by Martin Iqbal.

The ‘New Atheists’, who claim to be at the cutting edge of critical, independent thought, have adopted the false dogma of 9/11 as their religion.

I want to start out this piece by making a couple of things clear about my beliefs.  I do not suggest for a millisecond that readers should care; there’s nothing more nauseating than a person who trumpets their personal beliefs at any given opportunity. (Sadly in the case of many atheists, this is often done in the pursuit of smugly asserting one’s perceived intellectual superiority).

I will try to keep this braindump coherent; do bear with me.

I am an atheist.  I was not raised in a religious household.  I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution – which I see as a readily observable and beautiful fact and no mere theory.  I find the idea of creationism quite silly in the face of an overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolution and the interrelatedness of all species.  I hold dear the ideals of intellectual freedom and critical thought, and I staunchly oppose all forms of dogma.

Moving swiftly on, do I think ‘Islamist extremism’ exists?  Of course I do.

But now I come to the meat of the matter.  And this is where Richard Dawkins and his army of blindly loyal followers will scoff, spit and curse like a seventeenth century congregation that’s just been thrown a copy of The God Delusion.

The ‘New Atheism’: a Vehicle for Dogma & Herd Mentality

Atheism has become a vehicle for the very thing it claims to oppose: dogma.  Buoyed by a rising tidal wave of knee-jerk bigotry, atheism is instilling a rigid dogma in its followers.  This army of self-professed ‘critical thinkers’ has now disposed of critical thought, and has instead taken up a campaign of hero worship, ultimately spreading a pernicious and baseless dogma in the form of the War on Terror.  Allow me to explain.

Richard Dawkins – one of New Atheism’s High Priests – attacks Islam on a regular basis, saying things like (on Twitter), “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur’an. You don’t have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.”.

Dawkins commands ‘decent’, moderate Muslims to come out and condemn stoning (a practice that is admittedly barbaric and indefensible on any level).

Such frequent rabble rousing against Muslim nations and cultures (while ignoring far greater human rights abuses carried out by ‘enlightened’ Western nations) constitutes a trend amongst atheists, even amongst ex-Muslims who are eagerly touted and re-tweeted by Dawkins and his over 600,000 Twitter followers.

Am I saying that we should not criticise Islam or any other religious beliefs?  No, absolutely not.

But, there is a deeper significance to this that, as ‘critical thinkers’, atheists (Dawkins included) have failed to grasp in a spectacular display of irony.

The Religion of 9/11 & The War On Terror – A Monstrous Fraud Disproved by Science

Allow me to point out before I continue: ‘Muslim’ terrorists and extremists exist.  They behead those they see as ‘infidels’.  They mercilessly slaughter women and children in their pursuit of misguided ‘jihad’.

And they do this with the active and tacit support of every single Western nation that so loudly decries ‘Islamist terrorism’.  For a recent example, please refer to the 2011 decimation of Libya and the ongoing war on Syria, both orchestrated on the ground by hordes of brainwashed and misguided ‘jihadis’ wielding NATO rifles in their left hands, and Qatari paycheques in their right.

If ones traces further back in time, one will see that the mercenary army often referred to as ‘al Qaeda’, was created by the USA as a proxy force, which was used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s – precisely as they are being used today in Libya and Syria.

But I digress.

Aside from ‘al Qaeda’ being a proxy army that is literally airlifted on demand to wherever NATO requires manpower, it is also used as an instrument of fear.  The notion that these braindead savages are in any way a threat to Western nations, is laughable.

I hear your internal dialogue: “But what about 9/11?  What about the London bombings of 2005?”

Well, the very kernel of the ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme is the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  One of Dawkins’ favourite quips is “Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings”.

The ‘official narrative’ of 9/11 however, which has formed the basis for the global ‘War on Terror’, is an out and out lie, nothing more than a political dogma.

More than a decade on, any thinking person worth his salt has begun to ask questions about the events of 9/11.  As a learned scientist of global repute, it is surprising that Richard Dawkins apparently has such an elementary grasp of physics.  Most secondary school students can figure out that steel cannot be melted to a liquid by jet fuel.  A 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper cannot explode entirely into dust, roof to street, in a matter of seconds due to airplane impact, fire, or both.  Perhaps Dawkins can get a physics lesson from the over 1,700 architects, scientists, and structural engineering professionals who are asking these questions, to be met with silence:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

It may seem insignificant to talk about the manner in which the World Trade Center was destroyed.  Bearing this in mind however, if you do employ the scientific method and a dose of critical thought, then you will eventually see that this fundamental problem with the 9/11 account actually precludes the possibility of any of the central tenets of the 9/11 dogma being true.  Bearing this in mind, along with the bewildering number of other inconsistencies and lies surrounding the 9/11 attacks, it becomes clear that 9/11 was, in military intelligence speak, a ‘false flag’ operation.

Of course at this stage, believers of the 9/11 religion will sneer and laugh at this heretic ‘conspiracy theory’.  Well if you’ve made it this far, I ask you to employ your critical thinking faculties and question your faith in the 9/11 religion that has been thrust upon us all.  Apply the scientific method in order to fill the hundreds of fundamental holes in the official story of 9/11. I will not attempt to explain the 9/11 false flag on this page, but the following articles make a start.

9/11 ten years on: there are no excuses for buying the myth:
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/09/911-ten-years-on-there-are-no-excuses-for-buying-the-myth/

September 11, 2001: Zionist shock therapy and the birth of the lie:
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/09/september-11-2001-zionist-shock-therapy-and-the-birth-of-the-lie/

There is a mountainous wealth of information and evidence, accessible online, that will answer your objective, honest, and scientific questions relating to 9/11, as well as the 7/7 London false flag.

Conclusion: Atheists, put your money where your mouth is – drop ALL dogma and don’t be a weapon of war

What we need to realise as thinking people is this: the ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme serves a deeply nefarious purpose in our mass media and popular culture.  Through the fraud of the War on Terror – which subsists on the omnipresent ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme – at least four nations have been attacked and well over 1 million people have been killed.  The numbers maimed, orphaned, displaced, and otherwise consigned to a life of perpetual misery completely dwarf this very conservative estimate.

Yes ‘Muslim’ terrorists and extremists exist, but it is wrong to characterise a miniscule minority as being representative of the wider group.

And let us be honest: there are far more non-Muslim terrorists than Muslim ones, and the piles of skeletons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria attest to this.

As free people we should be free to discuss anything we like in an open forum, including criticising any religious beliefs. People should be free to criticise any and all ideas and beliefs, including Islam, but this should be done in a principled and well-researched manner that does not feed into destructive, warmongering, and false dogma.

And how absurd is it for a person to stand on a soapbox, bashing Islam because of its followers’ supposed moral failings, while diligently spreading a far more deadly and dangerous dogma that has directly resulted in the death and misery of millions?  I call for all decent atheists to put their money where their mouth is and reject ALL dogma, and this includes the naked lie of 9/11.

If a central tenet of atheism is resisting dogma and employing critical thought, then by measure of its adherents, New Atheism is failing pitifully.

P.S. It is incredibly telling that the anti-stoning petition posted by Richard Dawkins on his Twitter feed, comes from Avaaz – an empire propaganda mill that seeks to demonise Muslim nations in order to make anti-Muslim wars of aggression more palatable.

