syria, and in view of the fact that Russia is preparing a peace conference, “liberal hawks” in Washington have set new goals.

Since the Syrian people did not believe in the “revolution” as staged by al-Jazeera and company, and since they refused to support the Contras against the Republic, it is not possible to “change the regime” in the short term. It is clear that the new constitution, though imperfect, is both republican and democratic; and that President Bashar al-Assad was elected by 63% of the electorate (88% of the vote!). Thus, the United States must adapt its rhetoric to reality.

The “peace” plan of the “liberal hawks” consists therefore in achieving the original goals by dividing Syria in two: an area governed by Damascus and another by “moderate rebels” (read: the Pentagon). The Republic is to have the capital and the Mediterranean coast; the Pentagon: the Syrian desert and gas reserves (that is to say the Daesh zone liberated by the bomber raids of General John Allen). According to their own records, “liberal hawks” would leave only 30% of the territory to the Syrian People!

JPEG - 26.2 kb
Remodelling map according Robin Wright

The principle is simple: at present, the Republic controls all major cities except Rakka and a small part of Aleppo, but no one can claim to control a vast desert, neither the government nor the jihadists. So the Pentagon suggests that what is not clearly governed by Damascus rightfully belongs to its mercenaries!

This is not all. Since the Syrians have elected Bashar Assad, he will be allowed to stay in power, but not his private consultants. Indeed, everyone knows that the Syrian state has managed to resist foreign aggression because it includes a secret part, difficult to identify and therefore to eliminate. This opacity was intended by the founder of modern Syria, President Hafez al-Assad, in order to resist Israel. The constitutional reform of 2012 did not make it disappear, but made the elected president responsible to the nation. Although it is regrettable that, in the past, some people have abused this opacity for their own private profit, to part with it now would be to abandon independence at term.

Of course, some will say, “liberal hawks” cannot hope to achieve this plan as a whole. But accomplishing just one hundredth of it would make a new war inevitable.

That is why Syria must ask as a prerequisite for any new peace conference that the country’s territorial integrity will not be up for discussion.

Roger Lagassé

Operation Sarkozy–How the CIA Took Control of the French Republic

One should judge Nicolas Sarkozy according to his actions, and not according to his personality. Yet when his doings surprise even his own constituents, it is legitimate to take a detailed look at his biography and question the bonds that brought him to power. Thierry Meyssan has decided to write the truth about the French Republic’s president background. All the information included in this article is provable, except for two assertions signalled by the author who alone takes full responsibility.

| Almaty (Kazakhstan)
JPEG - 40.3 kb

Tired of the overextended presidencies of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac, the French elected Nicolas Sarkozy counting on his energy to revitalize their country. They were hoping for a break with years of no-change and ideologies of the past. What they got instead was a break with the very principles which founded the French nation, and have been shocked by this “hyper-president”, seizing every day a new dossier, attracting towards him the right and the left wing, and tearing apart all points of reference to the point of creating a total confusion.

Like children who have just made a boo-boo, the French are too busy trying to find excuses for themselves to admit the magnitude of the damages and of their naiveté, and they refuse all the more to see who Nicolas Sarkozy really is, that they realize they should have known since a long time who he was.

One must say the man has talents. Like a magician he tricked them. By offering them the spectacle of his private life and posing in People’s magazines, he got them to forget his political history.

The aim of this article must be clearly understood. It is not to reproach to M. Sarkozy his family, his friends or his professional ties, but the fact of having hidden those ties from the French who believed, wrongly, they were electing a free man.

To understand how a man whom all agree today to view as an agent of the United States and of Israel was able to become the head of the Gaullist party and the president of the French Republic, we must go back in time, very very far back. We must make a long digression in the course of which we will present the protagonists who are today taking their revenge.

The family secrets

At the end of Second World War, the United States secret services relied on Italo-US godfather, Lucky Luciano, to control the security of American ports and prepare their disembarking in Sicily. The main contacts of Luciano — held at that time at a New York luxury prison — to the US intelligence services went notably through Frank Wisner, Sr. Later, when the “godfather” was liberated and chose to exile in Italy, they operated through his Corsican “Ambassador”, Étienne Léandri.

In 1958, worried about a possible victory of the FLN in Algeria which could open the way to Soviet influence in Northern Africa, the United States decided to provoke a military coup d’Etat in France. The operation was jointly organized by the Cia’s Direction of Planning – theoretically lead by Frank Wisner, Sr. – and by NATO. But Wisner had already become senile by that time and it was his successor, Allan Dulles, who supervised the coup. Out of Algeria, French generals organized a Public Salvation Committee which pressured the Parisian civilian authorities to vote full powers to General de Gaulle without having had to use force.

Yet, Charles de Gaulle was not the pawn the Anglo-Saxons had believed they could manipulate. In a first phase, he attempted to deal with the colonial contradiction by granting to the overseas territories a large autonomy within the French Union. But it was already too late to save the French empire; the colonized people didn’t believe any longer in the promises of the Metropolitan France and demanded their independence. After victorious but fierce repression against those fighting for independence, de Gaulle decided to face reality, and in a rare show of political wisdom, he granted independence to each colony.

This turn about was perceived by most of those who brought him to power as a betrayal. The CIA and NATO supported then all kinds of plots to eliminate him, among which a missed coup and some 40 attempts to murder him. However, certain of his followers approved of his political evolution. Around Charles Pasqua, they created the SAC (Civic action services), a militia to protect him.

JPEG - 10.7 kb

Pasqua was both a Corsican bandit and a former resistant. He married the daughter of a Canadian bootlegger who made fortune during the prohibition and he directed the Ricard company who, after commercialising absinthe, a forbidden alcohol, won respectability by converting to the sales of another alcohol based on liquorice (anisette). The company continued however to serve as a cover for all sorts of traffics connected to the New York Italian American family of the Genovese (and) that of Lucky Luciano. It is therefore not surprising that Pasqua called on Étienne Léandri (Ambassador of Luciano) to recruit the hands that constituted the Gaullist militia. A third man played an important role in the formation of the SAC, the former body guard of de Gaulle, Achille Peretti, also a Corsican.

Thus protected, de Gaulle designs an audacious national independence policy. Even though asserting his belonging to the Atlantic camp, he questions the Anglo-Saxon leadership. He opposes the entry of the United Kingdom into the European common market (1961 and 1967); refuses the deployment of UN helmets into Congo (1961); encourages the Latin American states to become free of US imperialism (speech of Mexico, 1964); kicks NATO out France and withdraws from the Atlantic Alliance’s integrated command (1966); he condemns Israeli expansionism during the Six Day war (1967); supports independence of Quebec (Speech of Montreal 1967), etc.

Simultaneously, de Gaulle consolidated the power of France by endowing it with a military industrial-complex including a nuclear deterrent and guarantying its energy provisions. He conveniently distanced the encumbering Corsicans of his entourage by entrusting them with foreign missions. Thus, Étienne Léandri became a leader of the ELF group (today Total), while Charles Pasqua the trusted man of the Francophone heads of State in Africa.

Conscious that he could not defy the Anglo-Saxons on all fronts at the same time, De Gaulle allied himself to the Rothschild family, choosing as Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, who was the fondé de pouvoir of the bank. The two men constituted an efficient tandem, the political audacity of the first never losing sight of the economic realism of the second.

When De Gaulle resigned in 1969, Georges Pompidou succeeded him briefly at the Presidency before being taken out by a cancer. The historical Gaullists did not admit his leadership, however, and worried about his anglophile proclivities. They howled treason when Pompidou, supported by the General Secretary of the Élysée, Edouard Balladur, had “perfidious Albion” join the European Common Market.

The making of Nicolas Sarkozy

That decorum having been put into place, we can now return to our main character, Nicolas Sarkozy. Born in 1955 he is son to a Hungarian catholic nobleman, Pal Sarkösy of Nagy-Bosca, who sought refuge in France after fleeing the Red Army, and to Andree Mallah, a Jewish commoner from Thessalonica. After having three children (Guillaume, Nicolas and François), the couple divorced. Pal Sarkösy of Nagy-Bocsa remarried with an aristocrat, Christine de Ganay, with whom he had two children (Pierre Olivier and Caroline). Nicolas will not be raised by his own parents alone, but will go back and forth within this recomposed family.

His mother became the secretary of De Gaulle’s bodyguard, Achille Peretti. The latter, after founding the SAC, pursued a brilliant political career. He was elected Deputy and Mayor of Neuilly sur Seine, the richest residential suburb of the capital, and later President of the National Assembly.
Unfortunately, in 1972, Achille Peretti comes under grave accusations. In the United States, Time Magazine reveals the existence of a secret criminal organization « the Corsican Union » which controls a large part of the drug trade between Europe and America, the famous « French connection » which Hollywood popularized on the large screen. Based on parliamentary auditions and on his own investigations, Time names the name of a mafia boss, Jean Venturi, arrested a few years earlier in Canada, who is none other than Charles Pasqua’s commercial delegate at the liquor society Ricard. The names of several families headed by the “Corsican Union” are cited, among which that of the Peretti. Achille denies, but is forced to renounce to the presidency of the National Assembly, and barely escapes a “suicide”…

In 1977, Pal Sarkösy of Nagy-Bocsa separates from his second wife, Christine de Ganay, who then gets together with the N°2 of the US State Department central administration. She marries him and settles in America with him. The world being very small, as everyone knows, her husband is none other than Frank Wisner, Jr, son of the previous. Junior’s responsibilities at the CIA are unknown, but it is clear that he plays an important role. Nicolas, who remains close to his mother in law, his half brother and his half sister, begins to turn towards the United States where he “benefits” from training programs of the State Department.

During that same period, Nicolas Sarkozy adheres to the Gaullist party coming into frequent contact with Charles Pasqua, who was not only a national leader then, but also the head of the party’s Haut de Seine department section.

