“Gaddafi had heroic last stand” – Sukant Chandan to RT [+ Video of his lynching]

Gaddafi stood by his ideas and died as a martyr, believes Sukant Chandan, a journalist and spokesman for British Civilians for Peace in Libya.

He says however cruel that death was, the colonel wanted to battle in the trenches against neo-colonialism and NATO. So he died as he wanted, fighting for Libya. And as for the country’s opposition, it had been always closely tied to the West, Chandan adds.

“When you nationalize your oil, when you redistribute your wealth, build your country up to be with the highest living standards in Africa, inevitably, those forces which are against that development, both internally and internationally, will oppose you. Libyan rebel factions have always been in alliance with the EU powers against Gaddafi”, the journalist said.


Libya: Illustrious corpses – the truth is always revolutionary

This is an absolute must-read analysis: one of the best reads in a long time — this correctly throws light on the blatant exposure of the numerous layers of gate-keepers from so many areas of life: media such as The Guardian and the New York Times to organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations, as well as journalists, intellectuals and activists…

by Toni Solo

September 25th 2011

Right now in Libya the UN recognized government and its NATO masters are bombing hundreds of civilians to death in Sirte, Bani Walid and Sabha. They have bombed schools and hospitals and murdered whole families. This infamy was sanctioned by the UN from the beginning and has been justified by many of the cream of international progressive intellectuals. It is long past time to identify and condemn these accomplices to the crimes against humanity in Libya committed by the Western elites and their puppet governments.

The colonial war against Libya has defined more sharply than ever the structures of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour that characterize progressive and radical intellectual production in Europe and North America. The war has thrown that production into crisis. It could not be clearer now that the class function of intellectual managers like Gilbert Achcar, Immanuel Wallerstein, Ignacio Ramonet and similar individuals is to neuter effective protest against corporate capitalism and imperialism.

The crypto-fascist Irish poet W.B.Yeats once wrote, “Did that play of mine send out certain men the English shot?” Intellectual managers like Achar, Ramonet and Wallerstein, Samir Amin, Atilio Boron, Ramzy Baroud and Santiago Alba Rico might ask themselves, “Did our work prepare the vicious NATO genocide in Libya?” Of course, the answer is “yes, it did”. They also seem to think that reality is perfectly all right.

They avow they seek radical social change and revolution in theory. But wherever processes have achieved genuine social change in the real world, as in the Libyan Jamahiriya, they attack them or, as in Venezuela, seek to mould them to their own narcissistic criteria. If one looks at the expressions of dissent privileged under corporate consumer capitalism they are all varieties of anarchism.

Of course they are. Anarchist anti-communism is a spoilt child doted on and nurtured by the capitalist elites– a nuisance, but a useful one and very much part of the laissez-faire family. Capitalism easily accommodates and co-opts fatuous slogans like “Another world is possible”. We can see what world they have in mind by looking at Libya. The intellectuals who supported the murderous racist Libyan renegades and NATO’s contract putsch-insurrection are a good example of how the process of co-optation and accommodation works.

They assimilate themselves into the rituals and processes of public life in the plutocracies of North America and Europe. They shift between academic life, non-governmental activity and participation in the mass corporate psy-warfare media and their alternative counterparts, the gatekeepers of permissible dissent. Libya has finally brought this reality out into the open in the most categorical way. One has only to look back at what influential intellectual managers produced around the time of the March 19th UN Resolution 1973.

Here’s Immanuel Wallerstein (http://www.iwallerstein.com/libya-world-left/ [1]) :

“The second point missed by Hugo Chavez’s analysis is that there is not going to be any significant military involvement of the western world in Libya. The public statements are all huff and puff, designed to impress local opinion at home. There will be no Security Council resolution because Russia and China won’t go along. There will be no NATO resolution because Germany and some others won’t go along. Even Sarkozy’s militant anti-Qaddafi stance is meeting resistance within France.”

Here’s Ignacio Ramonet (http://www.monde-diplomatique.es/?url=editorial/000085641287216818681110… [2]) :

“Under such circumstances, any other reasonable leader would have understood that the time to negotiate and give up power had arrived. But not Colonel Gadafi. At the risk of submerging his country in a civil war, the “Guide”, in power for 42 years, explained that the demonstrators were “youngsters Al Qaeda had drugged by adding hallucinogenic pills to their Nescafé”. And he ordered the armed forces to repress the protests with heavy gunfire and extreme force. The Al Jazeera channel showed military planes strafing civilian demonstrators.”


“One can be against the current structure of the United Nations, or reckon that its operations leave much to be desired. Or that the Western powers dominate the organization. These are acceptable criticisms. But for the moment the UN constitutes the only source of international law. In that sense, and contrary to the wars wars in Kosovo or Iraq which were never sanctioned by the UN, the current intervention in Libya is legal, according to international law; legitimate according to the principles of solidarity among democrats; and desirable for the international community which brings together people struggling for their liberty.”