Originally posted at nsnbc international.

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc),- The Tunisian e-newspaper Al-Jarida reports that about 2,000 Tunisians are currently fighting in Syria among the armed groups which have been fighting to topple the Syrian government since early 2011. The latest report is one of many reports which reveal that Africans from the Maghreb are systematically being targeted for recruitment as mercenaries for the foreign backed subversion.

Abo Qasai , a Tunisian who fought in Syria told Al.Jarida, that the Tunisian fighters are of varying ages, including students, workers and unemployed who see the deployment as a chance to earn a living. The mercenary, who was lucky to return alive, informed the newspaper that there is a direct recruitment line for Syria in the Libyan city of Bengazi and referred to a terrorist group called the al-Darneh Battallions which arrived in Syria about two weeks before he fled Syria. Abo Qusai reports that the Tunisian mercenaries are being treated as slaves by the terrorist groups in which ranks he was fighting, which made him return to Tunisia.

The report of the Al-Jarida e-newspaper is consistent with previous reports, which indicate that organized recruiting is taking place, targeting especially the socio-economically under privileged youth and unemployed in the Maghreb, but also in Asia.

15 February, Tunisians were shocked when Tunisian Radio and TV reported about 132 Tunisian insurgents who had been killed in and around the city of Aleppo. Statements by an insurgent group who released photos of two of the fallen mercenaries, promising that photos of all the slain mercenaries would be sent to their leaders in Tunisia for identification purposes, revealed that organized recruiting and deployment is taking place. (1

On 25 February nsnbc published a report about an Irish teen who had been killed in Syria. The Irish teen, whose family originated from Libya, had disappeared during a vacation in Libya where he had been recruited for fighting in Libya. Also in this incident, there were strong indications of systematic and organized recruiting taking place. During investigations of the case of the killed Irish teen it transpired, that the Embassy of Qatar seems to be directly involved in recruitment efforts in Libya. (2

A Mauritanian journalist recently informed nsnbc, that he had observed efforts to recruit young, socio-economically under privileged Mauritanian youth for “employment in Libya”, and that there is good reason to believe, that many of those who are taking up on the offers end up being recruited for mercenary military service in Syria.

The report of Abo Qusai, about recruitment in Bengazi and his statement about the Derna Battallions are consistent with a West Point terrorism study, according to which the Libyan cities of Derna and Bengazi as well as Libya as a whole, were the greatest per capita contributors of Al-Qaeda´s foreign fighters in Iraq, subsequent to the US invasion of the country. (3

On 8 February nsnbc reported about the arrest of a former Malaysian military officer and his female associate in a Kuala Lumpur suburb. The couple was charged with recruiting Malaysian youth for “holy war” in Syria. Beside the fact that the former Malaysian military officer and his female associate were recruiting youth, the former officer, Yazzid Sufaat has previously been charged with working for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and helping the terrorist network with the development of chemical weapons capabilities. ( 4

A common denominator in all of the above mentioned cases is, that the recruiting is taking place through Al-Qaeda operatives, and that the Al-Qaeda operatives have ties to governments.

The predominant Libyan Al-Qaeda group in the Libyan cities of Derna and Bengazi is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, whose commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj is known for his close cooperation with the British Foreign Intelligence Service MI6 as well as with NATO. The case of the Irish teenager has unearthed information, that indicated the involvement of Qatar´s embassy. Mauritanians who are being sent to Libya for employment would most likely end up in Derna or Bengazi. Yazzid Sufaat, the Malaysian Al-Qaeda associate has reportedly contacts to Al-Qaeda operatives who are functioning as double agents for both Al-Qaeda and the CIA.

While reports continue streaming into the worlds media´s editorial offices, there has nor yet been any report that would indicate, that the International Criminal Court would begin investigating the apparently involved governments functionaries for violations of the Convention against the Use of Mercenaries, or for violations of the Geneva Conventions for the forced military service of prisoners.

Notes

1) Syria: 132 Tunisian Insurgents Killed in Aleppo, Tunisia developing into Salafist Hot-Bed

2) Irish Teen killed in Syria. Classified Document reveals, Qatar´s Embassy recruits Mercenaries

3) Al Qa´ida´s Foreign Fighters in Iraq

4) Malaysia charges former army captain and woman for terrorism and for recruiting mercenaries for Syria

by Nile Bowie.

The pages of history tell us that beautiful civilizations emerged and prospered in the ancient cities of Damascus and Aleppo, some of the oldest continually inhabited cities on earth. The harrowing circus of brutality that is the Syrian conflict, now in its third year, will soil and blacken those pages indefinitely. No matter the political outcome of this horrible war, a once tolerant and diverse state has been shattered and terror itself has eaten into the destiny of Syria’s people, inexorably changing the courses of their lives forever. Children have been orphaned; parents have faced the loss of their children – and by uncompromising means. Infants have been beheaded, the fates of innocent men and women have been sealed through summary executions, and families have been torn apart or destroyed all together. Recent developments in Syria are alarming.

Spokesmen of the Assad government recently accused foreign-backed militants of launching scud missiles containing chemical weapons in the city of Aleppo, killing dozens. Witnesses claim to have seen powder emanate from the rocket, causing those who inhaled the substance to suffocate or require immediate medical attention. An unnamed chemical weapons expert cited by Al-Jazeera claimed that the causalities were not consistent with Syria’s reputed stockpile of chemical agents, stating, “If it’s a chemical warfare agent, it’s not working very well.” Syria’s ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja’afari, called on the UN Secretary-General to form an independent technical mission to investigate the use of chemical weapons by terrorist groups operating in Syria.

While on his first state visit to Israel, Barack Obama cast doubt and expressed deep scepticism toward the Assad government’s version of events, stating that if the government did indeed use chemical weapons, then it meant a “red line” had been crossed. Obama vowed not to make further announcements until concrete facts were established. What this essentially means is that Obama is now in a position to act on his statements and intervene more boldly and directly than the United States has already been doing since the beginning of the conflict. Additionally, NATO personnel have also indicated that they are prepared to employ a wide range of operations. US-European Command Admiral James Stavridis recently told media that the alliance was “prepared, if called upon, to be engaged as we were in Libya.”

Those who have critically monitored the situation from the beginning are under no illusions. The way in which mainstream media sources have covered the Syrian conflict, perhaps more so than any other topic in recent times, shows unequivocally how certain content providers have moved in step with the foreign policy of the Western and Gulf states who have enabled insurgent groups and provided diplomatic cover for opposition politicians who represent their economic and strategic interests. The Obama administration’s policy toward Libya and Syria eyes the same familiar endgame as what the Bush administration sought in its foreign policy adventures. The fact that many of those on the left who campaigned against Iraq and Afghanistan are now generally silent, or even supportive of Obama’s agenda, is proof that his policies have been packaged far more intelligently for mainstream consumption. The reality is that Syria is “Shock and Awe” by other means.

