Posts Tagged ‘war’

Assad Still Confident That He Can Control Syria

January 14, 2013

Washington Post
Liz Sly

BEIRUT — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad remains confident that he can ride out the maelstrom engulfing his country, casting into doubt prospects that intensified efforts to negotiate an end to the bloodshed can succeed, according to Syrians familiar with the thinking of the regime.

Although Assad isn’t winning the fight against the rebels, he isn’t losing, either — at least not yet, or by enough of a margin to make him feel he needs to abandon his efforts to crush the rebellion by force and embark on negotiations that would end his hold on power and expose his loyalists to the threat of revenge, the Syrians and analysts say.

It is hard to imagine Assad ever being in a position to restore his authority over the many parts of Syria that have slipped beyond his control. The rebels seeking to topple him have steadily been gaining ground, most recently seizing control of a strategically important airbase in the north of the country, and if the current trajectory continues, the eventual demise of the four-decade-old Assad family regime seems all but inevitable, analysts say.

But concerns are growing about how long that might take, and at what cost, prompting many Syrians to question whether Assad’s confidence might not be merited, given the realities of a conflict so brutally complex, so finely balanced and so entangled in global geopolitical rivalries that there is still no clearly identifiable endgame in sight nearly two years after the uprising began.

“From Day One, Bashar al-Assad was underestimated by the opposition and by the international community,” said Malik al Abdeh, a Syrian journalist based in London who is one of a number of opposition activists growing increasingly gloomy about the prospects that an end to the bloody conflict could be near. “He is playing a high-stakes game, he’s playing it pretty smart and he seems to be winning because of the simple fact that he is still in power.”

When Assad delivered a defiantly uncompromising speech to supporters last week, the State Department condemned him for being “out of touch with reality.” But many Syrians wonder whether it isn’t the United States and its allies who are out of touch for continuing to press for a negotiated settlement to a conflict Assad still has reason to believe he can win, Abdeh said.

Though the Syrian army has been degraded by thousands of rank-and-file defections and heavy casualties, it is still fighting. Key units comprising members of Assad’s own Alawite sect, an obscure and little-understood offshoot of Shiite Islam, remain fiercely loyal.

Defections from his government have been few and far between. The rebels have been systematically overrunning government positions in many locations, but they have not demonstrated the capacity to make headway against the tough defenses ringing Damascus, the capital, and the key prize for whoever claims to control the country.

His allies Russia and Iran have shown no sign that their support is wavering, and they have their own reasons not to cede ground in the struggle for influence over a country whose strategic location puts it at the crossroads of multiple regional conflicts. On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its view that Assad’s departure should not be part of any negotiated settlement.


Déjà Vu – Martin Luther King On Our Wars Yesterday, And Today

December 25, 2012

In the epic Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus attacked Socrates’ position that the idea justice is an inherent and equal right, claiming that it is just (by nature) that the strong rule over the weak. There are both men and women who seek and hold positions of power in our society – who subscribe to this very doctrine.

A few short decades ago, Martin Luther King spoke of a nation gone mad on war, and of wars at home and abroad as the engine of injustice and poverty in the west. At the time, his words were received uncomfortably by many in the USA – but history proved that he had vision and foresight. His words ring true again today.

So we pose the inevitable question: is justice and ethics progressing in the west, or are we regressing in a global tyranny? You answer is here…



November 18, 2012

Ron Paul was someone who has helped pave the way for those who choose the path of liberty. He is someone to aspire to and has been a rare role model in a politic desert dominated by self and special interests. 

“It’s amazing, and honestly terrifying, that we had a man like this running for President – and we ended up with someone like… Obama. I work for the government but would happily lose my job if it was for the good of our country (why can’t our politicians do the same).” – Anonymous


President Obama’s Post-Election Militancy

November 13, 2012

Global Research
Stephan Lendman

Obama didn’t miss a beat. He picked up where he left off. He’s America’s most belligerent leader. He’s waging multiple direct and proxy wars abroad and at home by other means.

Despite pressing unresolved domestic issues, he celebrated his electoral victory belligerently.

On November 7, he bombed Yemen. Washington’s been waging proxy war there for years. Daily attacks occur. Drones are the weapon of choice.

Remote warriors conduct sanitized killing on the cheap. Death and injury tolls rise. Mostly civilians are harmed. On November 8, Press TV headlined “US drone kills three in Yemen.” US mainstream media ignored it.