Here’s Gilbert Achcar (http://www.zcommunications.org/libya-a-legitimate-and-necessary-debate-f… [3]) :

“The idea that Western powers are intervening in Libya because they want to topple a regime hostile to their interests is just preposterous. Equally preposterous is the idea that what they are after is laying their hands on Libyan oil. In fact, the whole range of Western oil and gas companies is active in Libya: Italy’s ENI, Germany’s Wintershall, Britain’s BP, France’s Total and GDF Suez, US companies ConocoPhillips, Hess, and Occidental, British-Dutch Shell, Spain’s Repsol, Canada’s Suncor, Norway’s Statoil, etc. Why then are Western powers intervening in Libya today, and not in Rwanda yesterday and Congo yesterday and today? As one of those who have energetically argued that the invasion of Iraq was “about oil” against those who tried to outsmart us by saying that we were “reductionists,” don’t expect me to argue that this one is not about oil. It definitely is. But how?

My take on that is the following. After watching for a few weeks Gaddafi conducting his terribly brutal and bloody suppression of the uprising that started in mid-February — estimates of the number of people killed in early March ranged from 1000 to 10,000, the latter figure by the International Criminal Court, with the Libyan opposition’s estimates ranging between 6,000 and 8,000 — Western governments, like everybody else for that matter, became convinced that with Gaddafi set on a counter-revolutionary offensive and reaching the outskirts of Libya’s second largest city of Benghazi (over 600,000 inhabitants), a mass-scale slaughter was imminent.”

Counterfactual perception management

One could quote many more examples of the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and cynicism of these prestigious writers and others like, for example, Santiago Alba Rico, Atilio Boron, Ramzy Baroud and Samir Amin. But the extra bulk of documentation would add nothing to the overall picture of narcissistic collaboration with the dominant NATO corporate psy-warfare machine. Nor is it worth dallying over the role of NATO’s favourite gatekeepers of permissible dissent like Counterpunch, ZNet, Rebelión and other similar alternative information web sites.

Those sites did their job of muting and censoring effective discussion and argument at crucial moments prior to the March 19th vote in the UN Security Council and around the decisive event of NATO’s ground invasion of Tripoli in August. A tiny handful of writers, among them John Pilger and Tariq Ali, spoke out against the war. But even they still swallowed hook, line and sinker the NATO psy-warfare caricature of Muammar Al Ghaddafi as a blood-on-his-hands dictator-clown.

While the individual errors of Achcar, Wallerstein and Ramonet may vary, all of them start from the central premise of NATO’s psychological warfare offensive, namely, that Libya was a dictatorship overthrown by a popular revolution. As part of their suspiciously coherent perception management of events in Libya, all these NATO psy-warfare collaborators omit the following facts:

• prior to March 19th the Libyan Jamahiriya had called for negotiations and a UN fact-finding mission – rejected both by the renegades and the dominant powers in the UN;
• the only reliably confirmed information about events in Libya between February 17th and March 19th came from the Libyan government the Libyan government’s account was confirmed by testimony from both Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen as well as by Russian military intelligence prior to the March 19th Resolution 1973.
• there was never any reliable evidence of the Libyan Jamahiriya bombing or machine gunning peaceful demonstrations in February or March;
• on the other hand credible accounts of racist pogroms and lynchings by the Libyan renegades were available from the very start of the events in Benghazi in February ;
• the African Union’s constant insistence from the very start of the conflict on a negotiated peace was welcomed by the Libyan Jamihiriya;
• the devastating role played by international sanctions imposed on the basis of the flagrant fabrication of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie terrorist atrocity badly affected Libya’s development between 1992 and 2003;
• by 2011 Libya’s population enjoyed an unparalleled high standard of living relative to the rest of Africa;
• US$200bn in funds were saved by the Libyan Jamahiriya and administered for the benefit of the Libyan people and impoverished African countries;
• the Libyan Jamahiriya promoted innumerable significant and strategic development initiatives in other African countries;
• prior to their NATO supported putsch- insurrection, the currrent renegade leaders promoted corporate friendly Western neoliberal policies that were firmly resisted by Muammar Al Ghaddafi
• once they realized Maummar Al Ghadafi was resisting deepening neoliberal reforms, NATO planned and carried out the Southern Mistral war game in which they practised a military assault against Libya

Analysis with feet of clay

One could go on delving into more detail to rebut all the false claims and hypocritical assertions made by NATO psy-warfare fellow travellers like Ramonet, Achcar and Wallerstein. But it is enough to look at the excerpts quoted above to see how skewed, disingenuous, arrogant, cynical and downright baseless their arguments are. These are classic characteristics of NATO country perception management against targets from the Cuban revolution to the UN supported coups in Haiti and the Ivory Coast

Immanuel Wallerstein completely failed to predict the course of events in Libya in the most abject and ridiculous way. The UN Security Council did pass a resolution. NATO did resolve to go to war. President Sarkozy easily secured his country’s approval for French armed forces to participate in NATO’s colonial war.

Wallerstein demonstrated complete idiocy in his appraisal of events in March 2011. We can add his illustrious corpse to the Ship of Fools adrift over Libya full to the gunwales with NATO dupes who got things completely wrong on Libya. Wallerstein’s fatuous patronising arrogance duped him into hopeless error. By contrast, the appraisal of the facts by Fidel Castro and President Hugo Chavez was absolutely right.

The falsehoods of Ignacio Ramonet

Ignacio Ramonet completely misrepresented the nature of the events in February in Benghazi. No reliable evidence indicates that peaceful demonstrators were fired on. At the time, the Libyan government’s account was confirmed by testimony from both US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the US armed forces Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, as well as by Russian military intelligence prior to the March 19th Resolution 1973. Now the highest estimates of deaths as a result of the armed insurrection in Libya between February 17th and March 19th are around 250.