There are a myriad of reasons why Bashar al-Assad must go in the eyes of policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv, and the destruction of his tenure could not have been possible without the financial muscle of Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s wretchedly opulent Sunni Monarchs. These glittering kingdoms of disaster-capitalism are not only responsible for supplying weapons and cash; a major incentive of theirs is exporting the Wahhabist and Salafist ideologies that many of Syria’s imported jihadists subscribe to, a warped and primal interpretation of Islam that has fueled the sectarian nature of the Syrian conflict and deepened social divisions to their most dangerous point – in a country that was once renowned for its tolerance of religious diversity. These Gulf kingdoms, which are more-or-less given a trump card to commit deplorable human rights violations institutionally, are also responsible for propping up the political arm of their militant foot soldiers, and that comes in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Syria’s opposition coalition, which is itself entirely a creation of foreign powers, has recently elected its own interim prime minister – enter, Ghassan Hitto, a virtually unknown political novice with a US passport and a computer science degree from Purdue University. Hitto is an Islamist Kurd with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has politically dominated the Syrian National Council since its creation, in addition to organizing tactical elements of the insurgency. The backbone of the Brotherhood’s relationship with the medieval monarchies of the Persian Gulf is grounded in a firm opposition to Shi’a Islam, as extolled by clerical leaders in Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah; Assad himself is also an Alawite, an offshoot of Shi’a Islam. It should be clear enough by now how enflaming sectarian divisions in the region was a prerequisite for those bank-rolling the insurgency, aimed at demolishing the secular Syrian state.

Several high-profile members of Syria’s opposition coalition boycotted the vote for interim prime minister, citing what they viewed as a foreign-backed campaign to elect Hitto. Kamal Labwani, a veteran opposition campaigner, was reported as saying, “We don’t want what happened in Egypt to happen in Syria. They hijacked the revolution.” Those who abstained from the vote accuse Hitto of being a puppet of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the SNC’s decisions were being dictated from the outside. Walid al-Bunni, another senior figure in the opposition, stated, “The Muslim Brotherhood, with the backing of Qatar, have imposed their prime minister candidate. We will keep away if the coalition does not reconsider its choice.” Let’s just get this straight – Assad, a leader whose presence today is a testament to the fact that he continues to enjoy majority popular support, is considered to have lost his legitimacy. On the other hand, Hitto, a man with no political experience who received 35 votes out of 49 ballots cast during a Syrian National Coalition meeting, is supposed to be legitimate representative of the Syrian people?

These realities can only be interpreted as the boot of the so-called “International Community” squashing the face of the Syrian people, imposing on them a man who does not represent them, but the business interests of multinational corporations who seek to plant their flags in the soil of a post-Assad Syria. Let’s not humor ourselves by thinking John Kerry, William Hague, Laurent Fabius or Qatari Emir Khalifa Al Thani actually care about the people of Syria. However many casualties the Syrian conflict has incurred thus far can be attributable to the influx of foreign funds, foreign arms, and foreign fighters. It would be intellectually dishonest to deny that the tactics of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Army have also caused widespread civilian casualties and suffering. It is an enormous challenge for a state military to quell unconventional insurgencies of the sort carried out by militants in Syria when these battles take place in densely populated residential areas.

One should not cynically credit Syrian government forces with intentionally killing their own people; this does not serve the purposes of the state in any way. Civilian deaths that have occurred as a result of government forces engaging the insurgency should more accurately be seen as a heinous by-product of a foreign campaign to topple the Syrian government. While the foreign ministries of Western capitals cite politically charged death-toll statistics to justify their campaign against “Assad the Butcher”, it is absolutely unconscionable that Paris and London have called for lifting the Syrian arms embargo, and for vowing to arm militant groups with or without the consent of the EU. Apparently some seventy thousand people have been killed in Syria according to the United Nations, and these cited European states, which allegedly are so concerned about terrorism, want to dump more guns into Syria – this is madness.

Western states want to install proxy leaders who will grovel to their multinationals and swallow IMF medicine, Gulf states seek unfettered hegemony in their own backyards, and they all want to see the Shi’a resistance smashed to pieces. Following the news of chemical weapons being used in Syria, the most immediate conclusion of this observer is that foreign-backed militants, who have used every opportunity to call for more material and support, employed the use of a smuggled chemical weapon of poor quality to bring about direct military intervention in their favor. Right on cue, Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain are frothing at the mouth, urging President Obama to “take immediate action” and consider deploying troops. Graham was quoted as saying, “If the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem.” There is no surer sign of a pathological mind than when one credits others with the blood on their own hands.

Nile Bowie is an independent political analyst and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com

by Michael Collins Piper, American Free Press Newspaper.

Hugo Chavez—the colorful Venezuelan strongman, a popular figure throughout Latin America—is dead.

Although the controlled media contrived to mislead Americans into perceiving Chavez as “anti-American,” the truth is that the bombastic South American icon was actually a forthright nationalist critic of the internationalist and imperialist forces often referred to as the New World Order.

Like many who oppose the privately-owned Federal Reserve money monopoly which operates un-Constitutionally on American soil, Chavez was a critic of rampant global super-capitalism, which Chavez called “the demon.”

There is no question Chavez knew the source of his high-powered opposition. In 2000, announcing a trip to Iraq, Chavez taunted his critics, remarking: “Imagine what the Pharisees will say when they see me with Saddam Hussein.” On another occasion he asserted: “The world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world.”

All of this is something of which even otherwise well-informed American patriots are unaware.

Should there be any doubt Chavez was perceived as a roadblock in the way of the New World Order, consider the warnings issued by David Rothkopf, front man at Kissinger Associates, the secretive pressure group of Henry Kissinger, one of the foremost advocates of the New World Order.

In Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making—which acknowledges the influence of such New World Order institutions as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations—Rothkopf spoke approvingly of what he called the new global “superclass” (that is, the New World Order elite) and said that, in his words, the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of “Globalists vs. Nationalists,” that an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” stood opposed to the “superclass.” He wrote:

At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . .

In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . . Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo- imperialist vs. pro-American globalization, the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.

Specifically naming three figures among that “small group of leaders” challenging the New World Order as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chavez, Rothkopf candidly confirmed the primary underlying conflict in our world today is—as it has always been—the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in the face of the concerted drive by cosmopolitan internationalists to erect a global imperium. Rothkopf’s admissions were a clear sign the New World Order schemers recognized serious forces were aligning against them.

Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Society parroted the New World Order crowd and the war-mongering pro-Israel neo-conservatives by attacking nationalists such as Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chavez.

Considering all of this—quite naturally—from the time Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in 1999, the tightly-knit interlocking network of Rothschild dynasty-linked plutocratic families and Federal Reserve-connected financial interests who dominate the American military-industrial-media complex never spared any fervor in denouncing Chavez at any opportunity.

That international Zionism and the interwoven forces of the New World Order were disturbed about Chavez was (at first) largely kept under wraps. Zionist hatred of Chavez was confined to small-circulation—but nonetheless influential—journals read almost exclusively by supporters of Israel and in elitist circles.

For propaganda purposes designed to manipulate more broad-ranging concerns of freedom-loving Americans, the media regularly stoked up the theme Chavez was a “socialist” or a “communist” under the thumb of Fidel Castro.

That Chavez was friendly toward Castro as virtually all Latin American leaders—even “conservatives”—have been (not to mention leaders worldwide)—was hardly “proof” Chavez was a communist.

