NAM Summit in Tehran - August 2012

Interview with RT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u2LdVi8os0

Terrorists Supported by NATO Target Syria and Algeria

Superb Global Research article by Tony Cartalucci
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32560

Terrorists Supported by NATO Target Syria and Algeria

by Tony Cartalucci

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32560

Western policy makers admit that NATO's operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda's AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution's Bruce Riedel in his article, "The New Al Qaeda Menace," admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO's intervention in Libya, and that AQIM's base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the entire region.

Image: NATO's intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared "global Caliphate" Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not "Islam." In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real "war against Western-funded terrorism."

AQIM, like their Libyan counterparts, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) are both listed by the US State Department as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations." Likewise, both the UK Home Office (.pdf, listed as GSPC) and the UN recognize both organizations as terrorists. 

Despite this, military intervention in Libya was pursued by the West and condoned by the UN with full knowledge that the militants leading so-called "pro-democracy uprisings" were in fact merely the continuation of decades of violent terrorism carried out by Al Qaeda affiliates. The West had full knowledge of this, primarily because it was Western intelligence agencies arming and supporting these militants for the last 30 years, in Libya's case, while coddling their leaders in Washington and London.

Additionally, the US Army itself meticulously documented foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that the highest percentage per capita emanated from Libya's cities of Benghazi and Darnah, the so-called "cradle" of 2011's "pro-democracy uprisings" in Libya.

What unfolded was a premeditated lie - where placard waving "activists" overnight turned into battle-hardened heavily armed, tank driving, jet flying militants waging a nationwide battle against Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi. In reality, it was the fruition of 30 years of covert support the West has poured into militant groups across the region - support that would not end with the fall of Qaddafi.

LIFG terrorists promptly turned both east to Syria and west to Mali beyond their borders - a logistical matter they had perfected during their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj, as early as November 2011, arrived on the Turkish-Syrian border to provide cash, weapons, and LIFG terrorist fighters, overseen by Western intelligence along with US funding and arms laundered through Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC) members such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Since then Libyan militants have been confirmed to be leading entire brigades of foreign fighters inside Syria.

And as Bruce Riedel of Brookings concedes, these weapons went west to Mali as well. Algeria had feared just such a scenario unfolding with NATO's intervention in Libya - a fear now fully realized. Ironically, Riedel, in August 2011, had tried to make a case for Algeria being "next to fall" in an article titled literally, "Algeria Will Be Next to Fall."

A year ago, Riedel attempted to argue that it would be the so-called "Arab Spring" that would spread into Algeria after having taken root in neighboring Libya. He had eluded to, and it has now become abundantly clear, that by  "Arab Spring," Riedel meant, US-backed subversion, and more specifically NATO-armed Al Qaeda-brand militancy and terrorism.

With the US now openly arming, supporting, and literally "cheering" Al Qaeda in Syria, it is clear that the "War on Terror" is an unprecedented geopolitical fraud perpetuated at the cost of millions of lives destroyed and an incalculable social and economic toll. NATO, with full knowledge of the consequences is literally carving out of North Africa and the Middle East, the so-called "Caliphate" Western leaders had held over their impressionable people's heads as the impetus to perpetually wage global war. Torn from the pages of Orwell's 1984, an artificial war has been created to carry forward corporate-financier machinations both abroad and domestically. The so-called threat to Western civilization is in fact a foreign legion of Western corporate-financier interests, executing Wall Street and London's foreign policy on a global scale where and in a manner traditional Western forces cannot.

NATO's terrorist blitzkrieg across the Arab World will not end in Syria. It will continue, if allowed, into Iran, through the Caucasus Mountains and into Russia, across China's western borders, and even across Southeast Asia. The price for ignorance, apathy, and complicity in supporting the West's so-called "War on Terror" will ironically reap all the horrors and then some in reality, that were promised to us if we didn't fight this "Long War."