Ramonet got things wrong because he took as his source a notorious NATO propaganda outlet, the UK Guardian newspaper. The Guardian’s foreign news coverage is at least as cynical and skewed as that of El País or Le Monde. Ramonet also relied on the Qatar dominated Al Jazeera, now overwhelmingly staffed by staff who previously worked with NATO country mainstream corporate media.

It is not as strange as it seems that a supposed radical like Ignacio Ramonet should ignore the entire history of imperialist interventions over the last 200 years. At one time Ramonet was extremely proud of his work promoting the World Social Forum. That body is thoroughly compromised by its links to corporate funders.

On Libya, Ramonet also dishonestly suggests as a fact something he most certainly does not know, namely that Muammar al Ghaddafi ordered the use of extreme force against peaceful demonstrators. That suggestion is pure propaganda as is his selective quote of Muammar al Ghaddafi’s comments at the time.. To write as Ignacio Ramonet then did, that UN Resolution 1973 was legal, legitimate and desirable, takes self-serving cynicism to its very extremes.

Former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had already pointed out correctly that enforcing a no fly zone necessarily involved military aggression. But the UN Charter specifically rules out military action except in self-defence. Hence President Obama’s counterfactual statement that the United States is not at war against Libya. So much for United Nations legality.

In any case, Resolution 1973 calls for a peaceful negotiated solution. That option proposed by the Libyan government and the African Union and by Latin America’s ALBA bloc of countries had already been rejected by the Libyan renegades. They rejected negotiations on the strength of the support they were getting from the very governments who cynically passed the Resolution knowing neither they themselves nor the renegades had any intention of seeking a peaceful settlement.

Ramonet argues that the UN blank cheque for intervention was legitimate in terms of democratic solidarity. Here we come up against a fundamental contradiction of the international neocolonial Left. Igancio Ramonet, a famous critic of corporate capitalism, tacitly accepts, after all, that North America and Europe are composed of democracies and he explicitly describes the Libyan Jamahiriya as a dictatorship.

But it is the Libyan Jamahiriya that carefully saved and invested hundreds of billions of dollars which it then used very clearly for the benefit of the Libyan people and other African peoples. On the other hand, it is the rotten-corrupt plutocracies of Europe and North America that have sucked dry their peoples so as to enrich a tiny corporate elite of crooked bankers and speculators and to protect their criminal financial system. The democratic solidarity Ramonet is talking about is no more than a narcissistic construct conjured up to justify his ideological prejudice against the Libyan Jamahiriya.

To conclude, as Ignacio Ramonet then does, that the UN Resolution 1973 was in any way desirable is plainly disingenuous folly. The terms of Resolution 1973 left matters wide open to whatever interpretation the North American and European governments concerned chose to put on it. No serious observer expected anything less than the ruthless application of force to support the racist putsch-insurrection struggling for existence in Benghazi.

That putsch-insurrection completely lacked popular support in the rest of Libya. Like Achcar and Wallerstein, Ramonet ignored plenty of readily available information that indicated those very facts which have been confirmed over and over again since March 19th 2011. Ramonet’s reputation is one more illustrious corpse in the Ship of Fools illuminated by the flames of NATO’s genocide in Zliten, Tripoli, Sirte and Bani Walid.

Gilbert Achcar – psy-warfare operative

Gilbert Achcar’s is perhaps the most egregiously dishonest and overt case of collabroation in NATO’s psychological warfare against the Libyan people. With regard to Libya, Immanuel Wallerstein turned out to be a dunderhead and Ignacio Ramonet, more than anything, a narcissistic disingenuous buffoon. But Gilbert Achcar’s position is one carefully politically calculated in the most absolute bad faith.

Achcar is Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at Britain’s Foreign and Colonial Office’s extra-mural School of Oriental and African Studies. He has taught in France and Britain for over 30 years now. Only the most naive would believe Achcar has not been utterly co-opted by his environment. His remarks on Libya demonstrate his moral and intellectual capitulation as a colonialist apologist to a fault.

“The idea that Western powers are intervening in Libya because they want to topple a regime hostile to their interests is just preposterous.” It is very rare for a NATO psy-warfare operative to out themselves like this. Self-evidently, it is Gilbert Achcar’s view that is truly preposterous, suggesting the Western regimes intervening in Libya have done so for any other reason than that the Libyan Jamahiriya blocked their plans on several fronts.

Achcar continues to out himself as a NATO apologist by shamelessly citing as categorical fact the most extreme and ridiculous figures of civilian deaths at the hands of the forces of the Libyan Jamahiriya with absolutely no basis in any legitimate reporting or investigation. “Estimates of the number of people killed in early March ranged from 1000 to 10,000, the latter figure by the International Criminal Court, with the Libyan opposition’s estimates ranging between 6,000 and 8,000.”

Only a NATO stooge would expect to be taken seriously when citing the International Criminal Court as a reliable source. As it turns out, the ICC on this matter has been completely discredited, along with its other ridiculous lie about allegations of mass rape by Libyan army troops on Viagra. The illustrious corpse of the ICC’s Luis Moreno Campo’s reputation, or its desiccated remains, joins those of Wallerstein, Ramonet and Achcar and their accomplices in the NATO fellow-travellers funeral Barge-of-Fools going up in flames in the sands of Libya.