Even The New York Review of Books admitted on Oct. 6, 2005 that “a great many businessmen have prospered under [Chavez’s] rule, and he has made it clear he sees a significant role for the private sector and, most particularly, for foreign investment.” So Chavez was no “communist”—media lies notwithstanding.

In truth, Chavez modeled himself after Simon Bolivar—liberator of the Andean colonies from the Spanish crown—who, in even traditional American history texts, was called “the George Washington of South America.”

The simmering secret war against Chavez took a new turn when, on the August 22, 2005 broadcast of his 700 Club, pro-Israel television evangelist Pat Robertson—suggesting Chavez was a new communist threat—openly called for the United States to assassinate Chavez, then emerging as a forceful critic of the global warmongering of the George W. Bush administration.

Most Americans would have never heard of Robertson’s provocation had it not been for the big media loudly publicizing the evangelist’s remarks and, as such, Chavez and his supporters correctly saw Robertson’s outburst as part of a carefully-crafted high-level scheme to direct American popular ire against Chavez and set the stage for military action against him.

In fact, the call for killing Chavez came just days after the Bush administration’s foremost voice of support in the media—the neo-conservative Weekly Standard—slammed Chavez claiming he was “a threat to more than just his own people,” a danger to the tiny but wealthy Jewish population in Venezuela, bemoaning the fact Venezuelan state television speculated Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, may have been linked to the assassination of a local official in Venezuela.

Asserting “hostility to Jews” was “one of the hallmarks of the Venezuelan government,” the Standard cited a State Department “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” that purported to document, in the Standard’s words, “how openly anti-Semitic the Venezeulan government now is.”

Of particular concern was that one of Chavez’s closest advisors, the late Norberto Ceresole, was “infamous” for “conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to control the planet” and that Ceresole was a “holocaust denier”—that is, he questioned official accounts of World War II history, a “crime” punishable by imprisonment in many Western nations calling themselves “democracies,” and which, at the same time, hypocritically accused Chavez of suppressing freedom of expression in Venezeula.

Within a short time, though, Jewish opposition to Chavez went public in a big way. On Feb. 5, 2008—in a commentary in The Washington Post (a newspaper that most definitely directs opinion among movers and shakers in the nation’s capital)—Abe Foxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, launched a full-force attack on Chavez. Headlined “Chavez’s Anti-Semitism,” Foxman’s inflammatory broadside alleged a “rising wave of anti-Semitism” in Venezuela traceable to Chavez.

Foxman charged Venezuelan officials and media were “rehashing the ancient canard about Jewish control, vilifying Jews and Israel as agents of imperialism, and adopting anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish financial influence,” and expressed concern Chavez was friendly to Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Syrian President al-Assad, among others the ADL called “a verifiable threat to Israel and world Jewry.”

Although Chavez is gone, other leaders in South America and worldwide—with the support of many good Americans—still carry on his fight against the New World Order.

Related article: Israel’s Man in Venezuela: Henrique Capriles Radonski.

by Martin Iqbal.

Updated 11 February 2013 with new additions: democracy, dictator, humanitarian intervention, no-fly zone.

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.” – George Orwell.

Have you ever read the newspaper only to find yourself hopelessly confused as to the real underlying meanings of the deceitful, duplicitous lexicon in use in the age of the ‘Arab Spring’, and the ‘War on Terror’? Fret no more, the first edition of the 2013 Compact Orwellian Doublespeak Dictionary is here! Read on to decipher the true meanings beneath the fraudulent war-on-terror-humanitarian-intervention-arab-spring terminology used by all of today’s paid liars. Take back your language!

Aa

al-Qaeda noun 1 collective name for guerrilla fighters armed, funded, and supported by Western/Zionist intelligence agencies, and conveniently airlifted to any location on the planet where a ‘terror threat’ pretext is required by avaricious colonial powers. 2 derogatory label attached to any (usually dead) person resisting the bloodthirsty Western-Zionist war machine. 3 spectre used dishonestly to intimidate citizens into believing the myth that a global, integrated and centrally-commanded anti-West Islamic terror organisation exists.
SEE ALSO apparition, ghost, myth, bogeyman.
NOTE for Zionist/Neoconservative power brokers’ rhetorical purposes, definition changes depending on geographical region. i.e. Within Libya and Syria, al-Qaeda good; within Afghanistan or Mali, al-Qaeda bad.

anti-Semitism noun 1 hostility to, or prejudice against Jews. 2 trick used by Zionist and Neoconservative power brokers to: silence all legitimate criticism of Jewish supremacism and the criminal usurping Zionist entity (see Israel), and prevent any honest appraisal of the events of World War II.

Arab Spring noun multi-regional counterrevolution affecting several Arab nations, allowing colonial powers and the Zionist entity (see Israel) to roll back all sovereign Arab countries to a state of neo-colonial, neoliberal and Zionist subservience. Successfully sold to liberal ‘anti-war’ idiots in shiny revolution packaging.
SEE ALSO Arab Sting, Arab Sham, Sykes-Picot part II.

Ashkenazi /ash-kuh-nah-zi/ noun (pl. Ashkenazim /ash-kuh-nah-zim/) a Jew of central or eastern European descent. Constantly kvetches about anti-Semitism despite not actually being of Semitic extraction. White settlers masquerading as Palestinian natives (see Israel).
SEE ALSO Khazarian.

Cc

conspiracy theory noun 1 a theory stating that two or more persons have secretly plotted together to do something usually unlawful or harmful. 2 (chiefly N. American and Zionist) a derogatory label used to end discussion, stifle critical thought, and stigmatise genuine, rational truth seekers.
SEE ALSO 9/11.

Dd

democracy /dem-oh-cra-see/ noun (chiefly N. American and Zionist) (of a nation) a state of complete subservience to the usurping Zionist entity (see Israel) and the United States of America, coupled with a forced adoption of neoliberal economic policies. The transition to democracy sees the installation of puppet leaders and the evisceration of all public sector industry in favour of a private sector run by for-profit multinational corporations. Wages are driven down, while prices and unemployment skyrocket, consigning the newly ‘free and democratic’ nation to a future of eternal poverty and misery.
SEE ALSO Iraq, Libya.
NOTES often termed ‘freedom and democracy’.

dictator /dik-tay-tor/ noun leader or statesman who champions real democracy and employs resource nationalism in opposition to the neoliberal world order. Bequeaths national assets to a nation’s people rather than greedy multinational corporations. Often supports anti-imperialist liberation movements and funds social programmes as a national priority. Prime target of the humanitarian intervention.
SEE ALSO Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez.
SYNONYMS autocrat.

Hh

Hollywood noun the centre of the American film industry located in Los Angeles, California. Multi-billion dollar brainwashing tool used to ensure that a consumerist, materialistic, empty, servile, and anti-Islamic world view is espoused by audiences. Owned and operated by the Ashkenazim. Instrumental to the War on Terror.

humanitarian intervention noun a deadly modern war waged by the world’s foremost human rights abusers wielding world-class death weapons against a second or third world nation. Carried out under the pretext of invented humanitarian emergencies. Almost always implemented to unseat a dictator, and bring freedom and democracy to an ‘uncivilised people’.
SEE ALSO Libya, Syria.