Hours after Obama’s reelection, a “drone strike near the Yemeni capital has killed three people and injured two others.”

Deadly attacks persist. International, constitutional, and US statute laws are violated. Ordinary people are harmed most. Civilian men, women and children are terrorized and traumatized.

Obama’s victory lap also included more Iranian sanctions. Multiple rounds imposed are illegal. A November 8 State Department press release announced the latest measure, headlining:

“Designations of Iranian Individuals and Entities for Censorship Activities Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act and Executive Order 13628.”

Five Iranian entities and four individuals were targeted. Accusations are part of America’s longstanding anti-Iranian hostility.

Washington claims they engage in “censorship or other activities that prohibit, limit, or penalize freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Iran, or that limit access to print or broadcast media, including by jamming international satellite broadcasts into Iran, and related activities.”

“U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the designated individuals or entities, and all designated individuals and members of designated entities are subject to a ban on travel to the United States. This action also blocks, or freezes, the property and interests in property of designated individuals or entities.”

The press release disingenuously claimed Washington “will continue to stand with the Iranian people in their quest to protect their dignity and freedoms and prevent the Iranian Government from creating an ‘electronic curtain’ to cut Iranian citizens off from the rest of the world.”

Sanctions in place impose enormous hardships on Iranian civilians. A health crisis exists. Vital medications aren’t available or are in short supply. Medical equipment breaks down for lack of spare parts.

Human suffering and deaths result. Crimes against humanity breach fundamental international law. Civilians must be protected at all times.

Targeting nonbelligerent countries is lawless and unconscionable. Washington prioritizes it. Obama is America’s most belligerent president in history. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor. His second term may eclipse his war on humanity so far.

A previous article explained US and Israeli anti-Iranian red lines, timelines, deadlines, sanctions, sabotage, subversion, cyber attacks, assassinations, saber rattling, falsified IAEA hype, ad nauseam warmongering, Obama/Netanyahu bluster, spurious accusations, manipulated to fail P5+1 talks, and inflammatory headlines intended to promote regime change and war.

Iran and Syria top America’s target list. Syrian opposition groups wrap up their Doha meeting Friday. AFP said opposition elements are “under pressure to unite and bring in all parties (under) new leadership with Islamists heavily represented.”

On Thursday, a 40-member general secretariat was elected. On Friday, a president will be chosen. Dissension and disarray marked days of discussions.

Washington wants officials in place serving US interests. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Clinton issued “direct orders about what the Syrian opposition should do to form a ‘government in exile’ and” who’d be permitted to join it.

Syrian National Council (SNC) head Abdelbaset Sieda objected to being marginalized and perhaps shut out. It’s unclear what’s in place.

On November 7, the UK Telegraph headlined “Syrian opposition plan falls apart on eve of Doha conference,” saying:

Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, three dissident factions pulled out. Representatives from the National Coordinating Committee, Syrian Democratic Platform, and Kurdish minority rejected Clinton’s plan. An unnamed Western source said, “There are too many people against this initiative for it to work now.”

SNC military representative Jamal al-Wa’ard said, “The components that were not in the SNC are not coming. The idea of a bigger coalition initiative has failed.”

SNC members rejected Western efforts to impose a solution on Syria. Deputy Revolutionary Council head Ahmed Zaidan said, “Everyone feels that this initiative is imposed. They’ve weaved the cloth but now there is no one to wear it.”

Washington-style diplomacy imposes its will on others whether or not they concur. America, Britain and France announced their support for newly appointed Secretariat members “as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

Financial and military support will be provided. It’s been ongoing since last year. Most weapons used come from Washington, Britain, France, and other NATO members.

British Prime Minister David Cameron toured Middle East countries to sell arms. He also wants the 2011 Syrian weapons embargo lifted. The measure’s text in part says:

“By way of derogation….the competent authorities in the Member States….may authorize the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.”

Cameron wants the meaning twisted to do openly what’s been ongoing covertly since conflict began last year. The London Guardian said he’ll press Obama to prioritize Syria. He wants stepped up efforts to oust Assad.

He said he’s determined to act. “That means more help for the opposition, more pressure at the UN, more help for the refugees, more work with the neighbors but also a general sort of:”

“Look, let’s be frank what we’ve done for the last 18 months hasn’t been enough. The slaughter continues. The bloodshed is appalling, the bad effects it’s having on the region, the radicalization but also the humanitarian crisis that is engulfing Syria.”