The facts now established and accepted by all but NATO collaborators like Gilbert Achcar are that the Libyan security forces did not fire on unarmed demonstrators. Respected human rights organizations put the number of fatalities as a result of the armed insurrection between February 17th and March 19th at around 250. So it was extremely unlikely that Achcar’s scare of “mass-scale slaughter” was in any way likely, especially since the Libyan authorities were offering to negotiate. What is indeed absolutely clear is that Achcar is a fully committed psy-warfare operative in NATO’s war against Libya and everyone who expresses solidarity with the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Intellectuals and counterintelligence

In the 1950s and the 1960s, the CIA and its fellow intelligence agencies invested a great deal of money and resources suborning intellectuals in Europe and in North America. The story of Encounter magazine and the career of the poet Stephen Spender in Britain is emblematic. Other examples abound. It would be extremely foolish to think the same practices have not persisted and become more sophisticated into the present day.

An example of the way the counter-intelligence network of outright NATO collaborators and fellow travellers works has come to light in relation to Libya. One of the gatekeepers of permissible dissent, the Spanish web site Rebelión, prominently featured an article by Santiago Alba Rico. Like Achcar, Alba Rico is a prominent academic, a specialist on the Arab world in the best traditions of Orientalism. Alba Rico demonstrates that Edward Said’s critical concept of Orientalism can readily involute upon itself for the purposes of neocolonial propaganda.

In the course of his article Alba Rico writes of the situation’s complexity only to drastically simplify it in favour of his point of view. “Even Nato is aware of this complexity as is demonstrated by the fact – as Gilbert Achcar has pointed out – that Libya has been bombed very little, with the aim of lengthening the war and trying to achieve the defeat of the regime without truly breaking with it.” One pictures Achcar and Alba Rico in places like Zliten, or Sirte telling the mourning relatives of dead NATO victims there to stop crying, “After all, you’ve only been bombed a little…”

Only a shameless apologist for NATO would attempt to allege that Libya has been bombed “very little”. On cue, Alba Rico seizes on this and uses Achcar’s grotesque cynical falsehood to pad out his own apology for the colonialist onslaught against the Libyan Jamahiriya. At this point, it is possible to move on from the lies and hypocrisies of these NATO collaborators and fellow travellers and look at their claims for their own intellectual and ethical standards.

One useful source of information about what has really been going on in Libya beyond NATO psy-warfare disinformation reports has been Leonor Massanet. Someone who worked with Rebelión until very recently has confirmed that Santiago Alba Rico engaged in deliberate behind-the-scenes character assassination of Leonor Massanet. Alba Rico’s aim, in which to some extent he clearly succeeded, was to discredit Leonor because her plausible and credible account of events in Libya contradicted his own thoroughly false analysis.

When one comes across cases of people being turned into non-persons or being calumnied in this way, one is at the limits of legitimate intellectual disagreement. Beyond that frontier one, is then dealing with the abuse of power for counter-intelligence purposes to neutralize effective dissent. Right now, the whole world is a vast mess of low-intensity conflict and outright war. The Western elites are determined to dominate the world’s peoples and their natural resources. The activities of NATO fellow-travellers like Gilbert Achcar and Santiago Alba Rico are far from innocent or coincidental.

Here we are faced with the reality of the thorough hypocrisy of the co-opted alternative news and information media. All of them, whether it’s Rope-a-dope [4], Zzzz [5] or Sumisión [6] purport to deliver reliable factual information from a variety of viewpoints. All of them are infested with hypocritical self-regarding phonies who readily suppress views they dislike. They all engage in what Gilbert Achcar would term “Stalinist” censorship and the making of non-persons. Leonor Massanet is far from being the only victim of this pernicious deceitful managerial counter-intelligence manipulated culture.

Psy-warfare’s next offensive : ALBA

Psychological warfare is a vital component of total war. All through the 1980s and 1990s the North American and European NGO sector was systematically co-opted by NATO country governments to serve NATO propaganda ends. In effect, they are the soft extra-mural arm of their countries’ Foreign Ministries, and routinely project those countries’ foreign policies. That reality has been very well documented. It is as true of the structures available to progressive intellectual workers as it is of the NGOs that employ progressive aid and development workers.

The alternative media’s coverage of NATO’s contract putsch-insurrection against the Libya Jamahariya has demonstrated this with the most startling clarity. Along with the Libyan Jamahariya, other perennial victims of their deceit and hypocrisy have been the Sandinista Front for National Liberation in Nicaragua, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia as well as national Communist Parties in general. Presumably, other people devoted to other causes and issues will have had identical experiences.

It is a fact that neocolonial intellectual and cultural networks tend to dominate international anti-imperialist intellectual production. Their members have a vested interest in maintaining the class structure inherent to that production, one that effectively censors argument and maintains strictly policed parameters. The colonial invasion of Libya has demonstrated with absolute clarity that effective anti-imperialism – for example by the FSLN in Nicaragua or the PSUV in Venezuela – is under threat from both the right and the neocolonial left.