Having finished Law School in 1982 and joined the Barr association, Nicolas Sarkozy married the niece of Achille Peretti. His best man was Charles Pasqua. As a lawyer, Sarkozy defended the interests of his mentors Corsican friends. He bought a property on the Island of Beauty, in Vico, and went as far as envisaging to make his name more “Corsican” by replacing the “y” by an “i”: Sarkozi.

The next year, he was elected Mayor of Neuilly sur Seine in replacement of his uncle in law, Achille Peretti, thundered by a heart attack. However, it was not long before Nicolas Sarkozy betrayed his wife, and since 1984, he had a secret liaison with Cecilia, the wife of the most famous entertainer of French television at that time, Jacques Martin, whom he had met while celebrating their marriage, a function he exerted being mayor of Neuilly. That double life lasted five years, before the lovers decided to quit their respective couples in order to build a new home.

In 1992, Nicolas was best man in the marriage of Jacques Chirac’s daughter, Claude, with an editorialist of Le Figaro. He couldn’t refrain himself from seducing Claude and having a short liaison with her, while officially living with Cecilia. The cuckold husband committed suicide by absorbing drugs. The break was brutal and without pardon between the Chirac’s and Nicolas Sarkozy.

In 1993, the left lost the legislative elections. President François Mitterrand refused to resign and entered into cohabitation with a right wing Prime Minister. Jacques Chirac who ambitioned the presidency, and was thinking at that point of constituting, with Edouard Balladur, a couple comparable to that of De Gaulle and Pompidou, refused to be Prime minister and left his post to his “30 year long friend”, Edouard Balladur. In spite of his sulphurous past, Charles Pasqua became Interior Minister. While keeping high hand over Moroccan marijuana trade, he took advantage of his situation to legalize his other activities taking control of casinos, gambling and horse races in francophone Africa. He wove ties with Saudi Arabia and Israel and became an officer of honour to the Mossad. Nicolas Sarkozy on his part, became minister of Budget and spokesman for the government.

In Washington, Frank Wisner, Jr. became the successor of Paul Wolfowitz as head of the Political Planning department of the Department of Defense. Nobody noticed at that time the ties to the spokesman of the French government.

It is then that tensions similar to those which rocked the Gaullist party 30 years earlier, broke out between the historical Gaullists and the financial right wing, incarnated by Balladur. The new element was that Charles Pasqua and along with him, the young Nicolas Sarkozy, betray Jacques Chirac in order to join the Rothschild current. Mayhem breaks out. The conflict will reach a climax in 1995 when Edouard Balladur ran for president, against his former friend, Jacques Chirac, and was beaten. Foremost, following instructions from London and Washington, the Balladur government opened negotiations for membership status to the European Union and NATO to States of Central and Eastern Europe who had freed from Soviet control.

Havoc reigns then in the Gaullist party where the friends of yesterday are ready to kill themselves today. To be able to finance his electoral campaign, Edouard Balladur attempts to grab the secret slush fund of the Gaullist party, hidden in the double deckered accounting of the books of the oil group ELF.

The ride through the desert

Through out his first mandate, Jacques Chirac keeps Nicolas Sarkozy at arms distance. The man was discrete during his ride through the desert. Discretely, however, he continued to weave ties to the financial circles.

In 1996, finally succeeding to bring to conclusion an endless divorce procedure, Nicolas Sarkozy marries Cecilia. Two billionaires were their best men, Martin Bouygues and Bernard Arnaud (the richest man of the country).

The final act

Way before the Iraqi crisis, Frank Wisner Jr. and his colleagues at the CIA plan the destruction of the Gaullist current and the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy. They move in three phases: first, the elimination of the leadership of the Gaullist party and the take over of the party apparatus, then the elimination of his main right wing rival and the securing the nomination to the presidential election for the Gaullist party; finally, the elimination of any serious challenger on the left to make sure that Nicolas would win the presidential election.

During years, posthumous revelations by a real estate dealer kept the media on their toes. Before dying from a terminal disease, for reasons which remain unknown, he decided to video tape his confessions and for reasons which are even more obscure, the “cassette” landed in the hands of a Socialist party leader, Dominique Strauss Kahn, who addressed it indirectly to the media.

While the confessions of the real estate dealer did not lead to any juridical sanctions, they opened up the Pandora’s Box. The main victim of the series of scandals was Prime Minister Alain Juppé. To protect Chirac, he assumed alone all the penal sanctions. The removal of Juppé from the front lodges opened the way for the take by Sarkozy of the leadership of the Gaullist party.

Sarkozy exploited then his position to force Jacques Chirac to take him into the government once again, in spite of their reciprocal hatred. In the end, he became Interior Minister. Mistake ! This post gave him control over the prefects and the internal intelligence apparatus which he used to gain positions of power over the large administrations.

He dealt also with Corsican affairs. Prefect Claude Érignac was murdered. Even though nobody claimed it, the murder was immediately interpreted as a challenge by the independentists to the Republic. Following a long hunt, the police managed to arrest a fleeing suspect, Yvan Colonna, son of a Socialist deputy. Caring little about the presumption of innocence, Nicolas Sarkozy announced the arrest, accusing the suspect of being the assassin. The news is too important, a mere two days away from the referendum the minister has organized in Corsica to modify the status of the island. Be as it may, the electors reject the Sarkozy project, who, according to some, favoured mafia interests. While Yvan Colonna was ultimately declared guilty, he always claimed his innocence and no material proof was ever found against him. Strangely, the man preferred to remain totally silent rather than reveal what he actually knew. We reveal here that prefect Érignac was not directly killed by the nationalists, but by a paid killer, immediately exfiltrated towards Angola where he was hired to the security of the Elf group. The mobile of the crime was precisely connected to the previous functions of Érignac, responsible for the African networks at Pasqua’s cooperation ministry. As for Yvan Colonna, he is a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy since decades and their children have entertained social relations.

A new scandal broke out then: phoney computer listings were circulating falsely accusing several personalities of hiding bank accounts in Luxembourg, at Clearstream. Among the defamed personalities: Nicolas Sarkozy, who filed a suit insinuating that he suspected his right wing rival to the presidency, Dominique de Villepin, to have organized this machination. Sarkozy didn’t hide his intention either to throw him in jail. In reality, the false listings were put in circulation by members of the French American Foundation, of which John Negroponte was the president and Frank Wisner Jr, the administrator. What the judges ignored and which we reveal here is that the listings were fabricated in London by a common office of the CIA and of MI6, Hakluyt and co, of which Frank Wisner is also an administrator.

Villepin denied the accusations, but was indicted, assigned to residence and, de facto, eliminated from political life temporarily. The road is thus free on the right wing for Nicolas Sarkozy. It remained for the opposition candidacies to be neutralized. The membership fees to the Socialist party were reduced to a symbolic level in order to attract new activists. Suddenly, thousands of youth take membership cards. Among them, there were at least 10 000 new members who are in reality militants from the “Lambertist” Trotskyite party, (named after its founder Pierre Lambert). This small extreme left group historically served the CIA against the Stalinist communists during the cold war (it is the equivalent of the Social democrats/USA of Max Schatchman, who trained the US neo-conservatives). It is not the first time the “Lambertists” infiltrate the Socialist party. They introduced there two notorious CIA agents : Lionel Jospin (who became Prime minister) and Jean Christophe Cambadelis, the main advisor to Dominique Strauss Kahn.

Primaries were organized inside the Socialist party to designate its candidate to the presidential election. Two personalities were competing: Laurent Fabius and Ségolène Royal. Only the first was a danger for Sarkozy. Dominique Strauss Kahn came into the race with the mission to eliminate Fabius at the last moment. Something he did with the help of the votes of the infiltrated “lambertists”, who voted not for him but for Royal.

The operation is possible because Strauss Kahn is since long on the pay roll of the United States. Frenchmen ignore that he teaches at Stanford, where he was hired by the prévot Dean of the University, Condoleeza Rice. From the beginning of his term, Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleeza Rice will thank Strauss Kahn by having him elected to the leadership of the International Monetary fund.

First days at the Élysée

The evening of the second round of the presidential election, when polling agencies announced his probable victory, Nicolas Sarkozy gave a short speech to the nation from his general campaign quarters. Then, contrary to all custom, he didn’t celebrate with the militants of his party, but went to the Fouquet’s. The famous brasserie at the Champs-Élysées, formerly the place of rendez-vous of the “Corsican union” is today the property of Casino magnate, Dominique Desseigne. It was lent to the elected president to receive his friends and main campaign donors. Some hundred guests crowded there, the richest men of France hobnobbing with the casino bosses.

The elected president then offered himself some days of well merited rest. Transported to Malta by a private Falcon 900, he relaxed on the Paloma, a 65 m yacht of his friend Vincent Bollore, a billionaire trained at the Rothschild bank.
Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy was inaugurated president of the French Republic. The first decree he signed was not to enact an amnesty, but to authorize the casinos of his friends Desseigne and Partouche to multiply the money machines.

He composed his working team and his government. Without surprise, one finds there an ominous casino owner (the minister of Youth and Sports) and the lobbyist of the casinos of his friend Desseigne (who became a spokesman of the “Gaullist party”.)

Nicolas Sarkozy relies above all on 4 men :

- Claude Guéant, secretary general of the Elysée Palace, the former right hand of Charles Pasqua.
- François Pérol, under-secretary general of the Elysée, an associate manager of the Rothschild bank.
- Jean-David Lévitte, diplomatic advisor. Son of the former director of the Jewish Agency. French ambassador to the UN, he was removed by Chirac who judged him too close to George Bush.
- Alain Bauer, the man of the shadows. His name does not appear in the directories. He is in charge of the secret services. Former Grand Master of the French Great Orient (the most important Masonic organization in France) and former N°2 of the United States National Security Agency in Europe.

Frank Wisner Jr. who in the meantime was named “special envoy” to President Bush for the independence of Kosovo, insisted that Bernard Kouchner be named minister of Foreign affairs with a double mission priority: the independence of Kosovo and the elimination of France’s Arab policy.