Ii

insurgent /in-ser-juhnt/ noun 1 a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority. 2 (esp. in Iraq & Afghanistan) a person (usually a peasant or farmer) who takes up arms to protect his/her sovereign homeland from foreign occupiers, and thus rises in forcible opposition to unlawful authority.

Israel /iz-rayel/ noun modern expansionist settler state existing fraudulently on the lands of Historic Palestine. Established by non-Semitic foreign interlopers falsely claiming Palestinian roots but actually hailing from Europe and Russia. Subsists on false flag terrorism, lies, blood, and hatred.
SEE ALSO cancer, terrorism, racial supremacy.

Israeli /iz-ray-li/ noun an oftentimes armed foreign person residing in Palestine as part of the Zionist project. Settler masquerading as a citizen of Historic Palestine. Routinely steals land and belongings of others; incapable of living in peace with any gentile.
SEE ALSO settler, occupier, terrorist, thief, supremacist.

Nn

no-fly zone noun all-out carpet bombing of a second or third world nation as part of a humanitarian intervention. Bombing raids are coordinated by foreign special forces on the ground, who lead armies of rebels. A concerted global media campaign attempts to deny the very necessary presence of ‘boots on the ground’.
SEE ALSO Libya, Syria.

Rr

rebel noun 1 a person who fights against or refuses to obey an established government or ruler. 2 (esp. Libya and Syria) any brainwashed sectarian extremist who fights at the behest of Western powers against secular, popular Arab leaders.
SEE ALSO al-Qaeda, terrorist, decapitation fetishist.

revolution noun foreign-instigated armed counterrevolution waged by sectarian extremist Salafi fighters and terrorists allied to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other such reactionary, backwards forces. Involves the wholesale slaughter of indigenous resistance fighters and the fire sale of all national resources to greedy multinational corporations.
SEE ALSO Arab Spring, Libya, Syria.

Ss

stability noun (chiefly N. American) see subservience.

security noun (chiefly N. American) see subservience.

Tt

terrorist noun 1 any person who uses violence or intimidation in the attempt to achieve political aims. 2 (chiefly Zionist) any person (usually a peasant or farmer, but always a Muslim) who takes up arms to protect his/her sovereign homeland from foreign occupiers.

Ww

War on Terror noun (chiefly Zionist) worldwide scramble for energy resources and the dissolution of all sovereign Muslim lands, waged by the colonial powers of the USA, Britain, France, and Israel. Unable to flourish without Hollywood and 9/11.
SEE ALSO fraud, myth, lie.

#

9/11 /nayn-i-lev-uhn/ noun 1 (chiefly Zionist) September 11, 2001: the day on which members of al-Qaeda attacked the United States of America by hijacking commercial airliners and crashing them into various targets (see: Hollywood). 2 September 11, 2001: the day on which the Israeli and North American intelligence services orchestrated a false flag terror attack intended to implicate Islam as a belligerent, anti-Western force, thus justifying astronomical military budget increases and the mobilisation of the US Army on behalf of the usurping Zionist entity (see Israel) in pursuit of the War on Terror.
SEE ALSO fraud, myth, lie.

Have any suggestions for additions to the Orwellian Doublespeak Dictionary? Head over to the Contact page and let the Editor know!

By Dr. James H. Fetzer.

Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:46AM GMT.

Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.

Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan.”

A film that may even take the Academy Award for “Best Picture of 2012” raises serious moral issues; glorifies a political stunt and is based on an historical fiction. It is the latest in Obama propaganda.

Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.

Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan.

Nick Kollerstrom has published about it, Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001. David Ray Griffin has a book about it, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive. And Scholars for 9/11 Truth has written about it.

The film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, when virtually every military and intelligence expert will confirm that you are told what those being tortured think you want to hear to stop the pain.

As TIME and the Huffington Post have reported, the film’s depiction of torture has created a controversy that may affect its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries is one by Matt Tiabbi.

A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions:

“[I]f it would have been dishonest to leave torture out of the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little to nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was “honest,” but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was “honest” about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else.”

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan”

Even more importantly, the political context has been all but lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan and not closing Guantanamo.

By alleging that the tip had come from a prisoner held there and using troops stationed in Pakistan, in a brilliant political stroke, he took his birth certificate off the front page, positioning himself for re-election.

Osama was “our man in Afghanistan.” During the uprising against its occupation by Soviet forces, he was instrumental in securing Stinger missiles, which were used to shoot down their helicopters and planes.

In an earlier film about Afghanistan, “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Osama’s role was conveniently omitted. It would have been embarrassing to have acknowledged “the man behind 9/11” had been working for us.

The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the military/industrial complex scrambling for some new “boogie man” to justify massive expenditures on military weapons and curtail any “peace dividend.”

Nothing could be more useful than a shadowy “terrorist” threat that has no geographical boundaries, where you can commit a terrorist act any time it’s most politically convenient, as with the Bali bombing.

Australia had been reticent about joining the “war on terror.” What could be a greater inducement than to slaughter many Australians by means of a fabricated attack to motivate its enthusiasm for that war?

Analogously, what could have been more beneficial to Obama than to “take out” a man who was already dead by executing a political stunt that most Americans would not be in a suitable position to contest?

Problems with the “Official Account”

But there were problems. Local residents had never seen Osama. They identified the man in the photo as the compound’s owner, who was not bin Laden. The SEALs performed their task and were gone.

A photograph of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State was widely circulated as engrossed in watching it go down in real time. But the photo itself would turn out to have been staged.

Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, let the cat out of the bag by noting that there had been no visual footage of the raid during its first 20-25 minutes, which was more than the lapsed time for the whole event.

The body was allegedly identified by DNA comparisons in less time than scientifically possible — and was then dumped into the sea “in accordance with Islamic practice,” which was a ridiculous contention.

Burial at sea is disrespectful of the body, which can be consumed by sharks, fish and crustaceans. That is not a Muslim tradition, but it conveniently disposed of the most powerful proof of fakery and fraud.

When most of the SEAL team involved in the raid were killed when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan a few months later, it was not implausible to suppose that they might have been silenced.

Osama and al-Qaeda, which was the name given to “our base” in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama denied that he was involved in 9/11, implicating a “government within the government.”

Another prominent figure who has acknowledged the existence of a “government within the government” is William Jeffrson Clinton, who admitted that this is an entity over which he exercised no control.

Research by experts at the Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012) has vindicated his claim, where US neo-cons — with assistance from the Mossad and the complicity of the Pentagon — orchestrated 9/11.

There are many articles about this, including “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James) and “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview”. Or read “9/11: Have we been bamboozed?” The second death of Osama does not stand alone.

by Martin Iqbal.

Henrique Capriles Radonski – leader of the Venezuelan opposition – vows to downgrade ties with Iran and cut subsidised oil to Cuba and Nicaragua, should he get into power. What is more, his coalition has links to Israel, and both of his parents are Jewish, though he claims to be a ‘fervent Catholic’.

At a rally in June 2010, much to the disdain of the American Jewish Committee which dismissed the accusations as ‘baseless’,⁽¹⁾ Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez publicly stated that Israel is funding the Venezuelan opposition:

An inspection of the profile of Henrique Capriles Radonski – leader of the Venezuelan opposition – not only elicits deep suspicion, but in fact completely validates the claims made by Chavez.