After Libya, a likely future target will be Nicaragua. But the NATO elites view Nicaragua as simply an hors d’oeuvre for the main course, Venezuela. The battle for Venezuela began back in 2002 and will get more and more fierce once President Hugo Chavez wins re-election ten years on, in 2012. The international neocolonial Left is hard at work sawing the floor away from under the Sandinista revolutionary process in Nicaragua. Nor is it in any way controversial to say they are busy trying to co-opt the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. Libya has shown they are capable of any infamy.


Syria – How the west hijacks demonstrations and orchestrates a pro-EMPIRE counter revolution.

First of all, to prove the necessity of the following article. Did you know about this?

or about this?

Media bias has reached a new level of insanity. If you didn’t know about this, you definitely need to take the time and read the following.

Syria, a religious melting pot.

A cultural & religious approach. Although 87 per cent of the syrian population are muslims one of Bashar al-Assad’s main policies is to uphold Syria as a secular state. Around 75 per cent of them are sunni. The remaining 25 per cent include shia, alevi and others. Although it is a predominantly muslim (sunni) state there aren’t any religious minoroties that are being oppressed or even prosecuted by the government as in other countries in that region. Actually Syria is a cultural & religious melting pot in which everyone can follow & practice their religion as free as in no other arab state. One reason for that may be that the syrian president, Bashar al-Assad himself is a religious minority, an alevi. Christians, jews and other religions can aswell practice their religion without the fear of being oppressed. Unlike in other muslim states, practically, punishment for homosexuality doesn’t exist anymore in Syria. Article 520 of the penal code considers it as an illegal act, but unlike in Saudi Arabia e.g. there is no remarkable prosecution anymore. That’s only one reason why Assad has gained much popularity and can easily be described as the most popular contemporary arab leader. The fundamentalist opposition in contrast is known for its homophobia.

In conclusion one has to agree that there is no religious & cultural freedom in the middle east as there is in Syria and from the narrative of muslim arabs, who strongly believe in Islam and don’t live in a “westernized” or western country it is pretty remarkable how his government managed to bring and uphold that kind of tolerance into an arab country.

Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s history & Bashar al-Assad

Counterpunch recently reported

“Also, a parallel can be made between Colonel Gaddafi’s authority and that of Hafez al-Assad (Bashar’s father). They rose to power during the same period and both made use of their intelligence and brutality to hold sway. Bashar al-Assad, on the contrary, did not seize power nor did he expect to inherit it. He accepted to fill the office of president when his father died because his older brother had perished in an accident and because only his family heritage could have prevented a power struggle among his father’s generals.

Although it was the army who went to look for him in London, where he was quietly practicing his profession as an ophthalmologist, it is his people who be-knighted him. He is undeniably the most popular political leader in the Middle East. Up to two months ago, he was also the only one who moved around without armed guards, and felt comfortable in a crowd.”

No doubt that Bashar al-Assad is far from perfect and Syria is far from what we could consider a model. No doubt that there are authentic demonstrations going on, pro-Assad aswell as anti-Assad. The main question we have to ask ourselves is why are there such protests, why pro & contra, why do we only hear about contra and what did the Assad rule since 1970 do for its people? Therefor the maybe most important part of this article is to understand Syria’s history. The best approach to understand the Assad rule i came across, is this one.

Syria’s Pandoran Box – Bashar Assad’s missed opportunities.

The destabilization/regime change of/in Iran, Libya, Syria was planned long ago

Why is the west all over Syria ?

On February 18, 2003 Haaretz reported the following:

“Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. “These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,” Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.’s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.”

A year earlier, on May 6 2002, John Bolton, Undersecretary of State under George W. Bush came up with a project to simultaneously break up Libya and Syria. He called both states along with Cuba “The Axis Of Evil”. On a FOX News appearance in 2011 he said that the United States should have overthrown the syrian government right after they overthrew Saddam Hussein.

So obviously the plans to interfere in syrian internal affairs weren’t made yesterday. Now you have the so called “arab spring” which started with two revolutions that were based upon the masses & majority of people revolting against the regime. Ben Ali in Tunisia, aswell as Mubarak in Egypt have been very friendly towards the west, if not to say they were U.S. puppet states. Then the arab spring apparently reached Libya. The major difference between those “uprisings” was that in Egypt for example you could see the “made in USA” logo on the weapons used against the demonstrators. After Israel, Egypt was issued with more U.S. military aid than any other country . In Libya the so called rebels were issued by the west not only with weapons and other military equipment but they also had the largest army in the world, NATO, to bomb their way, killing thousands of civilians during the “revolution”. But that’s another story. The point is that the “syrian uprising” has absolutely nothing to do with the majority or even a notable minority of the syrian  population being upset with Assad’s “authoritarian regime” or “brutal regime” as the western media tries to portray it. The people engaged in overthrowing Assad are – of course – backed by the west but not to bring “democracy” but to destabilize Syrias stable cultural,religious & more or less political landscape.

From a United States’ imperialistic and hegemonic viewpoint there are several reasons why Assad’s Syria needs to be overthrown.

1. Close relations to Iran, Hezbollah and the palestinian resistance

2. Refusal of peace treaty with Israel, unlike Jordan & Egypt

Syria and the delusions of the western press

Here are several articles debunking the reliability and exposing the bias media reports on the so called massacres against his own people.

1 ) On April 15, Peter Lee wrote this for Counterpunch:

“On April 10, a mysterious and bloody incident occurred near the seaside town of Banyas, in Syria.