Kouchner started his career by participating in the creation of a humanitarian NGO. Thanks to financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy, he took part in operations of Zbigniew Brzezinski in Afghanistan against the soviets, along sides with Oussama Ben Laden and the Karzai brothers. One finds him again in the 90’s working with Alija Izetbegovic in Bosnia Herzegovina. From 1999 to 2001 he was high representatives of the UN to Kosovo.

Under the rule of the youngest brother of president Hamid Karzaï, Afghanistan became the first world producer of opium poppies transformed in heroin locally and transported by the US Air force to Camp Bondsteed (Kosovo). There, the men of Hacim Thaci take charge of the drug and distribute it mainly in Europe and accessorily in the United States. The benefits are used to finance the illegal operations of the CIA. Karzai and Thaci are longstanding personal friends of Bernard Kouchner who undoubtedly ignores their criminal activities in spite of all the international reports which have been dedicated to them.

To complete his government, Nicolas Sarkozy named Christine Lagarde, minister of the Economy and Finances. All her career was made in the United States where she directed the prestigious law firm Baker and McKenzie. At the Center for international and strategic studies of Dick Cheney, she copresided with Zbigniew Brzezinski a working group which supervised the privatisations in Poland. She organized also an intense lobbying effort for Lockheed Martin against French airplane producer Dassault.

New escapade during the summer. Nicolas, Cecilia, their common mistress and their children went on holidays to the United States at Wolfeboro, not far from the property of President Bush. The bill was paid this time by Robert F. Agostinelli, an Italian-New Yorker investment banker, Zionist and a pure brand of neo-conservative who writes in Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee.

The success of Nicolas had impact on his half brother, Pierre Olivier. Under the American name of Oliver, he was named by Frank Carlucci (formerly N°2 of the CIA after having been recruited by Frank Wisner, Sr.) Director of the new investment fund of the Carlyle Group (the common investment firm of the Bush family and Ben Laden). Having become the 5th largest business dealer in the world, he handles the main assets of the sovereign funds of Kuwait and Singapore.

The popularity of the President is in a free fall in the polls. One of his communications advisors, Jacques Seguela (also consultant for political communication at the NED where he is in charge of diverse CIA operations in Western Europe and Latin America), proposes to detract the public’s attention with new “people stories”. The announcement of the divorce with Cecilia was publicised by Libération, the paper of his friend Edouard de Rothschild, to cover up the slogans of demonstrators in a day of general strike. Stronger even, the communications agent organized a meeting between the president and the former top model, Carla Bruni. Some days later, her liaison with the president became official and the media hammering covered up once again political criticism. Some weeks later, the third marriage of Nicolas occurred. This time, he chose as best men Mathilde Agostinelle (the wife of Robert) and Nicolas Bazire, a former cabinet director of Edouard Balladur who became assistant manager at the Rothschilds.

When will the French use their eyes to see what they have to do ?

Zionists Penetrate Syrian Airspace To Kill Son of Slain Hezbollah Commander

[SEE:  UN: constant relations between Israel and Syrian rebels]

Jihad MughniyehFile- Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of slain top Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, speaks during a rally in Beirut, Feb. 22, 2008. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)
Imad Mughniyeh2 Imad Mughniyeh–Killed in Damascus by a Zionist bomb (Saudi or Mossad) February 12, 2008

BEIRUT: An Israeli helicopter strike on Syria’s Golan Heights Sunday killed the son of slain Hezbollah top commander Imad Mughniyeh and 9 other fighters, a Lebanese security source told The Daily Star.

Jihad Mughniyeh, field commander Mohammad Issa who goes by the nom de guerre “Abu Issa” and 7 other Hezbollah fighters were killed in the attack, the source said.

An Iranian field commander Abu Ali Tabtabai was also killed in the strike. The strike entirely destroyed one Hezbollah vehicle and damaged another, the source said.

Hezbollah issued a statement confirming the strike saying “a number of mujahedeens were martyred,” during an inspection mission in the Syrian town of Quneitra. The Hezbollah statement added that the names of the fighters will be divulged later.

In addition to Mughniyeh and Issa, the source said some of the Hezbollah fighters who were killed in the strike include: Mahdi Nasser al-Moussawi, Ali Fouad Hasan, Ghazi Ali Dawi, Hussein Hasan Hasan and Hussein Ismail al-Ashhab.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported that Israeli forces went on high alert in the Shebaa Farms area, southeast of Lebanon, after news emerged that Hezbollah fighters were the target of the strike.

An Israeli helicopter carried out a strike against “terrorists” in the Syrian sector of the Golan Heights who were allegedly preparing an attack on Israel, an Israeli security source had earlier said.

The source told AFP the strike took place near Quneitra, close to the cease-fire line separating the Syrian part of the Golan Heights from the Israeli-occupied sector, confirming a report by Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television.

The report had said that an Israeli helicopter fired two missiles in the Syrian province of Quneitra near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

It did not specify the target of the strike in the area, called Amal Farms. The Israeli military declined comment and Syrian state media did not mention the attack.

In the introduction to its evening news bulletin, Al-Manar described the Israeli strike “a foolish venture” that reflects Israel’s “madness” in light of Hezbollah’s growing military might and that could lead to a costly adventure that puts the entire Middle Eat region in jeopardy.

Quneitra has seen heavy fighting between forces loyal to President Bashar Assad and rebels including Al-Qaeda-linked fighters.

“An Israeli helicopter fired two missiles on Amal Farms in Quneitra,” the Lebanese news channel said, adding that two reconnaissance planes were also flying over the area.

Israel has struck Syria several times since the start of the nearly four-year civil war, mostly destroying weaponry such as missiles that Israeli officials said were destined for Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon.

Syria said last month that Israeli jets had bombed areas near Damascus international airport and in the town of Dimas, near the border with Lebanon.

– See more at:

NSA–“Your data is our data, your equipment is our equipment.”

The Digital Arms Race: NSA Preps America for Future Battle

der spiegel

By Jacob Appelbaum, Aaron Gibson, Claudio Guarnieri, Andy Müller-Maguhn, Laura Poitras, , Leif Ryge, and

Photo Gallery: 'Controlled Escalation' Photos

The NSA’s mass surveillance is just the beginning. Documents from Edward Snowden show that the intelligence agency is arming America for future digital wars — a struggle for control of the Internet that is already well underway.

Normally, internship applicants need to have polished resumes, with volunteer work on social projects considered a plus. But at Politerain, the job posting calls for candidates with significantly different skill sets. We are, the ad says, “looking for interns who want to break things.”

Politerain is not a project associated with a conventional company. It is run by a US government intelligence organization, the National Security Agency (NSA). More precisely, it’s operated by the NSA’s digital snipers with Tailored Access Operations (TAO), the department responsible for breaking into computers.Potential interns are also told that research into third party computers might include plans to “remotely degrade or destroy opponent computers, routers, servers and network enabled devices by attacking the hardware.” Using a program called Passionatepolka, for example, they may be asked to “remotely brick network cards.” With programs like Berserkr they would implant “persistent backdoors” and “parasitic drivers”. Using another piece of software called Barnfire, they would “erase the BIOS on a brand of servers that act as a backbone to many rival governments.”

An intern’s tasks might also include remotely destroying the functionality of hard drives. Ultimately, the goal of the internship program was “developing an attacker’s mindset.”

The internship listing is eight years old, but the attacker’s mindset has since become a kind of doctrine for the NSA’s data spies. And the intelligence service isn’t just trying to achieve mass surveillance of Internet communication, either. The digital spies of the Five Eyes alliance — comprised of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — want more.

The Birth of D Weapons

According to top secret documents from the archive of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden seen exclusively by SPIEGEL, they are planning for wars of the future in which the Internet will play a critical role, with the aim of being able to use the net to paralyze computer networks and, by doing so, potentially all the infrastructure they control, including power and water supplies, factories, airports or the flow of money.

During the 20th century, scientists developed so-called ABC weapons — atomic, biological and chemical. It took decades before their deployment could be regulated and, at least partly, outlawed. New digital weapons have now been developed for the war on the Internet. But there are almost no international conventions or supervisory authorities for these D weapons, and the only law that applies is the survival of the fittest.

Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan foresaw these developments decades ago. In 1970, he wrote, “World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” That’s precisely the reality that spies are preparing for today.

The US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have already established their own cyber forces, but it is the NSA, also officially a military agency, that is taking the lead. It’s no coincidence that the director of the NSA also serves as the head of the US Cyber Command. The country’s leading data spy, Admiral Michael Rogers, is also its chief cyber warrior and his close to 40,000 employees are responsible for both digital spying and destructive network attacks.

Surveillance only ‘Phase 0’

From a military perspective, surveillance of the Internet is merely “Phase 0” in the US digital war strategy. Internal NSA documents indicate that it is the prerequisite for everything that follows. They show that the aim of the surveillance is to detect vulnerabilities in enemy systems. Once “stealthy implants” have been placed to infiltrate enemy systems, thus allowing “permanent accesses,” then Phase Three has been achieved — a phase headed by the word “dominate” in the documents. This enables them to “control/destroy critical systems & networks at will through pre-positioned accesses (laid in Phase 0).” Critical infrastructure is considered by the agency to be anything that is important in keeping a society running: energy, communications and transportation. The internal documents state that the ultimate goal is “real time controlled escalation”.

One NSA presentation proclaims that “the next major conflict will start in cyberspace.” To that end, the US government is currently undertaking a massive effort to digitally arm itself for network warfare. For the 2013 secret intelligence budget, the NSA projected it would need around $1 billion in order to increase the strength of its computer network attack operations. The budget included an increase of some $32 million for “unconventional solutions” alone.

In recent years, malware has emerged that experts have attributed to the NSA and its Five Eyes alliance based on a number of indicators. They include programs like Stuxnet, used to attack the Iranian nuclear program. Or Regin, a powerful spyware trojan that created a furor in Germany after it infected the USB stick of a high-ranking staffer to Chancellor Angela Merkel. Agents also used Regin in attacks against the European Commission, the EU’s executive, and Belgian telecoms company Belgacom in 2011.Given that spies can routinely break through just about any security software, virtually all Internet users are at risk of a data attack.