Firstly, Radonski is the youngest Venezuelan MP ever elected – being elected as an MP at age 26. After entering politics at the age of 25, he became Venezuela’s youngest ever deputy in Congress, and was subsequently chosen to be Vice President of the House. Secondly, he has enjoyed a ‘meteoric rise through the political ranks‘, in the BBC’s wording,⁽²⁾ insofar as he has held a number of posts, and has not lost a single election.

Radonski’s anti-Iran Stance

In September 2012 the UK Telegraph accompanied Radonski on the campaign trail, wherein he stated⁽³⁾ what he would do on his ‘first day in office‘. Not only does he signify his intention to downgrade Venezuela’s diplomatic relations with Iran, but he also intends to end subsidised oil to Cuba and Nicaragua – something which would please the United States Government to no end.

“On his first day in office, he said, he would halt the “gifts” of free or heavily-subsidised oil to Mr Chavez’s left-wing ideological allies in Cuba and Nicaragua.”

Radonski informed the Telegraph that the “cosy relationship with Iran would end“, because “Venezuela needs good relations with countries that have democracy and respect human rights“.

Contrary to Chavez’s economically nationalistic policies, Radonski makes clear his neoliberalist stance and his alliance with big business as he decries Chavez’s land reform programme which redistributed Venezuelan land from wealthy foreign owners to poor Venezuelan farmers:

“The expropriations were a big mistake, the whole policy has been a fiasco,”…”Nothing works now. Venezuela has 30 million hectares of fertile land but we only use less than 10 per cent of it and we now import 80 per cent of our food, including rice from the so-called US ‘imperialists’.”

He promised to review each such case of land redistribution with a view to returning the land to its former wealthy foreign owners. This includes Chavez’s seizure of estates from the Vestey Group, which is a ranching and sugar cane company headed by Lord Vestey, one of Britain’s richest men.

Germany Urges EU Countries to Step Up Support of Venezuelan Opposition

In the May 18th 2012 edition of Venezuelan paper ‘Correo Del Orinoco‘ it was reported⁽⁴⁾ that, at a EU meeting on Latin American affairs, the German government asked EU countries to step up their support of the MUD (‘Democratic Unity Roundtable’) coalition (the Venezuelan opposition coalition now headed by Henrique Capriles Radonski).

While German government representatives called for such support not to be hidden from the public, Portugal and France called for a more secretive approach. In addition, the report mentions the direct financial support that the Venezuelan opposition enjoys from not only USAID, but also the Zionist and anti-democratic ‘National Endowment for Democracy’.

Venezuelan Opposition Made Secret Visit to Israel

Even more revealing is the fact that, on the weekend prior to the 18th May 2012 publication, Venezuelan opposition lawyer and politician Antonio Ledezma secretly flew to Israel – a country which Venezuela has severed diplomatic ties with – on Venezuelan taxpayer money, to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on a three-day visit.

During Ledezma’s private, unannounced trip to Israel paid for with public Venezuelan money, he promised to re-establish ties with the usurping Zionist entity if the Jewish settler state would fund and back Henrique Capriles Radonski. Ledezma told reporters that he spoke to Netanyahu and Lieberman about,

“our (the opposition) disposition to reestablish relations with the State of Israel under a new government presided by Henrique Capriles Radonski”…“In contrast to the current political policy in Venezuela, Capriles will re-establish our historical ties”

Speaking of Ledezma’s meeting with Netanyahu and Lieberman, Venezuelan journalist Miguel Angel Perez Pirela reported that Ledezma had promised Israel “access to [Venezuela's] resources” should Radonski take the presidential election.

Radonski, a man who feels Venezuela must only have relations with “countries that have democracy and respect human rights“, shows his duplicity as he reaches out to the Zionist entity – a routine human rights abuser which constitutes a Jewish ethnocracy on stolen Palestinian land.

Radonski: ‘Fervent Catholic’ with Jewish Parents

The aforementioned BBC article deceptively refers to Radonski merely as ‘Henrique Capriles’ – choosing to omit his blatantly Jewish surname. Later in the article there is an allusion to his Jewish background; the BBC report casually states that, ‘His maternal grandparents were Jews‘. Well, as far as ‘Israel’ is concerned, that would make his mother a Jew, which makes him a Jew.

Interestingly, what the BBC article fails to mention is that in fact, not only are his mother’s parents Jewish, but his father is also of Jewish ancestry. While Radonski’s mother is a purebred Ashkenazi Jew, his father is of Sephardi Jewish ancestry.⁽⁵⁾

Though Radonski is ostensibly a ‘fervent Catholic’,⁽⁵⁾ both of his parents are of Jewish descent. Make of that what you will, but considering his stated willingness to isolate Iran and his opposition coalition’s established relationship with the Zionist entity, this is perhaps a fact worth bearing in mind.

Venezuela enjoys excellent relations with Iran. Furthermore, Hugo Chavez severed ties with Israel after the Zionist state’s murderous assault on Gaza in 2008-2009. At the time, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry stated, “Israel has repeatedly ignored the calls of the United Nations, consistently and shamelessly violating the resolutions approved by overwhelming majorities of member countries, increasingly placing itself on the margin of international law…Israel’s state terrorism has cost the lives of the most vulnerable and innocent: children, women, and the elderly“. If Radonski – Israel’s man in Venezuela – takes the next election, that is all bound to change. Thankfully, with pro-Bolivarian million man marches⁽⁶⁾ taking place in the streets in the wake of Hugo Chavez’s absence, along with Chavez’s party crushing the opposition in the recent gubernatorial elections,⁽⁷⁾ such a scenario is highly unlikely.

Notes

(1) ‘AJC Urges OAS Condemnation of Venezuelan President’s Threats to Israel’ – American Jewish Committee, 4 June 2010.
(2) ‘Profile: Henrique Capriles’ – BBC News, 3 October 2012.
(3) ‘Venezuela’s marathon man looks to run down Chavez’ – The Telegraph, 29 September 2012.
(4) ‘Correo Del Orinoco’, English edition – 18 May 2012.
(5) ‘Campaign turns deadly as huge crowds rally for opposition candidate in Venezuela’ – The Times of Israel, 1 October 2012.
(6) ‘Huge March Defends Venezuela’s Democracy and Revolution’ – VenezuelaAnalysis.com, 23 January 2013.
(7) ‘Chavez Allies Dominate Venezuela Governor Elections’ – ABC News, 17 December 2012.

by Martin Iqbal.

Amid Internet and telephone network outages in Syria, US-trained opposition activists use US-supplied satellite phones to contact Google & Twitter’s ‘Speak2Tweet‘ service. Despite these efforts, the service seems so far to be a resounding failure.

Internet and telecommunications networks have been failing across Syria, leading some including Tony Cartalucci to speculate that NATO may be preparing a psychological warfare operation⁽¹⁾ to bolster the flagging unconventional war against Syria.

Recent developments add weight to this theory. There are now reports⁽²⁾ that Google and Twitter have re-launched their ‘Speak2Tweet’⁽³⁾ service to ostensibly aid isolated Syrians affected by the communication network outages.

This is reminiscent of Iran’s CIA-sponsored⁽⁴⁾ ‘Green Revolution‘ in 2009 wherein Twitter followed White House instructions⁽⁵⁾ to delay its scheduled maintenance, in order to provide continued service to Iran’s Green opposition. If this event hinted at Twitter’s possible status as being a CIA tool in this respect, today’s events should leave little doubt.