Nine members of a Syrian army patrol were shot to death and twenty five were wounded—the single bloodiest incident in the Syrian uprising to date.

Western news services largely ignored the incident and concentrated on reports of the army’s move to encircle and pacify Banyas.”

He then goes on:

“By a remarkable coincidence, the events in Banyas attracted the close attention of one of America’s chief Syria watchers: Dr. Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma.

Dr. Landis’ wife is Syrian, and her cousin, Lt. Colonel Yasir Qash`ur , was one of the two Syrian army officers who died in the incident.

In an April 13 post titled, “Western Press Misled:  Who Shot the Nine Syrian Soldiers in Banyas?” appeared Not Syrian Security Forces, Landis debunked the claims reported by Agence France Presse  and the Guardian.  He also highlighted the pathetic ordeal of one wounded soldier badgered by anti-government activists but denying that he had been shot by security forces—only to have the video go out on Youtube the West with the canard attached.”

On June 23, Thierry Meyssan for GlobalResearch reported:

The Gay Girl In Damascus

An amusing example is the case of the blog “Gay Girl in Damascus”, created on 21 February 2011. Edited in English by 25 year-old Amina, the website became a source of reference for Western media. Therein the author described the plight of a young lesbian under Bashar’s dictatorship and the day-to-day unfolding of the terrible repression unleashed against the revolution. As a gay woman, she garnered the protective empathy of Western web surfers who mobilized as soon as her arrest by the secret services of the “regime” was announced.

However, as it happened, Amina was a fiction. Betrayed by his IP address, a US 40 year-old “student” was discovered to be the real author of this masquerade. This propagandist, who was allegedly preparing a PhD in Scotland, recently participated in a pro-Western opposition conference held in Turkey, urging for a NATO intervention. He quite obviously did not attend in his capacity as a student

3) The principle of reality reversal

“Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi “regime” had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on.

In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus.

Who are the syrian opposition and who backs/supports/funds them?

The following will show & expose the clear war agenda against sovereign Syria, orchestrated by the U.S. , Israel, Saudi Arabia in collaboration with the western media outlets and Al-Jazeera + Al-Arabiyah of course.

Anna Haq, for Counterpunch published an article called “The Complexities of Syrian Violence“, in which she also points out the syrian government’s mistake and  does not defend the treatment of the few “peaceful” protestors at all, but she points out something very important.

“Peaceful demonstrators are on the streets of different Syrian cities. They demand freedom, but they do so in the name of a majority that is not on those streets. Until April 22nd, these demonstrations did not exceed about fifty people at a time (in most cases, fifteen to twenty people would gather bravely). Mainstream journalists, perhaps buoyed by the Arab Spring, exaggerated the number of demonstrators (and perhaps tampered with pictures taken from pro-government demonstrations to make them seem anti-government gatherings) led the Syrian government to exclude all journalists. This was a bad decision. It meant that the reports coming out of Syria are mystifying; with the government’s own accounts always seen as suspicious while the anti-government accounts generally taken as truth.”

More Media Falsification & Manipulation

There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed “pro-democracy” demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are “according to witnesses”. The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.


Al-Jazeera’s sneaky role – again.

Without evidence, the reports suggest authoritatively that the police is shooting at the soldiers and vice versa the soldiers are shooting on the police. In a April 29 Al Jazeera report, Daraa is described as “a city under siege:

Tanks and troops control all roads in and out. Inside the city, shops are shuttered and nobody dare walk the once bustling market streets, today transformed into the kill zone of rooftop snipers.”

“Unable to crush the people who first dared rise up against him – neither with the secret police,  paid thugs or the special forces of his brother’s military division – President Bashar al-Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Deraa for an operation the regime wants nobody in the world to see.”

“Though almost all communication channels with Deraa have been cut, including the Jordanian mobile service that reaches into the city from just across the border, Al Jazeera has gathered firsthand accounts of life inside the city from residents who just left or from eyewitnesses inside who were able to get outside the blackout area.”

“The picture that emerges is of a dark and deadly security arena, one driven by the actions of the secret police and their rooftop snipers, in which soldiers and protestors alike are being killed or wounded, in which cracks are emerging in the military itself, and in which is created the very chaos which the regime uses to justify its escalating crackdown. (Daraa, a City under Siege, IPS / Al Jazeera, April 29, 2011)”

The Al Jazeera report borders on the absurd. Read carefully.

“Tanks and troops control all roads in and out”,  “thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Daraa”

This situation has prevailed for several weeks. This means that bona fide protesters who are not already inside Daraa cannot enter Daraa.

People who live in the city are in their homes: “nobody dares walk … the streets”. If nobody dares walk the streets where are the protesters?

Who is in the streets? According to Al Jazeera, the protesters are in the streets together with the soldiers, and both the protesters and the soldiers are being shot at by “plain clothes secret police”, by “paid thugs” and government sponsored snipers.

The impression conveyed in the report is that these casualties are attributed to infighting between the police and the military.

But the report also says that the soldiers (in the “thousands”) control all roads in and out of the city, but they are being shot upon by the plain clothed secret police.

The purpose of this web of media deceit, namely outright fabrications  –where soldiers are being killed by police and  “government snipers”– is to deny the existence of armed terrorist groups. The later are integrated by snipers and “plain clothed terrorists” who are shooting at the police, the Syrian armed forces and local residents.