The new documents shed some new light on other revelations as well. Although an attack called Quantuminsert has been widely reported by SPIEGEL and others, documentation shows that in reality it has a low success rate and it has likely been replaced by more reliable attacks such as Quantumdirk, which injects malicious content into chat services provided by websites such as Facebook and Yahoo. And computers infected with Straitbizarre can be turned into disposable and non-attributable “shooter” nodes. These nodes can then receive messages from the NSA’s Quantum network, which is used for “command and control for very large scale active exploitation and attack.” The secret agents were also able to breach mobile phones by exploiting a vulnerability in the Safari browser in order to obtain sensitive data and remotely implant malicious code.

In this guerilla war over data, little differentiation is made between soldiers and civilians, the Snowden documents show. Any Internet user could suffer damage to his or her data or computer. It also has the potential to create perils in the offline world as well. If, for example, a D weapon like Barnfire were to destroy or “brick” the control center of a hospital as a result of a programming error, people who don’t even own a mobile phone could be affected.

Intelligence agencies have adopted “plausible deniability” as their guiding principle for Internet operations. To ensure their ability to do so, they seek to make it impossible to trace the author of the attack.

It’s a stunning approach with which the digital spies deliberately undermine the very foundations of the rule of law around the globe. This approach threatens to transform the Internet into a lawless zone in which superpowers and their secret services operate according to their own whims with very few ways to hold them accountable for their actions.

Attribution is difficult and requires considerable forensic effort. But in the new documents there are at least a few pointers. Querty, for example, is a keylogger that was part of the Snowden archive. It’s a piece of software designed to surreptitiously intercept all keyboard keys pressed by the victim and record them for later inspection. It is an ordinary, indeed rather dated, keylogger. Similar software can already be found in numerous applications, so it doesn’t seem to pose any acute danger — but the sourcecode contained in it does reveal some interesting details. They suggest that this keylogger might be part of the large arsenal of modules that that belong to the Warriorpride program, a kind of universal Esperanto software used by all the Five Eyes partner agencies that at times was even able to break into iPhones, among other capabilities. The documents published by SPIEGEL include sample code from the keylogger to foster further research and enable the creation of appropriate defenses.‘Just a Bunch of Hackers’

The men and women working for the Remote Operations Center (ROC), which uses the codename S321, at the agency’s headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, work on one of the NSA’s most crucial teams, the unit responsible for covert operations. S321 employees are located on the third floor of one of the main buildings on the NSA’s campus. In one report from the Snowden archive, an NSA man reminisces about how, when they got started, the ROC people were “just a bunch of hackers.” Initially, people worked “in a more ad hoc manner,” the report states. Nowadays, however, procedures are “more systematic”. Even before NSA management massively expanded the ROC group during the summer of 2005, the department’s motto was, “Your data is our data, your equipment is our equipment.”

The agents sit in front of their monitors, working in shifts around the clock. Just how close the NSA has already gotten to its aim of “global network dominance” is illustrated particularly well by the work of department S31177, codenamed Transgression.The department’s task is to trace foreign cyber attacks, observe and analyze them and, in the best case scenario, to siphon off the insights of competing intelligence agencies. This form of “Cyber Counter Intelligence” counts among the most delicate forms of modern spying.


UN: constant relations between Israel and Syrian rebels

UN: constant relations between Israel and Syrian rebels

Syria Israel maintains constant for months and regular contacts with militant groups of Syrian rebels fighting against the regime of President Bashar al Assad. This was stated by a recent UN report, taken from many online sites, including that of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Forces of the United Nations Disengagement Watchers (UNDOF) explain that Israeli officials and terrorists supported from abroad “have collaborated directly” along the Syrian border in the last 18 months.

In the report UNDOF peacekeepers have also reported that he saw Israeli soldiers “open the border and let people” as well as militiamen wounded who were admitted to hospitals in Safed and Nahariya.

“The UNDOF – the report says – has seen at least ten people injured transported by armed opposition (Syrian) through the area of ​​the ceasefire. It also identified the soldiers of the Israeli and Syrian territory handed in two crates to militiamen armed Syrian opposition “.

ISRAEL AND AL QAEDA – In an article published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the political commentator Ehud Yaari recently described the “undeclared truce” that exists between the Jewish state and the terrorists of al-Qa’eda stressing that, so far , the jihadists have never attacked the Israeli army. “The paintings of an-Nusra Front prefer to maintain a collaboration dictated by free time with other rebel factions. So does with Israel. “ Accordingly – adds Yaari – the Jewish state will not try for hours to “destroy the military power” of the affiliates of al-Qa’eda. According to military sources, in addition, some members of the Syrian opposition would frequent secret meetings with the armed forces of Tel Aviv in the Israeli town of Tiberias.

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO TERRORISTS – Tel Aviv in these three and a half years of civil war has often provided health care to anti-Assad fighters. They are in fact at least 400 people from Syria treated in northern Israeli town of Nahariya since the conflict began in Syria. Hundreds were also patients Syrians in Safed (Galilee). The identity of the patients the Israeli authorities maintain absolute reserve. According to reports, however, even the local press, many of the patients are fighters of the Syrian opposition.

AIR RAID OF ISRAEL IN DAMASCUS – Meanwhile, the Syrian authorities have accused Israel of having conducted two airstrikes Saturday, December 7 against targets in Syrian territory, not far from the capital Damascus. Israel has not confirmed nor denied the report. The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post quoted unnamed sources claiming instead to be hit would be the deposits of heavy weapons from Iran and destined to be delivered to the Lebanese Hezbollah. Even CNN has collected similar information: “Israel has hit missiles and equipment that should have been delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

“The Israeli enemy has attacked Syria taking aim carefully secured two regions of the province of Damascus: the sector of Dimas and the international airport of Damascus,” said the Syrian TV. Residents of the area said they heard several explosions. There would be no victims. “This attack demonstrates the direct involvement of Israel in supporting terrorism in Syria, along with other Western countries and countries in the region,” he accused.

SYRIA WRITES TO UN – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates sent two identical letters to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council to condemn the “aggression” Israeli Syrian territory. The Ministry added: “This attack shows the direct support of the Israeli regime to terrorists and their organizations in Syria”, in particular Jabhat al-Nusra Front, stating that such attacks “do not discourage Syrian forces continue to fight terrorism in all its forms and types, and with all the tools available in the entire Syrian territory. “

Warning against the consequences of the Israeli aggression and the risks to peace and security in the region and in the world, the Damascus government has invited the community and the Security Council to “condemn this brutal and blatant aggression with full force and to impose dissuasive sanctions against Israel, which did not hide its support for terrorism, as well as his intentions premeditated against Syria and to take all the measures provided for in the Charter of the United Nations to prevent the recurrence of similar attacks on Israelis. “

1,000 “Drill Instructors” To Train Syrian Invasion Proxies for Late 2015

US troops training Syrian ‘moderates’ could top 1,000 – Pentagon

AFP Photo / AMC / Fadi Al-Halabi

AFP Photo / AMC / Fadi Al-Halabi

The Pentagon announced that a mission to train the “moderate” Syrian opposition may involve over 1,000 US troops. The first soldiers may flow into the region in a month, while the trained fighters may return to Syria to “fight ISIS” by the end of 2015.

The earlier announced number suggested 400 pairs of US boots on the ground in countries neighboring Syria, where the training will take place. However, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters in a press briefing on Friday that the total number “could approach 1,000.”

“It might even exceed that. I can’t rule that out,” Kirby added.

The troops, ranging from special operations to conventional forces, will be based in at least three different training sites – in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.

Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby . (Mark Wilson / Getty Images / AFP)

Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby . (Mark Wilson / Getty Images / AFP)

Deployment orders could come as early as next week, with full deployment beginning in the next four to six weeks, Kirby said.

“I think you’ll start to see orders for some of those troops over the next four to six weeks. Some could be given orders very soon, perhaps as soon as within the next week or so. But they’ll flow in, I think, over the next four to six weeks,” he added.

However, Kirby said that recruiting has not yet started, and that opposition training would not begin before March.

The US is “working with the Syrian moderate opposition leadership to identify potential Syrian moderate groups from which recruiting could occur,” Kirby explained. After that, the rebels will have several months of training before they are sent into battle by the end of the year.

AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi

AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi

The training mission, according to Pentagon officials, will focus on reaching three goals.

First of all, the US plans to train the opposition in self-defense to protect the towns they control. Secondly, the US envisages the “moderate” opposition eventually starting an offensive against Islamic State forces. And finally, Kirby said, the trained fighters would “help work with political opposition leaders towards a political solution in Syria.”

Kirby also announced that trainers from other countries could join the effort to help tackle the Islamic State threat in Syria.

The $500 million training plan for Syrian insurgents was first proposed by the Pentagon in June last year. Congress first approved the measure in September for three months, and last month has extended the program through 2016.1,

Kuwait Imprisons Young Man for Tweets

Kuwaiti activist sentenced for insulting the Emir on Twitter


This statement was originally published on on 5 January 2015.The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) denounces the verdict handed down by the Kuwaiti Court of Cassation, against activist Saqr Al-Hashash on charges of insulting the Emir (The Prince).

On January 5, 2015, the Kuwaiti Court of Cassation sentenced the activist to one year and eight months in prison for insulting the Emir through tweets he posted on his personal Twitter account. Noticeably, the criminal court had previously acquitted Saqr Al-Hashash of that charge in two lawsuits lodged again him on the same accusations.

“This judgment is just one more in a series of verdicts that the Kuwaiti judicial system has handed down, in connection with insulting the Emir on Twitter. Such a matter is a clear violation of freedom of expression in the country,” ANHRI says.

ANHRI implores the Kuwaiti authorities to release the activist without delay and to drop all the charges pressed against him. Such a verdict, accordingly, breaches all international treaties and conventions on freedom of expression and human rights in general.