“So let’s work together on really pushing what more we can do, what other steps we can take to hasten the end of this regime.”

He wants more aggressive options on the table. Expect direct Western intervention if what he has in mind fails. With US elections concluded, it’s more likely. It could happen early next year or sooner.

On November 8, Russia Today interviewed Assad. He’ll not leave Syria, he stressed. He’ll live or die there. He was frank and clear, saying:

“We are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world.”

“I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country,” he said. “I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.”

He doesn’t expect direct Western intervention, but isn’t sure what’s next. He calls “the price of (possible foreign) invasion….more than the whole world can afford.”

“My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria.”

“The West creates enemies. In the past, it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar.”

“The fight now is not the president’s fight – it is Syrians’ fight to defend their country.”

It’s “not about the power of the President. It is about the whole society.”

“Syria faces not a civil war, but terrorism by proxies….(F)oreign fighters (came) from abroad.”

“Without foreign rebel fighters and smuggled weapons, we could finish everything in weeks.”

“Al-Qaeda’s final aim is an Islamic emirate in Syria.”

He’ll talk with anyone willing to help Syrians. He won’t waste time with elements wanting conflict to persist for their own interests.

“We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people.

Asked if he’d do anything differently from when protests began last March, he said, “I would do what I did on March 15 (2011).”

“Exactly the same. (He’d) ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches.”

“The umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time.”

“Maybe on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical. You always take the decision on a strategic level which is something different.”

He hopes Syria will emerge from conflict safe, stable, secure, and more prosperous. He knows it won’t happen soon. Washington’s regime change plans won’t change. Achieving them is something else entirely.

A Final Comment

Daily violence rages in Syria. Terror attacks are a way of life. Car bombs and other violence happen regularly. No place is safe.

The longer conflict persists, the more public support grows for Assad. He’s the last line of defense for ordinary Syrians. Even those against him rely on security forces for help.

Western-backed foreign mercenaries lack support and credibility. Syrians deplore who they are and what they stand for. They want Syria transformed into a fundamentalist caliphate. They want Sharia replacing secular law.

Syrians want to choose their own form of government. They don’t want outsiders doing it for them. Foreign invader control will make Syria ungovernable like Libya. People know what’s going on there and want no part of it.

Even The New York Times expressed some rare candor. It admitted that “rebel fighters….are losing crucial support from a public increasingly disgusted by the actions of some rebels, including poorly planned missions, senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the coldblooded killing of prisoners.”

The shift in public sentiment is palpable. Radicalized opposition elements scare people. Daily bloodshed reminds everyone of what’s coming if they gain control.

An unnamed Saraqib Syrian said, “They were supposed to be the people on whom we depend to build a civil society.” Instead, they’re destroying it.

An Aleppo resident “begged rebels not to camp in a neighborhood telecommunications office. But they did, and government attacks knocked out phone service.”

“One fighter shot into the air when customers at a bakery did not let him cut into a long line for bread. Another was enraged when a man washing his car accidentally splashed him. He shot at him.” He escaped unharmed.

Twenty months after conflict began, people “are trapped in a darkening mood of despair, revulsion and fear that neither side can end the conflict.”

“The most significant change is (that people openly) criticize rebels.”

“Small acts of petty humiliation and atrocities like executions have led many more Syrians to believe that (many) rebels are (morally) depraved….”

They “forced government soldiers from a milk factory, then destroyed it, even though residents needed the milk and had good relations with the owner.”

“They shelled the factory and stole everything. Those are repulsive acts.”

Syrians also know who bears responsibility for months of conflict and what’s at stake. LIke others throughout the region, they deplore Washington for good reason. They want to live free from Western dominance. They may end up dying for it.


November 7, 2012

Watch this stunning documentary – as this film crew gets exclusive access to the most isolated country in Africa, which has been victorious in recent wars against not one but two superpowers. Visits to the key historical sites of a nation with a 1,200 km Red Sea coastline across from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, and talking to stakeholders about massive infrastructural investment in a nation, currently the subject of UN Sanctions. Eritrea has defied Western neoliberal economic, political and cultural agendas and our cameras record the self-sufficiency experiment that has made Eritrea one of the fastest — if not the fastest — growing economy on the planet.

Presenter Afshin Rattansi examines the complex issues that are at stake for Eritrea in its battle against U.S. hegemony — from its diverse religious heritage, the rebuilding of its health, education and urban/rural infrastructure to its cautious implementation of foreign investment strategy.