These are not spontaneous acts of terror; they are carefully planned and coordinated attacks. In recent developments, according to a Xinhua report (April 30, 2011), armed “terrorist groups” “attacked the housing areas for servicemen” in Daraa province, “killing a sergeant and wounding two”.

While the government bears heavy responsibility for its mishandling of the military-police operation, including the deaths of civilians, the reports confirm that the armed terrorist groups had also opened fire on protesters and local residents. The casualties are then blamed on the armed forces and the police and the Bashar Al Assad government is portrayed by “the international community” as having ordered countless atrocities.

The fact of the matter is that foreign journalists are banned from reporting inside Syria, to the extent that much of the information including the number of casualties is obtained from the unverified accounts of “witnesses”.

It is in the interest of the US-NATO alliance to portray the events in Syria as a peaceful protest movement which is being brutally repressed by a “dictatorial regime”.

This article , although it had only been confirmed by Syrian state TV, reveals that two terrorists confessed that they fabricated news for Al-Jazeera & received money to buy weapons in order to attack security forces in Hama.

U.S. secretely funding syrian opposition, Wikileaks cables reveal

Follwing released Wikileaks cables, The Washington Post admitted that,

“the State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.” “

Saudi / Zionist involvement

Bassam Abu Abdulla, from the Al Watan news agency in Damascus’ reply to PressTV’s question “How’s the situation in Syria compared with other events taking place in the region?”

“Now, about the role of the foreign factors. Yesterday, I think, The Washington Post newspaper published that the United States Department of State supported the Al-Barada TV channel, a TV channel in opposition of Syria, paying them USD 6 million to secretly support some so-called opposition leaders.

I don’t trust these kinds of people who are living in Washington, Paris, or London.

The real situation is that because the Syrian position is against the American plans in the region and against Israel, and because Syria is supporting the resistance movements — generally, Hezbollah and Hamas [that are] against the American plans — the conspiracy against the US is continuing.

We are talking about different parties participating in these conspiracies. We can watch these different groups. The first group is the corrupted people inside Syria.

The second group is the Salafi group who is being supported by [Saudi Arabia's] Bandar bin Sultan, the American CIA and [Israel's] Mossad.

The third group is composed of some regional parties against Syria.

The fourth group is the Muslim brothers in London, and now they are in Saudi Arabia.

All these groups, besides the TV channels war, are working against Syria now. The Syrian government will soon face this situation because we are not talking about severe demonstrations, but we are talking about the Salafi group – those who speak a very strange language in the Syrian society and who want to divide the Syrian nation, which is a redline for all Syrians. Because of that we will soon see the Syrian government deal with them in another way.

Personal thoughts

The manufactured consent, especially the leftists & progressives support for western aggression against a sovereign country has dramatically changed since Libya. While the same people that opposed the complete operation against Iraq in 2003 were shockingly quiet about the NATO attacks on Libya and the violation of UN Resolution 1973 that called for the protection of civilians, not for regime change.

It was no secret that Saddam Hussein’s troops used terrible weapons in the war against Iran, aswell as against the kurds in his own country. Nonetheless the left & progressive completely opposed not even the NATO attacks on Iraq, but also the sanctions imposed that caused at least several hundred thousand civilian casualties. There was no question about wheter one has to decide to stand with Saddam or with the west. It appeared pretty obvious that the west’s interests had nothing to do with even caring about one single Iraqi, so the question was more to dedice wheter we let Iraq be imperfectly theirs or if it is going to be imperfectly ours. Ironically enough that we in the west claim to have the moral/political decision to make regarding what’s good or bad for a foreign, sovereign nation. Not only was it the west that issued Saddam the weapons & more or less forced him & his military to use them against Iran, but it was again us not only arresting him, bringing him to court & hanging him on a muslim holiday for exactly those crimes but all of this happened in context of the bloodiest & inhumane invasion since Vietnam.

Now the west is on a hunt for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, obviously trying to kill him & his family as they did to Saddam. There’s not only no evidence that troops loyal to Gaddafi commited some kind of a mass murder or genocide against its own people, speaking of directly targeting ‘innocent civilians’ but there’s far more evidence, admitted & confirmed by the west and their media that NATO killed thousands of civilians in context of UN Resolution 1973. Furthermore we didn’t see a third to half of the Iraqi population getting out on the streets in solidarity & loyalty to their leader, as libyans did for Muammar Gaddafi & their system, the libyan arab Jamahiriya. The western media treats those people as unequal as their own people at home. While there were no remarkable reports on the 1.7 million people on Green Sqare on July 1st of 2011, the media only reported some small ‘rebel’ protests where – taking a closer look – you can hardly find any notable civilian support for the rebels, even in the videos & pictures provided by the corporate media. The same bias took place in the United States. When Minister Farrakhan & others spoke on the Millions March in Harlem in support for Gaddafi & libyan arab Jamahiriya no notable media outlet reported about it. Then again, when the Tea Party is holding a rally with a few thousand supporters it is all over the media, newspapers & magazines.