Color Revolution Bedoon–Kuwait’s Restless, Homeless People

cemmie greece

Unlike the majority of protesters in the Arab Spring, protesters in Kuwait have rallied against their government on issues anchored in basic human rights rather than on material needs.[1] Instead of trying to topple the government, the focus has been on checking the authority of the ruling family and holding it accountable to its citizens. Arising from these efforts is the plight of the “Bedoon” – the stateless – of Kuwait, who despite living there for decades, hold no nationality. The Arab Spring protests of 2011 invigorated their demands for citizenship but after months of rallying and campaigning, what progress have they achieved?

Samiha Kamel


A small Gulf country with just 3.7 million citizens, Kuwait has a median income of over USD 48,000, making it the 10th richest country in the world in 2012.[2] Indicative of its wealth, Kuwait provides its citizens with unparalleled benefits including free education, free healthcare, virtually guaranteed employment, and subsidized housing, electricity, and food. In 2011, in celebration of Kuwait’s 50th anniversary of independence and 20th anniversary since the Iraqi occupation, the Emir gave 1,000 Kuwaiti dinars, or USD 3,500, combined with 14 months of free food rations, to every citizen.[3]

kuwait bidoon flag

However, excluded from this relative privilege are around 180,000 Bedoon who claim Kuwaiti nationality but have not been able to obtain it for the past 50 years.[4] Because Kuwait does not officially recognize statelessness in its constitution, Bedoons have been termed “illegal residents” and found themselves discriminated against in many ways; they cannot obtain marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, or birth certificates, which resultantly makes owning property, traveling outside the country, or legally establishing a family, fairly impossible. Over time, their precarious position has contributed to increasing prejudice, poverty, and growing hopelessness for the future.[5]

The matter of statelessness in Kuwait began in 1959, in preparation for establishing independence from Britain. At that time, Kuwait instituted a new law setting out parameters of eligibility for Kuwaiti nationality, and government authorities attempted to identify and register all residents of Kuwait. However, many residents, primarily nomads living on the outskirts of Kuwait, fell through the cracks. Many failed to register themselves and their families because they were unaware of the nationality drive, or they were illiterate, or they simply failed to put stock in the importance and necessity of gaining citizenship. And indeed, for a time, the Bedoon benefitted from all the same economic and social benefits as Kuwaiti citizens except for the right to vote.[6] But between 1960 and 1987, the government began implementing laws that restricted the rights of the stateless and when the outbreak of the 1980 war between Iran and Iraq threatened internal stability in Kuwait, the Bedoon fell victim to the atmosphere of mistrust. In 1990 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Bedoon were accused of being Iraqi accomplices even though it is estimated that as many as one third of the people killed by the Iraqi army were Bedoon.[7] This community was then deprived of their rights to education, health care, employment, and any form of documentation.[8] Since then, the Bedoon have been living in slum-like conditions on the outskirts of Kuwait, where they suffer numerous human rights violations.

In February 2011, as Arab Spring protests started spreading throughout the Arab world, Kuwait’s Bedoon also organized public demonstrations. But unlike the rest of the protesters in the Arab Spring, these protesters did not demand the overthrow of the regime but rather, they sought constitutional reforms that would give them their basic rights for citizenship and participation.[9] Thousands of Bedoon began gathering on Fridays, making a concerted effort to maintain peaceful protest by handing out flowers to the special forces guarding the demonstrations, offering tea and coffee to the police, and cleaning up garbage after the gatherings.[10] Nonetheless, State security forces cracked down on these demonstrations, dispersing protestors with tear gas, smoke bombs, and water cannons, beating them with batons, and arresting dozens of protesters.[11] Many women, children, elderly and disabled were detained for weeks on end. In one instance, security forces violently dispersed around 300 protesters in Taima, northwest of Kuwait City, and arrested 14 of them. The Ministry of Interior said protesters had committed “shameful acts,” such as trying to “burn tires and block roads.” But local rights activists told Human Rights Watch that the gathering was peaceful.[12] The detained Bedoon were subsequently freed after nearly two weeks.

By mid-January, Kuwait’s Interior Ministry had issued statements threateningdeportationfor any Bedoon – or any of their family members – who were caught demonstrating. The government also threatened dismissing stateless protesters who serve in the military or police and evicting them from public housing projects.[13] Multiple warnings were issued cautioning Bedoon not to gather in public spaces, citing Article 12 of the 1979 Public Gatherings law, which bars non-Kuwaitis from participating in public gatherings.[14]

Eventually, with the potential for protests to spiral out of control, Kuwait’s government began offering the prospect of reform. In March 2011, the head of the Bedoon committee, Saleh al-Fadhala, announced a package of eleven rights attained for Bedoon’s that included the right to civil documentation, education, health care, and work.[15] The government went even further when in January 2013, it issued national identification cards to 80,000 stateless Bedoons.[16] But amongst critics, these reforms were perceived as being short-term concessions aimed at circumventing further protests; although basic rights are important, the nationality issue must be addressed to ensure an adequate and fair resolution to the underlying problems of poverty, exclusion, and statelessness in Kuwait.[17]

Reports show that in the last 20 years, only 16,000 citizenship applications for Bedoon have been approved. Following the Arab Spring protests, interior minister Sheikh Ahmad Al Humoud Al Sabah, said they would start to naturalize some of the Bedoon, with as many as 34,000 stateless people

kuwait bidoon protestors

qualifying for citizenship under Kuwait’s nationality law.[18] Still, this number falls considerably short of the estimated 180,000 Bedoon that live in Kuwait and so far, implementation has been slow. In March 2013, two years after the protests started, Kuwait passed a law to naturalize 4,000 Bedoon. State Minister for Cabinet Affairs, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah al-Sabah, said the government hoped it would serve as a “foundation for resolving the Bedoon problem”.[19] However, these naturalizations have yet to happen and after the bill was issued, the wording was changed from 4,000 “Bedoon” to just 4,000 “foreigners,” which could essentially exclude the Bedoon or at least limit the number of them that eventually receive citizenship.[20]

Today, the statelessness issue remains one of the most hotly contested in Kuwait. On one hand, local activists condemn the humanitarian consequences of Kuwaiti government policies towards the Bedoon. On the other hand, some Kuwaiti citizens have protested against naturalizations that have already occurred, expressing that they would have had the effect of bolstering particular tribal constituencies.[21] Regardless, government inaction towards the plight of the Bedoon means that there are yet to be policies instituted that work towards remedying the problem. Thousands remain deprived of their basic political, economic, and social rights, limiting their ability to contribute to Kuwaiti society. As Mona Kareem, a Bedoon rights activist stated, Kuwaiti officials continue to emphasize that naturalization is “a sovereign decision and a right for the state to decide in accordance to its higher interests.” But instead, what must be clarified is that the naturalization of Bedoon does not need to be a sovereign decision, but a systematic process that meets the basic needs and demands of the Bedoon themselves.[22]

All links accessed on 27/05/2013[1] Khouri, Rami, “Kuwait’s Historic Civil Disobedience,” Agence Global, (20/4/2013)

[2] Saudi Gazette, “Qatar richest country in the world in 2012”, (14/3/2012)

[3] McLean, Jesse, “Life in Kuwait Too Good a Deal for Revolt,” Toronto Star, (16/2/2011)

[4] Refugees International, “Without Citizenship – Statelessness, discrimination, and repression in Kuwait”, (13/5/2011)

[5] Human Rights Watch, “Prisoners of the Past – Kuwaiti Bedoon and the Burden of Statelessness”, (06/2011)

[6] BBC, “Kuwait MPs Pass Law to Naturalize 4,000 Stateless Bidun”, (20/3/2013)

[7] Refugees International, “Without Citizenship – Statelessness, discrimination, and repression in Kuwait,” op.cit.

[8] Kareem, Mona, “Is Kuwait Serious About Bedoon Naturalization,” Al Monitor, (27/3/2013)

[9] Khouri, Rami, op.cit.

[10] Refugees International, “Kuwait: Bedoon Nationality Demands Can’t Be Silenced”, (3/5/2012)

[11] Human Rights Watch, “Prisoners of the Past – Kuwaiti Bedoon and the Burden of Statelessness”, op.cit.

[12] Bedoon Rights, “Human Rights Watch: 180 Bedoon were Tried”, (28/2/2013)

[13] Hilleary, Cecily, “In Kuwait’s Arab Spring, Bidun Fight for Citizenship”, Middle East Voices, (23/1/2012)

[14] Bedoon Rights, “Human Rights Watch: 180 Bedoon were Tried,” op.cit.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Valdini, Claire, “Kuwait Issues 80,000 ID Cards to Stateless Arabs,” Arabian Business, (20/1/2013)

[17] Refugees International, “Without Citizenship – Statelessness, discrimination, and repression in Kuwait”, op.cit.

[18] Valdini, Claire, op.cit.

[19] BBC, “Kuwait MPs Pass Law to Naturalize 4,000 Stateless Bidun,” op.cit.

[20] Amnesty, “Kuwait: Small Step Forward for Bidun Rights as 4,000 ‘Foreigners’ granted citizenship”, (21/3/13)

[21] Human Rights Watch, “Prisoners of the Past – Kuwaiti Bedoon and the Burden of Statelessness,” op.cit.

[22] Kareem, Mona, op.cit.

Belgian Police–Terrorist Cell Ops Run By Syria-Fighter From Greece

The home of the terrorists in Verviers

Plan for an attack known by wiretaps

News Update Today

© AFP.

The terror cell that was preparing attacks in Belgium, was driven from Greece by a returned Syriëstrijder. That has a terror expert said Friday at the Belgian broadcaster VTM News.

Terror Expert Farouk Özgunes said the investigation was opened to the terror group between Christmas and New Year after a tip to the police about the telephone traffic of an inmate in a prison in Liege. The phone traffic according Özgunes showed that the detainee was in contact with a Syriëstrijder who had gone to Greece. Additionally telephoned Liège detainee often with his brother, one of the suspects Thursday in Verviers is slain.

eavesdrop The talks would the police have come behind the plan for an attack on the Belgian police. The man in Greece would have been the principal and led the operation. He would also have financed the terrorist cell.