Our support of both the political gambits of our politicians, as well as our daily patronage of the corporate-financier interests driving this agenda have already reaped an unprecedented and still growing regional safe haven for terrorists - and as moderate secular governments continue to be undermined and toppled, we can only imagine the blowback, retaliation, and other consequences as this destructive foreign policy unfolds. To imagine that such meddling will not end up being visited back upon us, even if in the form of a false flag attack dwarfing 9/11, would be folly.

Already, we are suffering economic devastation and an increasingly stifling security apparatus at home, and as long as we capitulate to this current agenda instead of asserting a more rational one of our own, it will only get worse.


Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Tony Cartalucci

Interview with RT on US missile tranfer to Persian Gulf countries

There are two versions of the interview -- a full one and a shorter clip.

short clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6DcpqSdIDE
full version
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-us-missile-defense-315/

A Temple and a Mosque: Worship in America

On August 5,  a Sikh temple in Southern Wisconsin was attacked.  Six worshippers lost their lives before the gunman was killed.   There was an outbreak of condemnation – rightly so.  President Obama ordered flags at public buildings to be flown at half-staff and Mrs. Clinton called her Indian counterpart. Mitt Romney offered his prayers to the families of the victims.   Left ignored, was the burning down of a mosque in Missouri -  predictably so.  Worship in America is a political prerogative in sink with U.S. policies.  

But India and Indian Sikhs have privileges; so why were Sikh worshippers targeted?  It may well be that the perpetrator, Wade Michael Page who allegedly had links to the white supremacist movement ignored the political relations in favor of his ideology -- white supremacy,  articulated by President T. Roosevelt who said of America: “Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portion's of the earth's surface."

Or perhaps, as CNN opined, “Sikh's "unfairly" mistaken for Muslims and targeted.” This would not be the first time, and as Public Radio International (PRI) has reported, since the events of 9/11, Sikh men have been targeted as Moslems.  Even the cordial relations with India could not prevent the perception that an Indian Sikh resembles a Moslem and fair target. 

Scapegoating Moslems had been planned as early as 1991 (see full article here).   The end of the Cold War had left neoconservatives fearful that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the splintering of the America’s right wing faction, there would no longer be an unconditional support for a U.S.-Israel alliance.  The threat of communism was replaced with the threat of Islam.  The promotion and branding of Islam as an enemy came to fruition with the events of 9/11.

In line with this neoconservative strategy, the mainstream media in the US framed September 11 within the context of Islam, ignoring all other inquiry, including the fact that a new U.N. Human Rights Council assigned to monitor Israel was calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (New York Sun[i]).   As neocon Bernard Lewis was busy teaching the concept of ‘jihad’ versus‘crusade’[ii]Moslem bashing, Moslem killing, and Mosque burning became fair game.

The strategy of demonizing Islam was so successful that in 2008 the presidential candidates centered their qualification for Office on Moslem-bashing.  Former New York mayor and the hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, made the threat of 'Islamic terrorism' the centerpiece of his campaign.  Podhoretz also joined Giuliani (later he joined McCain), as did John Deady who resigned after it came out that he said the following of Giuliani: "He's got, I believe, the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims. Make no mistake about it, this hasn't happened for a thousand years, these people are very dedicated and they're also very, very smart in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or, in other words, get rid of them."  Renowned Evangelical Pat Robertson gave Giuliani his endorsement[iii].
Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, allegedly dissuaded contender Mike Huckabee from “reaching out” to the 'Muslim world'.   Mitt Romney, a contender in 2008 and the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful, raised eyebrows when he suggested that mosques be wire-tapped[iv].   For almost a decade, U.S. military officers were being taught to wage a ‘total war’ on Islam and target civilians.  

The Sikh Temple shooter, Wade Michael Page, a former U.S. Army veteran, is condemned for the violent and meaningless murder of innocent worshippers, but is he alone responsible for this act of insanity?  If these killing were truly a case of mistaking Sikhs as Moslems,  should those who implement seeds of hatred not be held accountable aslo? 