Now the west, along with his corporate media, with the support of Al-Jazeera & Al-Arabiyah is preparing for eihter a massive destabilization, if not even a war against Syria. President Assad now tries not to let any foreign, private media into his country. On first sight this may sound harsh for our understanding of democracy but – assuming Assad is an intelligent man – we, aswell as his government know what foreign media can do to you if the agenda is clear, which it obviously is. So, let me address the people in the west, who, like myself have the power to make other people aware of the current situation in Syria. Let’s for one second assume that those attacks on protestors have taken place, which i would totally condemn of course. Now, we must ask ourselves several questions.

Do we really want our tax money being spent on another war on a country in the middle east?

Why are we funding & therefor creating opposition movements all over the world, from Venezuela over Iran until Syria, and if the state fights back we try to call it “mass murder/genocide against its own people”?

Only imagine what happened in London if Syria or Iran would have issued the rioters/protestors with money & weapons to create chaos & destabilization in the streets of the UK. Regardless wheter you believe in the necessity of the people rioting there or not, the state has the right to – lawfully & righteously – prosecute the people who broke the law during the riots. So now, even in London, UK, the streets where David Cameron, Sarkozy’s partner in bringing “democracy” to the arab world is the current president, people have been killed, injured and in the outcome many were unlawfully jailed & prosecuted. One man even faces a 4 year prison sentence for a comment he made on Facebook encouraging people to riot. Only imagine if such happened in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria etc.

Although undeniably, there is a need for reforms it is pretty obvious that there is absolutely no need for a regime change in Syria. The “freedoms” or “democratic changes” the peaceful protestors (which are only a small number compared to the US-backed salafists & other fundamental groups) demand will not at all be taken seriously by any possible oppisiton right now, so the syrian demonstrators should actually be very careful what they wish for, going out in the streets and demanding regime change instead of reforms. Bashar al-Assad should have used his large popularity to address his people and introduce reforms earlier than he did. No doubt there are some authentic demonstrations going out on the streets, but yet, neither any media outlet can prove wheter Assad is giving the orders or the combined Alawite dominated Security, Military, Ba’ath Party and the Shahiba thugs. Since he’s head of state he will be held accountable. The people who jump on the bandwagon of the syrian demonstrations similar to those in Libya should be very careful since we know way better now, now when it’s too late. Personally, i call upon the BRICS states to mediate & try to get a dialogue in that region, but the first premise would be complete western withdrawal, and by that i mean the western media bias, the intelligence, the Saudi, Qatari & of course turkish influence. There will never be an authentic revolution – backed by the west. If we learned one lesson from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, Venezuela etc then to NEVER TRUST THE WEST, and as sad as it may sound, when people die, people die but then the BRICS states or the ALBA states should make demands and call upon Assad. How can you call for empire, which killed millions of arabs only in the first decade of the 21st century, to help you? Western double standars reached a point of insanity and we in the west must acknowledge  that we don’t care about any Syrian, nor do we care about any protestor who may have been shot, nor do we care about the level of freedom the syrians enjoy. It’s mainly about destabalizing the country & destroying the religious freedom, to once again promote fundamentalist religion in the region to cause & directly fund friction among muslim people. I’m actually not sure if the plans are to invade or bomb Syria. In my opinion the west will mainly focus on  managing to get regime change & establish an eliteist, fundamentalist religious government as Saudi Arabia to prevent a real arab uprising, based on unity against western imperialism. Iran, Syria & the Hezbollah are the remaining powers in the middle east that will never back down from their strong supporting & funding of the palestinian resistance to one day see the liberation of Palestine, the end of the zionist regime and the establishment of a state in which muslims, christians, jews, blacks, browns & whites can peacefully live together. Nonetheless an attack on Syria is very likely to happen. There is already an oil embargo and voices are calling louder and louder for a no-fly zone, what always led to air strikes or/and a ground invasion. The difference between Syria and Iran/Lebanon is that Syria won’t be able to defend themselves against NATO or Turkey as western proxy. The zionist regime already lost its war against Hezbollah in 2006 and, in my opinion, the west will never attack Iran by a military strike, not even a NATO attack because they know very well that Iran has the power to strike back and aswell attack the western metropolies as direct answer. So it is pretty obvious that empire’s next target is Syria.

The media-blocked protests in Israel are also an indicator of people recognizing the dirty war games their government is playing together with the west, the Saudis & their support from Al-Jazeera. I believe that israelis do not necessarily support their zionist regime, they are just being indoctrinated with fear and hatred against the palestinians which causes them to rather be quiet about their own governments crimes against the palestinians. The real revolution doesn’t start on the streets, but in the minds of the people, especially the young generation. If the majority of the “arab spring protestors” were aware of the geostrategic plans of the west and their real agenda in the region, not Libyans, Syrians or Iranians would see a necessity to rise up, but first of all the people in the gulf states would then see the dramatic need of getting rid of their western puppets in power when their natural resources make them the richest nations on earth. Only then, when Iran, the Hezbollah & Syria don’t face threats from the west anymore, there can seriously be talks about more democratic freedoms in those countries and if people outside of the Global South should be involved in it or not.

In the following days i will cover & write down some important issues about Turkey’s role as US proxy, the underestimation of the religious meaning of the Assad’s & the syrian opposition, reports from people who have visited the refugee camps in Syria and report what some voices directly from Syria & the Hatay region in Turkey, which formerly belonged to Syria, in which lots of  Syrians live say.


Erhalte jeden neuen Beitrag in deinen Posteingang.