Zionist EU Panics–Belgian Troops Also Mobilize To Guard Jewish Sites

Jan. 17, 2015: Belgian para-commandos patrol near a synagogue in the center of Antwerp, Belgium. (AP)

Belgian guards protect key sites across country

jews franceA French soldier secures the access to a Jewish school in Paris as part of the highest level of ‘Vigipirate’ security plan after last week’s terrorist attacks January 12, 2015.  Credit: Reuters/Gonzalo Fuentes


EU Follows Obama’s Lead Voting To Open the Armories of Europe for Ukraine

[SEE:  Obama’s Russian War Resolution Passes By 411 to 23]

Russia accuses European parliament of gunning for war

kyiv post

President Petro Poroshenko gives a speech as he hands over new military equipment to the Ukrainian forces near the city of Zhytomyr, some 140 km from Kiev, on January 5, 2015.

Russian officials have accused the European Union of “militancy” in a bitter response to the Jan. 15 European parliament resolution giving member states carte blanche to supply arms to Ukraine.

The head of the Russian Federation Council committee on international affairs, Konstantin Kosachev, denounced the resolution as “especially militant.”

“The European parliamentarians discourage those who are trying to look for dialogue with Russia, not confrontation,” he said.

The European parliament condemned Russia’s “aggressive and expansionist policy, which constitutes a threat to the unity and independence of Ukraine and poses a potential threat to the EU itself.”

In its resolution, parliament urged the European Council to keep in place tough sanctions against Russia and even proposed broadening them into the nuclear and international financial sectors if Putin’s government continues to destabilize Ukraine.

The resolution went on to state that “there are now no objections or legal restrictions to prevent Member States from providing defensive arms to Ukraine” and that “the EU should explore ways to support the Ukrainian government in enhancing its defence capabilities and the protection of Ukraine’s external borders.”

Aleksey Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, called the resolution “banal and dangerous.”

“By calling to maintain and even enhance sanctions against Russia the European Parliament is supporting tension in Europe,” Pushkov added.

The European Parliament resolved to support the EU’s existing policy of refusing to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and welcomed recently adopted additional sanctions on investment, services and trade relating to Crimea and Sevastopol.

It also highlighted Russia’s “information war” in Europe and called on the EU officials to develop a plan to counter Russian propaganda with their own Russian language programming.

Yet Ukraine was also disappointed with the resolution, which fell short of describing the Russian-backed separatists as terrorists.

President Petro Poroshenko had claimed on Jan. 13 that the European Parliament was preparing to call on the leaders of European Union to place the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic on their list of terrorist organizations.

But European MPs instead condemned “acts of terrorism and criminal behavior of the separatists and other irregular forces in eastern Ukraine,” adding that “according to credible sources, Russia continues to support the separatist militias through a steady flow of military equipment, mercenaries and regular Russian units, including main battle tanks, sophisticated anti-aircraft systems and artillery.”

The Russian war — using proxies and, when needed, Russian regular army troops — in eastern Ukraine has already taken more than 4,700 lives, according to United Nations estimates. On Dec. 18, U.S. President Barack Obama signed a law allowing for economic and military support to Ukraine, but the current American policy remains not to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons.

Kyiv Post staff writer Oksana Grytsenko can be reached at

Will Greece Nationalize Banks After Latest Bank-Run?

Draghi blackmails Greeks

failed revolution

… and we haven’t even reached the election day
globinfo freexchange
It appears that ECB decided that will not buy Greek bonds, after the systemic banks of the country reported having liquidity problems, only a week before the crucial national elections. It’s important to remind that the Leftist party, SYRIZA, which is determined to terminate austerity policies, precedes in all polls.
From ZH:
Der Spiegel reports after the European close that ECB QE will not include Greek bonds due to their low rating… but will see national central banks buying own-country debt.”
… following yesterday’s report that two Greek banks had suffered sufficiently material deposit withdrawals to force them to apply for the unpopular and highly stigmatizing Emergency Liquidity Assistance program with the ECB, now the other two of Greece’s largest banks have also succumbed to reserve depletion after the Greek bank run appears to have gone viral. As Greek reports, now all four Greek banks have requested ELA assistance from the same ECB president who earlier today is said to have unceremoniously kicked out Greece from the ECB’s QE program.”
As predicted, more than two years ago:
… the ECB becomes a corresponding Fed in the European area, “serving” the problematic economies that are excluded from the bond markets, through the print of new money. Therefore, the problematic economies will be loaded with more and more debt which the ECB, i.e. the largest private European banks will hold. Someone could argue that is not something new, since nations were facing huge debts in previous years, because they were indebted to banks through the excessive borrowing from the markets. But in this case, there is an important difference that makes things much worse: it is the cruel conditions imposed by the ECB to states that need to buy money. States that are excluded from markets, are now trapped within the neoliberal economic empire of the eurozone and will be forced to follow new austerity measures every time they need ECB to buy their bonds.
Meanwhile, the banking-media dictatorship in Greece has launched a new propaganda war against SYRIZA’s MP, Rachel Makri this time, who stated that Greece could “print” up to 100 billion euros in an emergency situation. The systemic parrots in the mainstream media and various governmental officials, as well as others from pro-austerity parties, rushed to blame Makri as being irresponsible, dangerous, etc. Systemic-friendly trolls flooded internet with ironic uploads and Samaras’ party, New Democracy, made some tv spots in less than 24 hours, to point the supposed “irresponsibility” of Marki. Another indication that the system acts under absolute panic.
However, the reality is that the country does have the possibility to print euros by itself. In fact, this has been done already by another country, being under a memorandum program, like Greece.
From the Irish Independent, date 15/01/2011: “… the Central Bank of Ireland is financing €51bn of an emergency loan programme by printing its own money. […] A spokesman for the ECB said the Irish Central Bank is itself creating the money it is lending to banks, not borrowing cash from the ECB to fund the payments. The ECB spokesman said the Irish Central Bank can create its own funds if it deems it appropriate, as long as the ECB is notified.” (
Therefore, the systemic parrots either are lying, or, they should explain why wasn’t allowed to Greece to print its own euros. In any case, we know the answer: because Greece was chosen to be the “guinea pig” for the experiment of the most catastrophic neoliberal policies, and this experiment must be expanded throughout Europe at any cost.
We should wait to see how the ECB will react after the elections depending on the result. Under a specific scenario, already mentioned that “… the ECB will blackmail the government by threatening that will not purchase government bonds, therefore cut liquidity, in case that Greece choose a different path towards the reconstruction of the social state and labor rights, bringing minimum wage at pre-crisis levels, etc.”, and the only solution in this case, would be a fast reaction: “In case that SYRIZA has a secret agenda, and be pressed by the lenders beyond red lines, it could nationalize the central bank and return to the national currency, blowing up eurozone.” (
Otherwise, the officials of the European neoliberal economic empire may proceed to the last measure, which would be to remove the right of the eurozone countries to produce their own liquidity and be totally dependent on the ECB. Do they afraid SYRIZA that much? Probably not. What they afraid, is a domino of a rise of the Leftist parties in power in many European countries. As the old political system has been fully neoliberalized and has nothing to offer to the societies other than absolute destruction, the only way that was left, is blackmail. Maybe the time has come for the European people to fight and win the class war.
Read also:

Gazprom + EU Energy Officials Try To Get Their Heads Together

Gazprom head and European energy officials talk gas supply issues  

pipelines int

Fri, 16 January 2015

Gazprom hosted a working meeting earlier this week to discuss gas supply to European suppliers.

Gazprom Management Committee Chairman Alexey Miller and European Commission Vice President for Energy Union Maros Sefcovic paid special attention to the execution of the Brussels Agreements on Russian natural gas supply to Ukraine until 1 April 2015.

It was pointed out that Naftogaz of Ukraine had partially settled its debt to Gazprom, which enabled the Ukrainian company to resume Russian natural gas purchases. Naftogas acquires less gas than agreed in the Brussels Agreements, which leads to a fast reduction of gas reserves in underground storage facilities and retains transit risks for European customers at winter consumption maximums, Gazprom said.

Gazprom said the company systematically works on diversifying the energy supply routes and that its Nord Stream and Yamal – Europe pipelines demonstrate high reliability and efficiency of direct Russian natural gas deliveries.

Gazprom’s current efforts are aimed at creating a new gas pipeline to Turkey under the Black Sea. This project will provide for Russian natural gas supply in the amount of 50 Bcm to the Turkish and Greek borders.

On 30 October 2014 Brussels hosted the signing of a trilateral protocol among Russia, Ukraine and the European Union, stipulating the terms and conditions of gas supply to Ukraine until 1 April 2015. A key clause of the protocol provides for a discount on gas in the amount of $US100 for a thousand cubic meters.

In addition, on 30 October Gazprom and Naftogaz of Ukraine signed an addendum to the effective gas purchase and sale contract. In accordance with the document, Naftogaz of Ukraine transferred $US3.1 billion to Gazprom in partial repayment of the gas debt.

Image caption: Alexey Miller and Maros Sefcovic.

UN Sides With Turkey Over Cyprus State, Refusing To Address Turkish Naval Encroachment

[We are witnessing the international body as it chooses to follow the Turkish narrative on Cyprus, while ignoring the “Greek Cypriot discourses.” 


Ban’s rep, Espen Barth Eide, did the usual diplomatic doublespeak, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as he spoke from the left side of his mouth, blaming stalled talks upon Cypriot preoccupation with Turkish NAVTEXs and drilling in Cypriot waters, while simultaneously speaking from the other side of his mouth, crediting the Cypriot hydrocarbon demands as the single motivation bringing Turkey back to the negotiations table.

By coming down behind Turkey, pushing renewed negotiations forward, while doing nothing to end Turkish violations of internationally-recognized Sea Rights. Turkey is gaining through diplomacy the self-proclaimed rights to the resources lying iwithn the Cyprus EEZ, which it could not win in the previous “civil war.”  Turkey had no claim to Cyprus then, when it cited the large Turkish population on the island’s north side as grounds for invasion.  If the UN lets this Turkish aggression to go unanswered, then it is okaying similar military moves wherever Turkish expats live in large numbers.  By extension, then it must also grant Russia the same rights to protect Russians in Ukraine, Moldavia, Lithuania, wherever Obama is currently stirring-up trouble.]