Cold War all over again, Russia Counters US Missile Shield from the Seas

November 7, 2012

The Pentagon is working to encircle Eurasia and to surround the Eurasian Triple Entente composed of China, Russia, and Iran. For every reaction, however, there is a counter-reaction.

Neither one of these three Eurasian powers will sit ideally as passive US targets. Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran are all taking their own distinct counter-measures to oppose the Pentagon’s strategy of military encirclement.

In the Indian Ocean the Chinese are developing their military infrastructure under what the Pentagon calls the Chinese “string of pearls.” Iran is going through a process of naval expansion, which is seeing it deploy its maritime forces further and further from its home waters in the Persian Gulf and Gulf and Gulf of Oman. All three Eurasian powers, along with several of their allies, also have naval vessels stationed off the shorelines of Yemen, Djibouti, and Somalia in the geo-strategically important maritime corridor of the Gulf of Aden.

The US global missile shield is a component of the Pentagon’s strategy to encircle Eurasia and these three powers. In the first instance, this military system is aimed at establishing the nuclear primacy of the US by neutralizing any Russian or Chinese nuclear response to a US or NATO attack. The global missile shield is aimed at preventing any reaction or nuclear “second strike” by the Russians and Chinese to a nuclear “first strike” by the Pentagon.

US Global Missile Shield versus Russian Naval Expansion

All the new reports about branches of the US missile shield being established in other parts of the world are sensationalized in terms of the how they are portraying its geographic expansion as a new development. These reports ignore the fact that the missile shield was designed to be a global system with components strategically positioned across the world from the onset. The Pentagon had planned this in the 1990s and maybe much earlier. Japan and the Pentagon’s NATO allies have more or less been partners in the military project from the start.

Years ago both the Chinese and Russians were aware of the Pentagon’s global ambitions for the missile shield and made joint statements condemning it as a destabilizing project that would disturb the global strategic balance of power. China and Russia even jointly issued multilateral statements in July 2000 with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan warning that the creation of the Pentagon’s global missile shield would work again international peace contravened the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The US government was repeatedly warned that the steps it was taking would polarize the globe with hostilities that would be reminiscent of the Cold War. The warning fell on deaf and arrogant ears.

The Russians are now rebutting the Pentagon’s global missile shield through very practical steps of their own. These steps involve an expansion of their country’s presence in the high seas and an upgrade of their naval capabilities. Moscow plans on opening new naval bases outside of its home waters and outside of both the shorelines of the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea.

The Russian Federation already has two naval bases outside of Russian territory; one is in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol in the Black Sea and the other is in the Syrian port of Tartus in the Mediterranean Sea. The Kremlin is now looking at the Caribbean Sea, South China Sea, and eastern coast of Africa (in close proximity to the Gulf of Aden) as suitable locations for new Russian bases. Cuba, Vietnam, and the Seychelles are the prime candidates to host new Russian naval bases in these waters.

The Russians already had a presence in Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay until 2002. The Vietnamese port was home to the Soviets since 1979 and then hosted Russian forces after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Russia also continued to have a post-Soviet military presence in Cuba until 2001 through the Lourdes intelligence signal base that monitored the US.

The Kremlin is additionally developing its military infrastructure on its Arctic coast. New Arctic naval bases in the north are going to be opened. This is part of an overlap with the careful Russian strategy that includes the Arctic Circle. It is drawn with two dual functions in mind. One function is to protect Russian territorial and energy interests against NATO states in the Lomonosov Ridge. The other purpose is to serve the Russian global maritime strategy.

Moscow realizes that the US and NATO want to restrictively hem in its maritime forces in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. US and EU moves to control and restrict Russian maritime access to Syria is an indicator of this strategic inclination and objective. The moves to strategically hem in Russian marine forces are one of the reasons that the Kremlin wants naval bases in the Caribbean, South China Sea, and eastern coast of Africa.

The development of Russia’s Arctic naval infrastructure and the opening of Russian naval bases in places like Cuba, Vietnam, and the Seychelles would virtually guarantee the global presence of Russian naval forces. Russian vessels would have multiple points of entry into international waters and secure docking bases abroad. These bases will give the Russians permanent docking facilities in both the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean too.

The future overseas naval bases, like the one is Syria, are not being referred to as “naval bases” by Russian officials, but by other terms. Moscow is calling them “supply points” or bases for naval logistics to make them sound far less threatening. The nomenclature does not really matter. The functions of these naval facilities, however, are for the strategic military purposes that are being outlined.