Who will persecute those who taught army officers to kill Moslems -  the  Commander-in-Chief hopefuls and their advisors who promoted hatred and persecution of Moslems, and the neoconservatives who planted the seeds of hatred among us?  Will their deeds be buried with Page? What of all the other hate crimes against Moslems, the burnt mosques? As Jonathan Swift said: “I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

---

[i] Eli Lake, “U.N. Official Calls for  Study of Neocons’ Role in 9/11”,  The New York Sun, 10 April 2008

[ii] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade. A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).

[iii] “The Religion Card; GOP Candidates Play on anti-Muslim Sentiments”The Progressive, Biography Resource Center, USC Feb 2008

[iv] The Religion Card, Ibid.

Sanctions: Diplomacy’s Weapon of Mass Murder

In 1945, the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagaski immediately killing 120,000 civilians.  The final death toll of the horrendous bombings has been conservatively estimated at well over 200,000 men, women, and children.   To this day, the world continues to be shocked and horrified by  the visual images that captured the death and destruction caused by the bombs.   The negative impact prompted America to devise a different weapon of mass murder – sanctions.

Unlike the shock and horror which accompanied the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, there were no images of the 500,000 Iraqi children whose lives were cut short by sanctions to jolt the world into reality.     Not only has America taken pride in the mass killing of innocent children, but encouraged by silence and the surrender to its weapon of choice, it has turned diplomacy’s weapon of mass murder on another country – Iran. 

There has been little resistance to sanctions in the false belief that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy and preferable to war.  Enforcement of this belief has been a major victory for American public diplomacy.   The reality is otherwise.  Sanctions kill indiscriminately – they are far deadlier than “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” – the two atomic bombs that took the lives of over 200,000 people.  In the case of Iraq, the United Nations estimated 1,700,000 million Iraqi civilians died as a result of sanctions.  1.5 million more victims than the horrific atomic bombs dropped on Japan.   Diplomacy’s finest hour.

Even though Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations,  and many other top officials resigned from their posts in protest to the sanctions saying: "The policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying as that", the murders continued.   In 1999, seventy members of Congress appealed to President Clinton to lift the sanctions and end what they termed "infanticide masquerading as policy."   But America continued its lead with its diplomatic death dance.

America, a morally bankrupt nation and the self-appointed global morality police, obeying the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby groups, has for years now pointed its deadly weapon of mass murder at Iran -- sanctions disguised as diplomacy.   The misinformed and misguided global community indulges itself in the false belief that war has been avoided, without thought to suffering and death.   

In fact, the notion that economic sanctions are always morally preferable to the use of military force has been challenged by Albert C. Pierce, Ethics and National Security professor at the National Defense University.   His analysis showed that economic sanctions inflict great pain, suffering, and physical harm on the innocent civilians--so much so that  small-scale military operations were sometimes preferable (Ethics and International Affairs,1996).   

But America prefers not to engage in battle.  Not only would military confrontation bring global condemnation, but history has shown us that while America can win battles, it cannot win wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…..).  It therefore resorts to sanctions- a coward’s ruthless “diplomacy” tool in order to disguise  its role as the enemy with the purpose of  depriving the target  nation of self-defense against such horrendous aggression.  Sanctions, the warfare by an enemy unidentified by a military uniform is intended to eliminate resistance, to attack women and children, the weak and the old,  to being about regime change, without fear of retaliation or censure by the ‘peace-loving’ community.

In this election year, as in the past, appeasement of the pro-Israel lobbies takes precedent to humanity, to the well-being of Americans, and to the security of the global community. 

A 2005 report developed by economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer demonstrates that if the United States lifted sanctions on Iran the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent translating into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States alone.   The current global recession would dwarf the figures cited.  

At war even with  itself to please the lobbies,   House passed  H.R. 1905 - Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act. Putting aside the oxymoron of sanctions and human rights for now, America is demanding that the world community not only partake in deadly sanctions,  but to do so in direct opposition to the national interests of each and every sovereign nation.  This is a sharp departure from the arguments presented by AIPAC in 1977 in response to the Arab league boycott.  