Parties denounce Ban’s bias

Cyprus mail

Parties denounce Ban’s biasEspen Barth Eide’s activity has also been called into question

By George Psyllides

As expected, political parties expressed disapproval for the UNSG’s report.

Ruling DISY said it was especially concerned by the fact that Bank Ki-moon appeared to adopt the Turkish positions regarding the “so-called” Turkish Cypriot isolation.

“Once more we must categorically reject such claims,” DISY said, blaming problems the Turkish Cypriots may experience on the continued Turkish occupation of the island’s north.

The party also said it was Turkey’s arbitrary and illegal activity inside Cyprus’ EEZ that caused a problem.

“Above all, the UN must protect their own Convention on the Law of the Sea, and international legality,” DISY said.

Opposition AKEL said the report was not balanced and rightly prompted feelings of disappointment and concern.

The party said there was no criticism of Turkey’s violations, a stance that did not help diffuse the crisis, but also encouraged Turkey to continue to provoke.

AKEL also noted the appearance, after several years, of phraseology regarding the Turkish Cypriot community.

“Reasonable questions arise by the reference to removal of the isolation and restrictions that impede the Turkish Cypriot community’s economic development,” the party said.

It added that such unfortunate references only served to foment divisive tendencies among Turkish Cypriots.

DIKO chairman Nicolas Papadopoulos said the report “was another blow to President Nicos Anastasiades’ policy of unilateral concessions and the illusion that Turkish behaviour can be appeased.”

Papadopoulos said the policy of “generous offers” has failed.

Instead of recording the realities in Cyprus, which are the continuing Turkish invasion and the Turkish provocations inside the Cypriot EEZ, Ban’s concern was the “so-called Turkish Cypriot isolation,” Papadopoulos said.

EDEK said it was surprised to see the matter of the so-called isolation reappear after seven years, voicing concern about the way UNSG’s special envoy Espen Barth Eide exercised his duties.

UN adviser to Cyprus: Strong ties between Ankara and Cypriot Turks favor us

daily sabah


Espen Barth Eide, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s special adviser to Cyprus, said that concerns regarding Cyprus have been growing.

Speaking to Daily Sabah in Cyprus over two days, Eidi said that the negotiations on Cyprus started in September by reaching a new phase. “On September 17, we made a good beginning to negotiate the share of territories and authorities,” he said, adding that the main problem is that the negotiations could not progress.

“The hydrocarbon exploration off Cyprus must be kept away from negotiations.

—[even though]

The Hydrocarbon crisis brought the process to that point,” he said.

Eidi remarked on the hydrocarbon exploration that led to the present crisis in the negotiations: “We think the hydrocarbon crisis is a serious issue, since it is a factor constantly blocking the progress of the negotiations and it prevents the continuity of the talks. If a federal resolution is achieved on Cyprus, the matter of how the hydrocarbon income would be shared within the scope of federal state authority is already agreed upon between the parties.

“This situation is changing now. Some thoughts regarding whether Navtex should exist or not, prevails in the works investigating whether a mutual decision mechanism should be established or the Cyprus Republic should continue. The factor preventing our progress in negotiations is those differing opinions. I am sure that if we had been at the table, we would have already solved the hydrocarbon crisis.

“On Cyprus, the parties agree on which parts should go. However, there is a disagreement on where they are. An agreement will be made at negotiations in the future, but there seems to be no agreement for the present situation.”

Eidi also talked on the second Navtex provided by Turkey, which conducts seismic research in the Eastern Mediterranean on behalf of Turkish Cyprus. Eidi underlined that everyone should contribute to peace and stability on Cyprus. “We know from the very beginning that Cypriot Turks want the hydrocarbon issue to be tabled. But their wish could not be realized. However, last week, Greek Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiadis signaled that hydrocarbons can be tabled at the negotiations.”

Eide said: “Turkish Cyprus should answer this message. The second Navtex was provided by Turkey, but the Barbaros Hayrettin Pasha ship has not set sail yet.

–[SEE: Turkey Issues New NAVTEX, Makes Ready To Move Drill-Ship Barbaros (ED. NOTE–position of Turkish Barbaros has remained unchanged)]

Greek Cypriots have proposed some changes regarding certain subjects. They started to change on topics such as meeting without precondition and negotiating on hydrocarbons. Of course the functions and discourses progress step by step in politics.

“I advise the Turkish Cypriots not to focus on policies according to Greek Cypriot discourses.”–Eide

He continued: “The Greek side expressed that they did not have any written or official communication with Turkish Cypriots as part of the drilling agreements declared by Greek Cypriots, but they were ready to discuss the hydrocarbon agreement they made with Turkish Cyprus.

“In sum, the world would be pleased to see the resolution of the Cyprus issue. I would be the most happy if the two leaders agree to commence the negotiations now. Of course I cannot force the leaders, they should be eager themselves to do that. It does not matter when the negotiations would start. What really matters is achieving a final result at negotiations without any interruption. I hope that both parties will not leave the table.”

Eidi also commented on whether hydrocarbons are a curse or a boon for Cyprus. “In another region, I saw a hydrocarbon matter turn into a conflict. Based on the statistics, if hydrocarbons are found in a region, I can say it is a harbinger of bad news since it might lead to various political crises. However, if a convenient atmosphere is enabled, hydrocarbons might bring positive developments in economy and politics.

“The reason behind the hydrocarbon crisis in Cyprus is the lack of political stability and a suitable ground. There has been an ongoing problem for years. And we still try to solve this crisis with all our hopes. If the Cyprus issue is not resolved, we may be facing the evil face of hydrocarbons.”

Eidi also spoke about Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu’s one-day visit to Cyprus. “I don’t know Mr. Çavuşoğlu’s reason for visiting. However, I wish to say he might have come for some motivating initiatives for the restarting of negotiations. Our relation with Ankara is constructive and positive. Ankara’s approach to the resolution of the Cyprus issue is positive. We cannot ignore that. The close and strong relations and cooperation between Turkish Cyprus and Ankara favor us. We are pleased with this picture.”

ISIS is NOT ‘Blowback’ from Western Foreign Policy; It is Western foreign policy



ISIS is not ‘Blowback’ from Western Foreign Policy;

They ARE Western Foreign Policy

empire strikes black
By the Editor.

Notice that ISIS are sworn enemies of Syria, Hizbu’llah, and Iran. This in itself gives a most obvious clue as to the identity of the group’s benefactors.

A prevalent liberal cliché is the “blowback” theory – the theory that ISIS terror attacks, and indeed the group’s very existence, are somehow in retaliation to US/Western/”Israeli” foreign policy actions.

This is a disingenuous theory that is disseminated in order to keep the empire’s citizens on side. Crucially, it distracts from a key truth.

Western and “Israeli” intelligence has historically effected deep infiltration of ‘jihadist’ terror cells throughout the Arab world and the West; these groups are used literally as foot-soldiers (see Afghanistan throughout the 1980s) to achieve Western and “Israeli” military and strategic objectives. The “blowback” theory distracts from this key fact.

ISIS aren’t retaliating against Western foreign policy; they are Western foreign policy. These very people were mobilized against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya’s bogus ‘revolution’ of 2011, as with Syria in the same year.

In moving across the Syrian-Iraqi border, ISIS – Zionism’s foot-soldiers – underwent a magical media transformation into the ‘bad guys’. The ‘war against ISIS’ is a con, a total scam. It is a pretext for a war against the resistance axis: chiefly Syria, Hizbu’llah, Iran, and the Palestinian resistance. It is a pretext to kick the ‘Yinon plan’ – the plan to balkanise the Arab world to ensure “Israeli” hegemony – into high gear

The WMD lies of 2003 never went away; they simply got re-packaged for the liberal crowd in the post-Bush era.

The Yinon Plan, “Greater Israel”, Syria, Iraq, and ISIS: the Connection


The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Reach of a "Greater Israel"

 “Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project. (READ HERE)


Suspicion Grows That Paris Commando Attack Involved Intelligence Agencies


[SEE:  CIA behind Paris attack?]