The Russians at present only have permanent docking bases on their own national coastlines in the Arctic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Moreover, Russia’s naval infrastructure in the Russian Far East, on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, has the greatest access to open international waters. Moscow’s naval infrastructure in the Baltic is geographically in a constrained environment and could be immobilized, like Russia’s naval infrastructure in the Black Sea, in the event of a confrontation with the US and NATO. The addition of the naval infrastructure in places like Cuba would effectively guarantee that Russia’s naval forces will have a free hand and not be hemmed in by the US and its allies.

Russia’s New Nuclear Posture at Sea

Historically, the mandate of the naval forces of the Russian Armed Forces has been to protect the Russian coast. Both Russia and the Soviet Union based their defensive strategies on countering a major land invasion. For this reason both the characteristics of the Russian and Soviet naval forces were always based on functions aimed at helping fight a land-based invasion. Thus, the Russian naval fleet has not been structured as an offensive attack force. This, however, is changing as part of Moscow’s reaction to the Pentagon’s strategy of encirclement.

Russia, like both China and Iran, is now focusing on sea power.

Russia is upgrading and expanding its nuclear naval fleet. The Russian media has referred to this as a new bid for their country’s “naval dominance.” Moscow’s aims are to establish the nuclear superiority of its naval fleet with sea-based nuclear attack capabilities. This is a direct reaction to the Pentagon’s global missile shield and the encirclement of Russia and its allies.

Over fifty new warships and more than twenty new submarines will be added to the Russian fleet by 2020. About 40% of the new Russian submarines will have lethal nuclear strike capabilities. This process started after the Bush Jr. White House began taking steps to establish the US missile shield in Europe.

In the last few years, Russia’s counter-measures to the US missile shield have begun to manifest themselves. Trials of Russia’s Borey class submarine in the White Sea, where the port of Archangel (Arkhangelsk) is situated, began in 2011. In the same year the development of the submarine-launched Liner ballistic nuclear missile was announced, which was said to be able to pierce through the US missile shield. A Russian submarine would secretly test the Liner from the Barents Sea in 2011.

Future Cuba Missile Crisis in the Making?

If an agreement is reached with Havana, there is always the possibility that Russia may deploy missiles to Cuba like the Soviets did. Speaking in the realm of the hypothetical, these Russian missiles would most probably have nuclear warheads. Simplistically, this can be portrayed as a replay of the scenario that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis between the US, Soviet Union, and Cuba in 1962. There is much more, however, to the background of this Cold War story and its causes and effects.

The chief perpetrator of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the US government. The deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles to Cuba was a strategically asymmetric move to counter-balance the secret deployment of US nuclear missiles to Turkey, which targeted Soviet cities and citizens. The US government did not let its citizens know about its own nuclear missiles in Turkey that were targeting the Soviet population, because it would have led to many questions by the US public about whom the real aggressors were and what side was really at fault for the sparking of the crisis in 1962. The future deployment of Russian nukes to Cuba would likewise be a reaction to the nuclear weapons that the Pentagon is surrounding Russia and her allies with. Like in 1962, the US government would be at fault once again if nuclear missiles are deployed to Cuba and a crisis emerges.

Hereto, there are only talks underway about a renewed Russian presence in Cuba. Nothing has been agreed upon in concrete terms between the governments in Havana and Moscow, and there has been no mention of deploying Russian missiles to Cuba. Any comments about Russian moves in Cuba are speculation.

The nuclear upgrades that Russia is making to its navy are much more significant than any future Russian base in Cuba or elsewhere. Russia’s new nuclear naval posture actually allows it to cleverly station multiple mobile nukes around the US. In other words, Russia has “multiple Cubas” in the form of its floating mobile nuclear naval vessels that can deploy anywhere in the world. This is also why Russia is developing is naval infrastructure abroad. Russia will have the option of surrounding or flanking the United States with its own sea-based nuclear strike forces.

Russia’s naval strategy cleverly is meant to counter the Pentagon’s global missile shield. Included in this process is the adoption of a pre-emptive nuclear strike policy by the Kremlin as a reaction to the aggressive pre-emptive post-Cold War nuclear strike doctrine of the Pentagon and NATO. In the same year as the test of the Liner by the Russians, the commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Karakayev, said that Russia’s inter-continental ballistic missiles would become “invisible” in the near future.