‘Speak2Tweet‘ is a communication service which allows the user to dial a conventional telephone number and leave a voice message which is then posted to https://twitter.com/speak2tweet where web users can listen. Speak2Tweet was first launched during Egypt’s January 25th ‘revolution’ back in 2011.

At this important time for Google, Hillary Clinton offered an interesting tidbit yesterday. While giving an especially servile, fawning speech at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy’s Opening Gala Dinner in Washington D.C, she quoted Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt⁽⁶⁾ who recently called Israel, “the most important high tech center in the world, after the United States.” I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this suggests a central Israeli role in Google’s recent ventures.

After interviewing Google’s Christine Chen, Al Arabiya tellingly reported:⁽³⁾ “Although phone connections are also are suspended, some Syrians were able to call and get through.”

This begs the question: if Internet and telecommunications networks have been failing across Syria, how does the opposition manage to communicate using Speak2Tweet, which requires the user to call an international telephone number (using either a mobile telephone or landline)?

US State Department provided Syrian opposition activists with satellite communications equipment and training

Ever since August 2012 Syrian opposition activists have been travelling to Istanbul, Turkey, to receive satellite communications equipment and training from the U.S. State Department.⁽⁷⁾ The UK Telegraph reported in August 2012 that the US State Department’s Office of Syrian Opposition Support (OSOS) was overseeing this scheme, with $25 million reportedly being set aside for the project, and a further $5 million coming from Britain.

According to ForeignPolicy.com⁽⁸⁾ the activists are all ‘given a satellite phone and computer‘ at the end of their training, and they are expected to return to Syria.

It is important to note at this point that satellite telephony is not affected by Internet and telecommunications network outages, and indeed satellite telephones allow users to call any conventional telephone number. In fact satellite phones are often used in warzones and in areas affected by natural disasters, as terrestrial cell antennas and networks are often damaged and non-operational in such cases.

In view of this it is highly likely as many have posited, that the country-wide communications outages were engineered by the NATO-GCC axis, with a view to allowing the opposition activists to monopolise the information flow using the satellite equipment and training given to them by the U.S. State Department. It should be noted that Google has been involved in training ‘Arab Spring’ opposition activists⁽⁹⁾ through its partnership with the US State Department’s Movement.org.

The voice messages that are posted to the service can be listened to online at: https://twitter.com/speak2tweet. After listening to a sample of the messages, at this point in time the service seems to be a resounding failure insofar as the NATO-GCC axis is concerned. Messages range from merely “Allahu Akbar“, to garbled nonsense, and they do nothing to bolster the ongoing propaganda campaign against the Syrian regime. Furthermore, the Speak2Tweet service has most definitely not ‘made waves’ online, with many web users not even being aware of its existence.

Though many of the Speak2Tweet audio messages seem to be coming from people outside Syria, it is eminently clear that the US State Department intended their activist-proxies whom they had trained and supplied with satellite telephones in Istanbul, to be the only people within Syria able to use the service.

As with all aspects of the now struggling NATO-GCC unconventional war against sovereign Syria, this too seems to have been an embarrassing failure and a waste of time and money.

Notes

(1) ‘URGENT: NATO Preparing Psy-Op in Syria’ by Tony Cartalucci.
(2) ‘Google reactivates Speak2Tweet for Syrian Internet cutoff’ – CNET.com, November 30, 2012.
(3) ‘Google and Twitter re-launch ‘Speak2Tweet’ to aid isolated Syrians’ – Al Arabiya, Saturday, 01 December 2012.
(4) ‘Color revolution fails in Iran’ by Thierry Meyssan
(5) ‘US confirms it asked Twitter to stay open to help Iran protesters’ – The Guardian, Wednesday 17 June 2009.
(6) ‘Remarks at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy 2012 Saban Forum Opening Gala Dinner’ – U.S. State Department
(7) ‘Britain and US plan a Syrian revolution from an innocuous office block in Istanbul’ – The Telegraph, 26 Aug 2012.
(8) ‘Holding Civil Society Workshops While Syria Burns’ – ForeignPolicy.com, OCTOBER 10, 2012.
(9) ‘Google’s Revolution Factory’ by Tony Cartalucci.

by ­Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya for Russia Today.

The recent hostilities between the Gaza Strip and Israel have to be viewed in context of a broader geopolitical chessboard. The events in Gaza are tied to Syria and the US’s regional maneuvers against Iran and its regional alliance system.

­Syria has been compromised as a conduit for weapons to Gaza, because of its domestic instability. Israel has capitalized on this politically and militarily. Benjamin Netanyahu has not only tried to secure his own election victory in the Knesset through an attack on Gaza, but has used the US-sponsored instability in Syria as an opportunity to try and target the arms stockpiles of the Palestinians.

Netanyahu calculated that Gaza will not be able to rearm itself while Syria and its allies are distracted. The bombing of the Yarmouk arms factory in Sudan, which Israel says was owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, was probably part of this plan and a prelude to Israel’s attack on Gaza.

In this chess game, sit the so-called “Moderates”— a misleading label jointly utilized by Messrs George W. Bush Jr. and Tony Blair to whitewash their regional cabal of tyrants and backward regimes — alongside the Obama Administration and NATO. These so-called Moderates include the desert dictators of the feudal Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Jordan, Mahmoud Abbas, and Turkey. In 2011, the ranks of the Moderates were augmented by the NATO-installed government of Libya and the GCC/NATO-supported anti-government militias that were unleashed in Syria.

On the other side of the chessboard defiantly sits the Resistance Bloc composed of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah (and Hezbollah’s partners in Lebanon, like Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement), the so-called Palestinian Rejectionists, and increasingly Iraq. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has emerged as a new regional force, is being increasingly prodded into the Moderate camp by the US and the GCC in an attempt to ultimately play the sectarian card against the Resistance Bloc.

Stark contrasts between Gaza and Syria

Israel’s attack on Gaza was a litmus test. All those voices continuously pushing for America’s McJihad against the Syrian government in the name of freedom vanished from their podiums or suddenly went silent when Israel attacked Gaza. Al Jazeera’s tele-preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and Saudi Arabia’s dictator-selected Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz went silent. Adnan Al-Arour — the Saudi-based exiled kooky Syrian cleric who, as one of the spiritual heads of the Syrian anti-government forces, has threatened to punish anyone that says that Al-Qaeda is among their ranks — even berated Hamas and the Palestinians for fighting Israel.

The fighting in Gaza really placed them in a fix. Here we see the contradictions in their “Arab Spring.” We now see who really pays lip service to Palestinian liberation and who does not. Moreover, the foreign supporters of the Syrian National Coalition, a rehash of the Syrian National Council, are ironically all supporters of Israel.

This is why mentioning the support that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have provided for Gaza has become a taboo among the supporters of the anti-government forces in Syria. All they can say is that any acknowledgment of the support that Tehran, Damascus, and Hezbollah have provided to Gaza is an attempt to sanitize “Bashar Al-Assad and his supporters.”

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah helped the Palestinians in Gaza

The Iranian Fijr-5 symbolically ingrains Tehran’s support for Palestine. Despite the fact that Israel and Gaza are by far not equal, it was predominately Iranian arms and technology that changed the balance of power. Tehran has been the main ally and supporter of the Palestinian resistance. The US, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran itself have all acknowledged this in different ways.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is unapologetically pro-Iranian, has openly stated that everything Gaza used in the fight against Israel, from its bullets to missiles, has been generously provided by Tehran. It was even reported during the fighting that Hezbollah, using a special unit dedicated to arming the Palestinians, resupplied the Gaza Strip with some of its own long-range missiles.

This has all taken place while the cads in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have instead armed the Syrian anti-government militias. Egypt and Jordan continue to be major partners in preventing Iranian arms from reaching the Palestinians.

Palestinian fighters have also been trained in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Ironically, the anti-government forces in Syria are also targeting members of the Palestinian Liberation Army in Syria.

The support that the Resistance Bloc has given the Palestinians puts those actors, like Turkey and Qatar, opposed to the Syrian government in a real predicament. These so-called Sunni states were embarrassed; not only did they fail to help a predominately Sunni population, but their insincerity was exposed. This is why there is an active effort to deny the support that Iran and its allies have provided for Gaza.

De-linking Hamas from Resistance Bloc to start a Muslim Civil War

As a back story to all this, the Israeli attack on Gaza and the Moderate’s wooing of Hamas is more than just about neutralizing Gaza. Hamas leaders are being tempted to choose between the Moderate and Resistance camps and increasingly between governing or active resistance to the Israeli occupation. Through this, some form of accommodation to the US and Israel is being sought from Hamas. The aims are to de-link the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, from the Resistance Bloc in order to portray Iran and its allies as a Shiite alliance bent on dominating the Sunnis.

If you are foolish enough to fall prey to it, welcome to the unfolding “American fitna” (schism) that aims to ignite a regional Muslim civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. The Obama administration is trying to construct and line up a Sunni axis against the region’s Shiite Muslims.

It is a classic strategy of divide and conquer that envisions America and Israel dominating the region as the Muslims are incapacitated by their bloodletting. The Shia are systematically being vilified courtesy of the new media war: Iran, Hezbollah, Bashar Al-Assad (an Alawi who is increasingly labeled a Shiite for the benefit of this project), and Nouri Maliki’s administration in Iraq are being portrayed as the new oppressors of the Sunnis. In their place Turkey, with its virtually stillborn neo-Ottomanism foreign policy, and Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood are being presented as the champions of the Sunnis. Never mind that Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi has continued the blockade of Gaza for Israel or that Turkey’s Erdogan lost his voice for a while when Israel began bombing Gaza.

The US is trying to use Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to control Hamas, because it was Cairo that established a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. While Iran offers military technology, logistical support, and finance the Egyptians are being presented as Gaza’s ticket to establishing some form of normality and the GCC as alternative funding. This is why Qatar’s Emir Al-Thani visited Gaza to tempt Hamas with his declining supply of petro-dollars.

Shiite and Sunni divisions are political constructs

Inside Hamas there are internal differences over this. While Damascus, Tehran, and Hezbollah desired some form of public acknowledgment about their vital assistance to Hamas and the Palestinians, Hamas officials were careful about their statements. When Khaled Meshaal thanked Egypt, Qatar, and Tunisia during an important press conference, he narrowly mentioned Iran.

Meshaal’s politicking was not lost on Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who responded hours later by rhetorically asking who supplied and painstakingly transferred the Fajr-5 missiles into Gaza? Nasrallah asked people to look past Gaza’s fair-weather friends, like the Qataris and Saudis who think they can buy their ways into the grace of the Palestinians, but to look at Gaza’s tested friends who allowed Gaza to stand on its own two feet. Then the Lebanese leader reaffirmed the ongoing support of the Resistance Bloc for the Palestinian people.

Despite its politburo’s position on Syria, Hamas is still a part of the Resistance Bloc. There is a new format now. If Greece and Turkey were at odds with one another as two NATO allies, then Hamas can have its differences with Syria and still be allied with the Resistance Bloc against Israel.

The divide in the Middle East is not a sectarian one between Shiites and Sunnis, but fundamentally political. The alliance of the predominately Sunni Muslim Palestinian resistance movements and the Free Patriotic Movement, Lebanon’s largest Christian political party, with predominately Shiite Muslim Iran and Hezbollah should defuse such a perception that the US and its allies are trying to cultivate.

by Martin Iqbal.

Amid Israel’s ongoing pounding of Gaza today, social networking sites were ablaze with feverish chatter both congratulating and condemning Hamas for supposedly hitting Jerusalem with one of its rockets.

On top of this, pro-Israel media outlets have wasted no time in capitalising on the opportunity. Right-wing Israeli outlet Ynet News carries the headline,⁽¹⁾ ‘Hamas fires first rockets at Jerusalem‘.

The ultra-Zionist BBC follows suit:⁽²⁾ ‘Gaza conflict: Militant rocket targets Jerusalem‘.

Neither of them matches The Times of Israel though, which boasts,⁽³⁾ ‘‘Surprise’ rocket fire at Jerusalem shows Hamas flailing but still seeking to escalate the conflict’. The very deceptive opening sentence reads ‘Jerusalem hasn’t been hit with rocket fire since 1970, when two Katyushas were fired from the Palestinian village of Batir.‘

The Times of Israel even goes on to say, ‘The rockets proved that Hamas is willing to fire at a city holy to Islam and at an area where many Muslims live…‘.

Al Jazeera reports⁽⁴⁾ via Twitter, ‘A two-year-old boy among those killed on Friday in #Gaza as #Hamas rockets reach #Jerusalem‘.

Well let us just be clear about exactly where the rocket did and didn’t land. The rocket did not hit Jerusalem, in fact it landed nowhere near the Holy City at all. Nor in fact, did the rocket land in the Jerusalem area, as I will explain.

The rocket landed near the illegal Jewish settlement of Kfar Etzion, which is part of the Gush Etzion illegal settlement bloc in the West Bank. Kfar Etzion is located roughly halfway between Jerusalem and Hebron (and is marked ‘A’ on the map I’ve uploaded here – click on the map to see an enlarged version).

When Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, it redefined the municipality’s boundaries from approximately 5 square kilometres, to over 70 – in order to steal yet more land from the native Palestinians.

So not only did the rocket land nowhere near the city itself, but what is referred to as the ‘Jerusalem area’ by the occupiers is actually an illegally expanded geographical area and in reality does not constitute Jerusalem at all.

Therefore all claims that the Hamas rocket ‘hit Jerusalem’ or even ‘landed in the Jerusalem area’, are misleading, inaccurate, and should not be repeated.

Notes

(1) ‘Hamas fires first rockets at Jerusalem’ – Ynet News, 16 November 2012
(2) ‘Gaza conflict: Militant rocket targets Jerusalem’ – BBC News, 16 November 2012
(3) ‘‘Surprise’ rocket fire at Jerusalem shows Hamas flailing but still seeking to escalate the conflict’ – The Times of Israel, 16 November 2012
(4) Tweet by Al Jazeera English @AJELive 11:06 PM Jerusalem time – 16 Nov 12 – https://twitter.com/AJELive/status/269546935524925441