As AQAP claims Paris attack, suspicious role of others possible


Yemen Post Staff

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) on Wednesday claimed responsibility for the last week’s attack on the French Newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
In a videotape on a pro-Al-Qaida website, an AQAP leader said the group had carried out the attack under an order from Ayman Al-Zawahiri, leader of the global terrorist network.
Though AQAP has been seen as the most dangerous branch of Al-Qaida, observers argued that the videotape was not sufficient evidence it had already carried out the attack. Contradictory statements on the attack including those by senior US and Yemeni officials and the statuses of Al-Qaida in the region boost such assumption, they said.
Nabil Albukiri, a researcher focused on militant groups and head of the Arab center for political studies and development, said the videotape could be part of the media competition between Al-Qaida branches in the region.
“These branches have been facing a global war weakening them to the extent it is possible they claim successful attacks on their enemies even though they are not behind attacks in reality. Such a move aims to keep high spirits of their exhausted militants and then convince others that Al-Qaida is still strong and can fight back,” he said.
Beyond Qaida ability
The Middle East has recently become an obvious arena for struggle of regional and foreign countries, a matter which made observers don’t exclude that countries are using terrorism as a key card in their struggle.
Yemeni observers said the post-Arab Spring violence has further exposed the struggle of big powers and rising regional powers over oil and other interests in the region.
“Now, these countries are seeking  to transfer part of their struggle from Iraq and Syria into Yemen, mainly for oil,” Albukiri said.
Abdul Salam Muhammad, head of the ABAAD studies and research center, said the attack on Charlie Hebdo was beyond the abilities of Al-Qaeda.
The attack points to involvement of international intelligence agencies and countries. No one can deny terrorism of Islamist militants; the point, however, is that neither AQAP nor ISIS has the abilities to carry out such a deadly attack in downtown the capital of one of the countries playing a key role in the fight against terror,” Muhammad said.
“The Kouatchi brothers were able to raid, camouflage and fight back with necessary guns which means they were well-trained at hands of combat professionals, not from Yemen,” he said.
Alsalahi, a political sociology professor at Sanaa University, said the West’s involvement can’t be ruled out when it comes to international terrorism.
“The West especially the US has been seeking to create a giant enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to interfere militarily in areas of conflicts, guarantee suitable sales of their weapons and in the end to convince people to pay taxes without asking about the military spending,” Alsalahi said.
AQAP has been seen as the most dangerous and active branch of Al-Qaida in the world. It has been responsible for several plots for attacks including a few bombing plots against US targets.
In response, the US has been providing direct support including drone strikes to the Yemeni army to fight AQAP. In this context, observers said the US is a direct enemy of AQAP which means the possibility of AQAP attack on Paris is low.
Local violence
Locally, AQAP has been very active since it was founded in 2009.
The group has lately increased its deadly attacks  mostly against the Houthi Militant Group.
In case AQAP was really responsible for the Paris attack, it is logical to link that to the plot backed by some Western countries which included handing power in Yemen to the Houthi Group, observers said.
Houthis were engaged in the war on Al-Qaida after they seized capital.
Muhammad said the power seizure by Houthi militias has resulted in increasing solidarity with Al-Qaida.
“As Houthi militias continue to tighten grip on power, power vacuum deepens, Al-Qaida finds more hotbeds and then its success in carrying out attacks increases,” he said.
Meanwhile, observers ruled out that the Coalition against ISIS will expand its operations into Yemen in response to terrorist threats to Europe including the Paris attack.
“In Yemen, the international community is directly backing the transition process and what is needed is that they help the country to build a real state not ruled by militants,” Muhammad said.



Putin To Make All Gas To EU “Self-Serve” At Turkish Fuel Depot

[European leaders helped the American Imperialists screw Russia in Europe, expecting to eventually kick everything Russian out the door, without ever thinking that the EU might not survive without Russian markets.  It has long been obvious, from every accusatory sentence that has been uttered by Western leaders about the Ukrainian conflict, that the plan is to exit the Gazprom gas network, and to contract other (non-existent) sources.  The extremely ridiculous part of all this drama has been that European leaders fully expect Putin’s people to sit on their hands while Western companies construct the means for Gazprom’s eventual elimination in Europe.  With this latest announcement, Putin has called their bluff, and upped the ante. 

This latest volley from Russia carries an implied secret message from Putin to the EU leadership, “Turkish stream will be completed before your American rescue.  How will Europe stay warm after that?”]

Russia to Shift Ukraine Gas Transit to Turkey as EU Cries Foul



[live link Gazprom update]

Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey, a surprise move that the European Union’s energy chief said would hurt its reputation as a supplier.

The decision makes no economic sense, Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission’s vice president for energy union, told reporters today after talks with Russian government officials and the head of gas exporter, OAO Gazprom (GAZP), in Moscow.

Gazprom, the world’s biggest natural gas supplier, plans to send 63 billion cubic meters through a proposed link under the Black Sea to Turkey, fully replacing shipments via Ukraine, Chief Executive Officer Alexey Miller said during the discussions. About 40 percent of Russia’s gas exports to Europe and Turkey travel through Ukraine’s Soviet-era network.

Russia, which supplies about 30 percent of Europe’s gas, dropped a planned link through Bulgaria bypassing Ukraine amid EU opposition last year. Russia’s relations with the EU have reached a post-Cold War low over President Vladimir Putin’s support for separatists in Ukraine.

Sefcovic said he was “very surprised” by Miller’s comment, adding that relying on a Turkish route, without Ukraine, won’t fit with the EU’s gas system.

Gazprom plans to deliver the fuel to Turkey’s border with Greece and “it’s up to the EU to decide what to do” with it further, according to Sefcovic.

Different Habits

“We don’t work like this,” he said. “The trading system and trading habits — how we do it today — are different.”

Sefcovic said he arrived in the Russian capital to discuss supplies to south-eastern EU countries after Putin scrapped the proposed $45 billion South Stream pipeline. The region, even if Turkey is included, doesn’t need the volumes Gazprom is planning for a new link, he said.

Ukraine makes sense as a transit country given its location in Europe and the “very clear specified places of deliveries” in Gazprom’s current long-term contracts with EU customers, Sefcovic said.

“I believe we can find a better solution,” Sefcovic said.

The 28-nation EU is planning build an energy union to reduce dependence on Russia and facilitate transition to a low-carbon economy. Russia was planning South Stream for about a decade, first claiming it would meet expanding demand in the EU, then saying would ensure supplies from high transit risks via Ukraine.

‘No Options’

Gazprom has reduced deliveries via Ukraine after price and debt disputes with the neighboring country that twice in the past decade disrupted supplies to the EU during freezing weather.

After building and acquiring export pipelines, the company cut transit via Ukraine to about 62 billion cubic meters last year from 137 billion in 2004.

“Transit risks for European consumers on the territory of Ukraine remain,” Miller said in an e-mailed statement. “There are no other options” except for the planned Turkish Stream link, he said.

“We have informed our European partners, and now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border,” Miller said.

Russia won’t hurt its image with a shift to Turkey because it has always been a reliable gas supplier and never violated its obligations, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters today in Moscow after meeting Sefcovic.

“The decision has been made,” Novak said. “We are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Elena Mazneva in Moscow at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at Torrey Clark, James Kraus

Banksters and lobbyists unite their puppets for war

Banksters and lobbyists unite their puppets for war

failed revolution

by system failure
A few days before the crucial elections on 25th of January in Greece, neoliberal dictatorship mechanisms in Europe have mobilized all the means, increasing the known propaganda of fear, as expected.
A latest “desperate” move, the trip of the Spanish PM, Mariano Rajoy, to Athens, in order to declare his support to the Greek PM, Antonis Samaras. (–business.html) Both the Spanish and the Greek PM belong to the neoliberal Right, so, naturally, Rajoy came to support the cruel policies of Samaras, the ones that applied himself to the Spanish people with the same results: poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, and of course, evictions in favor of the banks.
The visit of the Spanish PM to Greece, is not accidental at all. It has to do with the rapid rise of the new Leftist party, Podemos, in Spain, which is gaining an increasing power according to all recent polls. ( A party which came out of the people protesting in the streets and squares in Spain. Therefore, Rajoy’s visit was a clear effort towards the amplification of the neoliberal Right front, as Podemos and SYRIZA declared their will to shape a strong alliance from the first moment.
The good news is that, banksters and lobbyists in Europe, appear to be in panic indeed, mobilizing their puppets because they fear of an “uncontrolled” domino of rise of the Left in Europe, which could be disastrous for their plans about the successful completion of the experiment in Greece, and its expansion.
It’s also positive the fact that, in such a cruel economic war, things become more and more clear. On the one side, plutocrats mobilize their puppets in order to retain the control of the game and secure their dominance. On the other, the impoverished people who wake up and try to defend, or, re-conquer their rights, using the Left as a key weapon.
Samaras took advantage of Rajoy’s visit, claiming that Spain, which is also in a difficult situation, has lent Greece and therefore, Greece should not speak about debt “haircut”, because this would be against Spanish people. However, he “forgot” to mention that the European politicians and eurocrats made a clear choice to save banks (mostly French and German), when crisis hit eurozone, passing the bill to the European citizens. Samaras’ statement reflects actually the old tactic of “divide and rule”, thus aiming to turn the people of the European nations against each other, so that to prevent a strong unified front against the neoliberal catastrophe.
However, the positions of the Left in Greece, Spain and Europe, are very clear and focus on the real nature of the economic war, which is basically a class war. Therefore, there is a need for the creation of a strong, unified front by the European people against plutocrats who impose the destructive policies in every country.
ENEE representatives, the Greek and the German Minister of Finance, Gikas Hardouvelis and Wolfgang Schäuble, made new statements towards the usual line of austerity and reforms. All these, show only one thing: their agony to complete the experiment in Greece by any means. The best proof for what the plutocrats fear most, is the everyday war of statements and propaganda. And what they fear most, is the probability that the European people will choose to fight and resist united.

CIA behind Paris attack?

CIA behind Paris attack?

 failed revolution
globinfo freexchange
“The new information has almost confirmed that Paris attack was a false flag operation carried out by the CIA, says Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich, an independent researcher and writer based in Irvine, California.”
“’We have been told by the mainstream media, the Western media, that a Yemeni reporter has claimed that he had interviewed Kouachi who was responsible for the Paris attack, or one of those who were responsible,’ she said. ‘And he had ties with ‘the underwear bomber’, who was held responsible for wanting to blow up an airliner at Christmas in 2009,’ Ulrich added. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.”
“US and Yemeni officials told The Associated Press in May 2012 that the so-called underwear bomber was in fact working under cover for Saudi intelligence and the CIA when he was given a new non-metallic type bomb aimed at getting past airport security. Ulrich said that it’s important to mention that the so-called underwear bomber slipped past the security ‘when Israeli intelligence was in charge of the Amsterdam airport — [its] security.’ She added that intelligence officials failed to scrutinize the bomb and helped the bomber getting on the plane, which ‘indicates to me that they all were aware of this individual’s job.’”
“’So at the end of the day we have to understand who is gaining by all these alleged attacks,’ Ulrich emphasized. People are not being told the truth; they are ‘told a bunch of lies that are supposedly not connected and somehow when they do get connected we trace it back to the intelligence services, like the CIA.’”
“Said Kouachi, one of the two gunmen involved in last week’s massacre at the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, once told a Yemeni reporter that he had lived with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian ‘underwear bomber’ behind the failed 2009 terror plot on a Detroit-bound airliner.”
“A would-be ‘underwear bomber’ involved in a plot to attack a US-based jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged. […] Citing US and Yemeni officials, Associated Press reported that the unnamed informant was working under cover for the Saudis and the CIA when he was given the bomb, which was of a new non-metallic type aimed at getting past airport security.”