AIPAC successfully defined the Arab League boycott as " harassment and blackmailing of America, an interference with normal business activities ... that the boycott activities were contrary to the principles of free trade that the United States has espoused for many years … and the Arab interference in the business relations of American firms with other countries is in effect an interference with the sovereignty of the United States."[i]

However, the United States has successfully blackmailed other nations to be its accomplice in suffering and mass murder -  diplomacy’s weapon of choice.    To believe that Iran (or Syria) is the only target of these sanctions is as naïve as believing that sanctions are diplomacy put in place to avoid war.   The global  impact of the lethal weapon – sanctions -- is simply cushioned in diplomacy ;   A brilliantly and ruthlessly executed diplomatic coup.

---

[i] H. Alikhani, Sanctioning Iran, Anatomy of a Failed Policy, New York, 2000, p.321

The Militarization Of Education

In his brilliant article “The Perversion of Scholarship”, Chris Hedges exposes factors which have destroyed most major American universities.  Hedges writes: “Fraternities, sororities and football, along with other outsized athletic programs, have decimated most major American universities. Scholarship, inquiry, self-criticism, moral autonomy and a search for artistic and esoteric forms of expression—in short, the world of ethics, creativity and ideas—are shouted down by the drunken chants of fans in huge stadiums, the pathetic demands of rich alumni for national championships, and the elitism, racism and rigid definition of gender roles of Greek organizations. These hypermasculine systems perpetuate a culture of conformity and intolerance.  They have inverted the traditional values of scholarship to turn four years of college into a mindless quest for collective euphoria and athletic dominance.”    Left unmentioned is the militarization of the American educational system.  

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers are coming to a campus near according to a blaring headline: “Served in IDF? US universities want you!" (Ynet News, July 4, 12).   According to the report, among the recruiters were representatives from Stanford, Brandeis, Duke, UC Berkeley, Kellogg, Harvard, NYU, UCLA and Tuck at Dartmouth have gone to Israel to interview and offer scholarships to soldiers who have served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers -- on your dime.  There are specific “scholarships designated for Israelis and among them are those that include military service as criteria for receiving the scholarship”. [This and similar factors seem to have escaped Mitt Romney when he made his racist remarks in Israel].

Disturbing as this news is, the idea of militarizing education is nothing new.  The New Yorker staff writer, George Packer opined in his July 2007 piece “Guns and Brains” that after the sixties, “intellect and patriotism went separate ways, to the detriment of both.”  No doubt. At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, antiwar demonstrators clashed with the police, and the images of police beating students shocked television audiences. Violence peaked at an antiwar protest at Ohio's Kent State University in May 1970 when National Guard troops gunned down four student protesters. 

9/11 provided the perfect opportunity for the intellectuals and the military to reconcile – according to Packer who writes: “September 11th made military service more attractive to the kind of college students who used to find it unthinkable.”  He cites General Petraeus’ degree in humanities and the engineers and social scientists in Iraq as evidence of this mindset.    

But if the “brains” and the “guns” are no longer at odds with each other, why are representatives from American universities recruiting soldiers who have served in the IDF – especially at a time when there are slashes in education budget across the country and the high/unaffordable cost of education?  

Perhaps George Packer’s concluding remark that “[s]ome intellectuals find the war and the Administration so objectionable that they regard associating with the military as a kind of crime” is a clue to the answer.  Since its founding in 2003, across the country, Campus Antiwar network (C.AN.) has chased military recruiters off.    Perhaps it is these counter-recruitment protests  that have necessitated the recruitment of former IDF soldiers.

While May 2012 figures estimate homeless US veterans to be at 60,000 (Daily Stripes),  American universities are offering scholarships to former IDF soldiers to enroll in MBA (Masters of Business Administration) programs.   Given that GOP Presidential contender, Mitt Romney, has assured us that Israel has a “culture of economic vitality”, why are their soliders receiving scholarships from American schools to engaged in business administration?  Whatever the reason,  undoubtedly, neoconservative Daniel Pipes and his “Campus Watch” will welcome Israeli soldiers into their fold.