The world is increasingly becoming militarized. US moves and actions are now forcing other international actors to redefine and reassess their military doctrines and strategies. Russia is merely just one of them.

Source: Presstv

Boeing Successfully Tests Microwave Missile That Takes Out Electronic Targets

October 26, 2012

CBS local

AIR FORCE BASE, Utah (CBS St. Louis) — Boeing successfully tests a new missile that can take out electronic targets with little collateral damage.

The aerospace company tested the microwave missile last week on a two-story building on the Utah Test and Training Range where computers and electronic systems were turned on to gauge the effects of the missile’s radio waves, according to a Boeing press release.

The missile, known as CHAMP (Counter-electronics High-powered Advanced Missile Project), fired a burst of High Powered Microwaves at the building, successfully knocking out the electronic systems and computers, and even taking out the television cameras recording the test.

“This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare,” Keith Coleman, CHAMP program manager for Boeing Phantom Works, said in the press release. “In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy’s electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive.”

Seven targets were taken out in total during the one-hour test which left no collateral damage.

Coleman believes this can be a huge advancement forward in non-lethal warfare.

“Today we turned science fiction into science fact,” Coleman said in the press release.

James Dodd, vice president of Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft, is hoping to get these microwave missiles in the field sooner rather than later. Members of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Directorate and Raytheon Ktech also took part in the test.

Boeing Defense, Space & Security division is headquartered in St. Louis.

‘Alleged abuses on both sides of Syrian conflict’ says Al Jazeera, but only shows one side of its carefully crafted story

October 11, 2012

Patrick Henningsen

21st Century Wire

“As the war rages, human rights groups are documenting atrocities on both sides of the Syrian conflict.”

Al Jazeera is currently masquerading as an “alternative” view in global media coverage, but its head offices in Doha, Qatar have apparently forged a tight alliance with foreign governments in Washington and London, and Saudi Arabia.

Like its headquarters in Qatar, Al Jazeera’s English Language global news network in London is staffed with a number of former BBC media staff and management. One might count this as a possible reason why Al Jazeera has learned to spin news coverage like the BBC. But the nature of Al Jazeera and its objectives as a tool for Qatar’s success in regional geopolitical and economic matters go much deeper than its BBC pedigree.

When a news network takes sides in a civil war

In media terms, this was beyond the pale – a point of no return. Al Jazeera was caught red-handed working for one side of a civil war in Syria…

Al Jazeera staff in Beirut resigned recently over the network’s aiding and abetting FSA and al Qaida terrorists in Syria, as Al Jazeera executives supplied those rebels with satellite phones so as to ‘coordinate communications’ with those western and gulf-backed mercenaries responsible for a number of civilian murders, Christian cleansing of central Syria and suicide and other bombs, in their reign of terror designed to collapse the Assad government from within the country, allowing western corporate interests to reorganize Syria’s economy and install a Washington/London-friendly regime.

Al Jazeera does still produce many quality documentary features and current affairs programming, but its news coverage has reached a new low in journalism, and looks like it’s been carefully produced by newsroom plants from Washington DC and Whitehall. The term here is western propaganda.

Controlled Media 101: How to bend reality

Many liberal-leaning TV viewers and middle of the road journalists are mostly unaware of Al Jazeera’s alliance with Washington DC and London, and still regard Al Jazeera in class ‘outside of the major media’, and hence, believe it is not bought and paid for like many others including the BBC, CNN, ABC, FOX, CBS and MSNBC. It may be that they were simply not paying very close attention to Al Jazeera’s recent news coverage and clandestine exploits in both Libya and Syria.

Al Jazeera very cleverly pretends to be report both sides of the conflict, but don’t actually do it – it seems they’ve learned from the masters at CNN on how to frame a conflict for PR purposes – this amounts to little more than cheap propaganda designed to serve western and gulf monarchy interests.


Bad Romance: Iran saber-rattling strains US-Israel relationship

October 2, 2012


Israel seems keen on going to war with Iran over its controversial nuclear program. However Tel Aviv’s top ally, the US is pushing for patience instead. Could it be election season cautiousness from Washington or have relations soured with Israel?

The Internationalist: ‘Those who control the debt, control everything’

September 27, 2012

The very essence of the banking system, revealed through LIBOR and other open criminal activity. Controlling markets, controlling regions, controlling people. To make us all slaves to their toxic debt. Those who control the debt, control everything.

Visit this blog for more insight: