Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail. March 30, 2012 at 2:27 am.

Looking through who Google Ideas director Jared Cohen is following on Twitter, I came across this intriguing connection to the Israel lobby:

Scott Carpenter ‏@JSCarpenter11

Principal, @GoogleIdeas, where thinking and technology tackle the thorniest problems. Previously founder and director of Project Fikra @washinstitute.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was created by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) “to do AIPAC’s work but appear independent.” According to the think tank AIPAC built, Project Fikra is “a multiyear program of research, publication, and network-building designed to generate policy ideas for promoting positive change and countering the spread of extremism in the Middle East.” Or, as I have more accurately described the closely-related Fikra Forum, it’s basically “an Israeli forum for Arab democrats” surreptitiously pushing regime change in the Middle East.

In a June 23, 2011 op-ed column in the New York Times, Roger Cohen described Jared Cohen and Carpenter as “two former State Department guys now trying to do good things for the world through networks rather than diplomatic cables.” Omitting any reference to the latter’s work for the Israel lobby, Cohen continued:

J. Scott Carpenter, 46, who once held a senior Middle East job at the State Department and has just joined Google, told me: “In the Middle East you’ve had all these young people living free online and then coming to their stupid realities and seeing that the politics were not compatible with their online lives. And the two can only merge in one direction.”

Carpenter is working with Jared Cohen, who’s heading up a new unit called Google Ideas, after a stint at the State Department. Cohen, at 29, starts with the notion that technology is agnostic: It can be used in the cause of freedom — and has been to great effect from Tunis to Cairo — just as it can be used in the cause of repression. So how do you “tip the balance in favor of the net positive?”

With Wikileaks recent release of Stratfor emails confirming Jared Cohen’s involvement in regime change during the Arab Spring, it would be interesting to know if AIPAC/WINEP saw the resultant chaos and division as a continuation of Carpenter’s project of “promoting positive change and countering the spread of extremism in the Middle East.”

by Kurt Nimmo.

Mohammed Merah, the suspect in the killing of seven people outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, fits the pattern of an al-Qaeda intelligence asset. According to the BBC, he was on the radar of French authorities because of visits he made to Afghanistan and the “militant stronghold” of Waziristan in Pakistan.

More specifically, Merah was handled by France’s DCRI intelligence service ”for years,” according to Claude Gueant, the interior minister.

Merah, a French citizen of Algerian origin, was arrested on December 19, 2007, and was sentenced to three years in jail for planting bombs in the southern province of Kandahar in Afghanistan.

In April of 2011, the United States admitted it has operated secret military prisons in Afghanistan where suspected terrorists are held and interrogated without charges.

The notorious Bagram airbase detention center is operated by the Joint Special Operations Command and the DIA’s Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC).

The DCHC “will be responsible for developing an ‘offensive counterintelligence operations’… capability for the Department of Defense, which may entail efforts to penetrate, deceive and disable foreign intelligence activities directed against U.S. forces,” Secrecy News reported in 2008 after the government announced the creation of DCHC.

The Pentagon and the CIA specialize in creating terrorists as part of a so-called covert and unconventional war doctrine dating back to the end of the Second World War (see Michael McClintock’s Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990 for an in-depth examination).

Although virtually ignored by the corporate media, it is an established fact that the CIA and Pakistani intelligence created what is now known as al-Qaeda out of the remnants of the Afghan mujahideen following the CIA’s covert three billion dollar war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

It was the so-called Safari Club – organized under the CIA and with the participation of intelligence agencies in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran – that ramped up the largely contrived threat of international terrorism prior to and during the CIA’s manufactured war in Afghanistan (see Peter Dale Scott,Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia).

Intelligence agencies have specialized in the covert – and not so covert – creation of terrorists which are then used to provide a cynical raison d’être for launching military intervention around the world and also providing a pretext to build and expand a domestic surveillance police state.

A textbook example of this process is the Christmas Day, 2009, underwear bomber fiasco – subsequently exposed as a false flag event - that was exploited to push for installing dangerous radiation-emitting naked body porno scanners at U.S. airports.

The fact Mohammed Merah was in the custody of the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan – and his supposed jail break at the Sarposa Prison was reportedly orchestrated by the Taliban (also cretaed by the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI) – certainly raises questions about the attack in France, where a national election will soon be held.

The Telegraph reports that the attacks of the supposedly al-Qaeda connected Merah will play into the election bid of National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, who is unlikely to ever become the president of France.

It has, however, provided Nicolas Sarkozy with a pretext to put the southern part of the nation on high alert andcancel the campaigns of presidential contenders. Sarkozy stands to benefit from the terror attacks and play the role of a strong leader during a national crisis.

In the short term it is likely that President Nicolas Sarkozy will benefit. Very quickly he took charge. He rushed to the scene. He suspended his campaign. He spoke as the president of the republic,” writes Gavin Hewitt for the BBC.

Written by Nile Bowie.

Edward Bernays believed that society could not be trusted to make rational and informed decisions on their own, and that guiding public opinion was essential within a democratic society. Bernays founded the Council on Public Relations and his 1928 book, Propaganda cites the methodology used in the application of effective emotional communication. He discovered that such communication is capable of manipulating the unconscious in an effort to produce a desired effect – namely, a capacity to manufacture mass social adherence in support of products, political candidates and social movements. Nearly a century after his heyday, Bernays’ methodology is apparent in almost every form of civic and consumer persuasion. The platform of social media is being used in unprecedented new ways, one such example is a new online documentary about the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), an extremist rebel group operating in Central Africa.

The documentary is unprecedented, not for its educational attributes but for its capacity to use visual branding, merchandising and highly potent emotional communication to influence the viewer to support US military operations in resource rich Central Africa under the pretext of capturing the LRA’s commander, Joseph Kony. The Lord’s Resistance Army was originally formed in 1987 in northwestern Uganda by members of the Acholi ethnic group, who were historically exploited as forced laborers by the British colonialists and later relegated by the nation’s dominant ethic groups following independence. Together with the Holy Spirit Movement, the LRA represented the armed wing of a resistance faction aiming to overthrow the government of current Ugandan President and staunch US military ally, Yoweri Museveni.

The LRA was originally formed to combat ethic marginalization, but soon became dominated by Joseph Kony, a self-proclaimed spiritual messenger of the (Christian) Holy Spirit. Kony utilized his messianic persona to lead a syncretic spiritual movement based on Acholi tribal beliefs’ and extremist Christian dogma. It is claimed that LRA seeks to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments, however its inner ideological mythology is largely unknown. In an effort to mobilize a large scale armed resistance, the LRA routinely recruited child soldiers and forced them to commit heinous acts such as cannibalism and mutilation on others who resisted to join the rebel group during their extensive twenty-five year campaign.

KONY 2012 is directed by Jason Russell and runs just thirty minutes; the video has received over twenty million views on YouTube and Vimeo and it’s national support group on Facebook is said to gain 4,000 members each hour. The highly produced feature is narrated from the perspective of Russell and his attempt to explain the Lord’s Resistance Army to his infant son, Gavin. The video features footage from Russell’s trip to Uganda (prior to 2006, when the LRA was still operating in the region) and introduces the viewer to Jacob, a Ugandan boy who was formally recruited by the LRA as a child soldier. Russell presents various montages of ethically diverse groups of students raising their fists in the air, sporting KONY t-shirts, and scenes of mass celebration in response to President Obama signing the S. 1067: Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.

The bill was passed without congressional approval, and allows the US to deploy military forces in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan (at the consent of those nations) in pursuit of LRA rebels.  The film further advocates the requirement of public support for US military operations in the region through forms of street activism, encouraging viewers to purchase Action Kits ($30.00) and posters ($10.00) featuring images of Joseph Kony. Russell then targets specific celebrities and US policy makers and pressures them to endorse the campaign against Kony. Perhaps most absurdly, Russell suggests that without mass public support from the American public, the US would withdraw its military presence from the region.

This is the first large-scale campaign to mobilize social medialites to aggregate public support for what would otherwise be, controversial pro-intervention US foreign policy. The production relies on highly charged and often unrelated emotional triggers, which ultimately rely on the viewers sense of compassion in tandem with a lack of prior information on the subject to produce a desired result – explicitly, the villainous mythification of Kony and the mainstream acceptance of US presence in Africa through a proposed archipelago of AFRICOM military bases in the region.

The production targets an age group between thirteen and twenty-one, and uses a level of academic vocabulary appropriate for a young adult audience with a limited attention span; the narrator at one point even insists the viewer pay attention. The viewer is encouraged to form an emotional connection to Russell, as we witness unrelated footage of his child’s birth. The viewer is then subsequently associated with Russell’s role as a nurturer to his young son, before shifting to scenes of Russell nurturing the Ugandan child soldier, Jacob. Russell is shown prophetically pledging to stop the LRA to the traumatized and crying young boy. The intimate portrayal of emotion in these scenes work to further incite a reactionary response from the viewer, towards the preordained conclusion suggested in the narrative – a mass mobilization of support for the US military in their efforts to stop Jacob’s source of trauma. Bernays’ would be beside himself.

KONY 2012 is produced like any other sleek marketing campaign – instead of stimulating elements of self-satisfaction like advertisers would do to promote a product, US military intervention is justified to end an atrocious humanitarian catastrophe. The film also plays on an underlying theme of the White Man’s Burden, a notion that persons of European descent inherit a quality of guilt for their ancestors’ inclination for slavery and colonialism, requiring an activist response to finally correct the situation by “saving Africa.” During the Nigerian civil war in 1967, western media successfully used images of starving children for the first time to strengthen public support for military aid to the secessionist Republic of Biafra before rebel forces were defeated. This film attempts to purportedly “change the conversation of our culture,” however it remains a highly sophisticated refurbishment of pro-military interventionist foreign policy propaganda, dependent on dangerous subliminal messaging.

Furthermore, the film was produced by an organization called Invisible Children, Inc., who have been criticized by the Better Business Bureau forrefusing to provide necessary information in the Bureau’s standards assessment. Invisible Children, Inc. has failed to disclose a list of sponsors (beyond the donations of American high school students), and has also earned a low rating in accountability from Charity Navigator because they won’t let their financials be independently audited. In a 2011 financial statement, the organization disclosed that only 31% of all the funds they receive are used for charitable purposes, with the majority allocated toward travel expenses and employee salaries. Invisible Children has also been accused of fraud and voter manipulation in a recent charity contest sponsored by Chase Bank and Facebook. The group’s Co-Founder and President,Laren Poole addressed the International Criminal Court in 2009 alongside Aryeh Neier, President of George Soros’ pro-war Open Society Institute.

Invisible Children has partnered with two other organizations, Resolve and Digitaria, to create the LRA Crisis Tracker, a digital crisis-mapping platform that broadcasts attacks allegedly committed by the LRA. On its list of corporate sponsors, Resolve lists Human Rights Watch and the International Rescue Committee. Digitaria’s website boasts commercial clients such asCBS, FOX, MTV, ESPN, Adidas, NFL, Qualcomm, NBC, National Geographic, Hasbro and Warner Brothers. While KONY 2012 attempts to portray itself as an indigenous activist movement bent on bringing justice to African children, its parent organization is affiliated with the upper echelon of the US corporate media and a network of foundation-funded pro-war civil society groups with a long history of fomenting pro-US regime change under the banner of democratic institution building.

According to Invisible Children’s own LRA Crisis Tracker, not a single case of LRA activity has been reported in Uganda since 2006. The website records ninety eight deaths in the past year, with the vast majority taking place in the northeastern Bangadi region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a tri-border expanse sharing territory with the Central African republic and South Sudan. Since December 2009, the eastern Djemah region of CAR has seen occasional LRA activity; the western Tambura region of South Sudan has experienced even less. The LRA has been in operation for over two decades, and presently remains at an extremely weakened state, with approximately 400 soldiers. Due to the extreme instability in northern DRC after decades of rebel insurgencies and Rwandan/Ugandan military incursions into the nation, it remains highly unlikely that cases of violence in the region can be sufficiently investigated before concluding LRA involvement.

The whereabouts of Joseph Kony are completely unknown; he was last seen in crossing between Sudan and CAR in 2010, according to unverified reports.The US military currently has one hundred military officers training and overseeing the Ugandan military in anti-LRA operations. Due to the complete absence of LRA activity in Uganda, it becomes feasible that the US may be planning further operations in the resource rich DRC. Over six million Congolese nationals have been killed in war since 1996, largely with US complicity. The regimes of Paul Kagame in Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni in Uganda have both received millions in military aid from the United States. Since the abhorrent failure of the 1993 US intervention in Somalia, the US has relied on the militaries of Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia to carry out US interests in proxy.

Paul Kagame of Rwanda has been given free reign by the US to conduct military operations inside DRC in the on-going ethnic conflict in that region following the 1994 Rwandan genocide. For Ugandan participation in the fight against Somalia’s al Shabaab, Museveni receives $45 million dollars in military aid. The US has contributed enormous sums to these nations and now is beginning to consolidate its presence in the region under Barack Obama and AFRICOM, the United States African Command. The LRA has contributed to less than one hundred unverified deaths in the past twelve months. Considering that the United States completely ignored events in DRC and Rwanda that collectively resulted in nearly seven million deaths, their participation against the ailing Lord’s Resistance Army is completely absurd by comparison.

Through AFRICOM, the United States is seeking a foothold in the incredibly resource rich central African block in a further maneuver to aggregate regional hegemony over China. DRC is one of the world’s largest regions without an effectively functioning government. It contains vast deposits of diamonds, cobalt, copper, uranium, magnesium, and tin while producing over $1 billion in gold each year. It is entirely feasible that the US can considerably increase its presence in DRC under the pretext of capturing Joseph Kony. The US may further mobilize ground forces, in addition to the use of predator drones and targeted missile strikes, inevitably killing civilians. In a press conference at the House Armed Services Committee on March 13, 2008, AFRICOM Commander, General William Ward stated that AFRICOM will further its regional presence by “operating under the principle theatre-goal of combating terrorism”.

During an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared AFRICOM’s guiding principle as protecting “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market”, before citing China’s increasing presence in the region as challenging to American interests.The crimes of the Lord’s Resistance Army have been documented in the past and they are truly despicable actions. Presently, the operations of the LRA have nearly dissolved and their presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is difficult to verify. While the pro-war filmmakers behind KONY 2012 naively call for the US military to assert its place in the conflict, an independent fact finding mission would be far more effective in assessing the seriousness of the LRA threat in the present day.

As the American, French, and Israeli militaries help to crush the indigenous Somali resistance, Britain clamours to steal the nation’s rich unexplored oil reserves.

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Mar 1, 2012 9:50 PM

Back-to-back conferences held Feb. 23-24 to determine the destiny of Somalia and Syria took place outside the respective countries with the full backing of the imperialist states, guaranteeing that these efforts oppose the best interests of the two countries’ people.

Somalia has had no legitimately recognized government since 1991. In London, the British government promoted the conference on Somalia as a turning point to purportedly stabilize the country.

Representatives of the U.S.-backed Transitional Federal Government attended the conference. The conference organizers invited no one from al-Shabab, the Islamic resistance movement. The imperialists support outside military forces occupying Somalia that put al-Shabab under siege.

The African Union Mission to Somalia, composed of troops from Uganda, Burundi and Djibouti, is attacking al-Shabab supporters in the capital of Mogadishu. The Ethiopian Defense Forces have launched a major offensive in the central region, taking control of the city of Baidoa.

U.S. drone surveillance and strikes, along with French naval forces and Israeli intelligence, have supported the more than 2,000 troops from the Kenyan Defense Forces that entered Somalia last October to attack supposed al-Shabab bases.

British interests in Somalia

Several reports indicate that Britain is seeking to exploit the emerging oil industry in Puntland — a breakaway region of Somalia — and within existing Somalia.

“Britain is involved in a secret high-stakes dash for oil in Somalia, with the government offering humanitarian aid and security assistance in the hope of a stake in the beleaguered country’s future energy industry. … away from the public focus … talks are going on between British officials and Somali counterparts over exploiting oil reserves that have been explored in the arid north-eastern region of the country.” (British Observer, Feb. 27)

Abdulkadir Abdi Hashi, the minister for international cooperation in Puntland, said, “We have spoken to a number of UK officials, some have offered to help us with the future management of oil revenues. They will help us build our capacity to maximize future earnings from the oil industry.” (Observer, Feb. 27)

Conservative estimates of Somalia’s oil reserves put them at 4 billion barrels, worth approximately $500 billion today. Others estimate up to as much as 10 billion barrels in Puntland alone. The Observer article says that “it is the extent of oil deposits beneath the Indian Ocean” that have a potential “comparable to that of Kuwait, which has more than 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. … If true, this would … make Somalia the seventh largest oil-rich nation.”

In addition to Britain, where BP has expressed an interest, Canada, the U.S. and China are also seeking ways to get involved in the initial onslaught of production.

This is not the first time that imperialist-oriented efforts to shape developments in Somalia have taken place. Previous direct and indirect military interventions in Somalia have failed to stabilize the country in the interest of the West.

In 1992-93, Somalis rose up and resisted the U.S. Marines and the United Nations so-called peacekeepers, forcing them to leave the country. A 2006-2009 invasion and occupation by Ethiopia at the aegis of the U.S. failed to resolve the internal crises.

The current politico-military situation in Somalia is not caused by the conflict among Somali politicians but by the role of the imperialist states that will stand to benefit the most from the forceful subjugation of the country and the exploitation of oil, waterways and other strategic resources throughout the Horn of Africa region.

U.S. policy in Somalia represents the continuation of the same policies from successive administrations as it relates to the region. “Terrorism” is abstractly used as a justification and rationale for escalating the destabilization of Somalia.

Tunis hosts ‘Friends of Syria’ conference

On Feb. 24 in the capital of Tunisia, another conference was held under the sponsorship of the so-called “Friends of Syria.” This initiative grew out of the failure of the U.S. and other imperialist states to get the U.N. Security Council endorsement for a war against Syria.

Russia and China vetoed the resolution calling for the total isolation of Syria. Both Russia and China refused to recognize the conference in Tunis, which was attended by over 60 nations and numerous opposition groups claiming to represent dissidents in Syria as well as high-ranking officials from the Western states and their Arab allied governments.

The conference was condemned by the Syria government, which called the gathering, the “Enemies of Syria.” Several hundred pro-Syrian-government demonstrators attempted to storm the conference, saying that it should not be held inside Tunisia, which is undergoing a political transformation process since January 2011 after a popular uprising toppled dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

Ezz Eddine Koutali, the spokesman for the Tunisian section of the Baath Party, said that the “Friends of Syria” conference was held “under the supervision of American imperialism.” He also rejected the Tunisian government’s collaboration in this effort and said that U.S. imperialist figures such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain were behind it.

A statement issued by the Russian government said: “The invitations to attend the Tunis meeting were issued to some parts of the opposition, but representatives of the Syrian government were not invited. … This means that the interests of the majority of the Syrian population, which supports the authorities, will not be represented. We cannot accept the offer to attend this meeting.” (Middle East Online, Feb. 21)

Oppose imperialist intervention in Somalia and Syria

Inside the Western capitalist states, it is important for the peace and anti-war movements to protest the current efforts by the imperialists to determine Somalia and Syria’s future. The people of Somalia and Syria must be allowed to resolve their own internal conflicts, without imperialist interventions.

In Somalia, the imperialists have regional designs on the Horn of Africa and other areas of the continent. The war against Syria is also directed against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Hezbollah resistance party in Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Also, both destabilization campaigns are directed towards weakening the influence of China and Russia, which have opposed U.S. and British imperialism in Syria and Iran. Both Syria and Somalia will continue to be a focal point for Western intrigue in Africa and the Middle East in the months to come.

Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

by Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham. Global Research, February 27, 2012.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition.

Clinton said: “We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, al-Qaida [sic], Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].” [1] (Click here to watch video)

Yet at the same time, in the above BBC interview the US Secretary of State repeats the threadbare Western claim that the situation in Syria is one of a defenceless population coming under “relentless attack” from Syrian government forces.

There is ample evidence that teams of snipers who have been killing civilians over the past year in Syria belong to the terrorist formations to which Clinton is referring to.

As Michel Chossudovsky points out in a recent article: “Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups – covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence – have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings, including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers, including mercenaries, have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians. 

While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility, it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts – including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children – are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing ‘an armed entity’ operating inside Syria.” [2]

The admission at the weekend by Hillary Clinton corroborates the finding that armed groups are attacking civilians and these groups are terroristic, according to US own definitions, and that the situation in Syria is not one of unilateral state violence against its population but rather is one of a shadowy armed insurrection.

Clinton’s admission retrospectively justifies the stance taken by Russia and China, both of which vetoed the proposed UN Security Council Resolution on 4 February, precisely because that proposal was predicated on a spurious notion that the violence in Syria was solely the responsibility of the Al Assad government.

Clinton also acknowledges in the BBC interview that there is “a very strong opposition to foreign intervention from inside Syria, from outside Syria” – which tacitly concedes the fact that the Syrian population is aware that the so-called oppositionists within their country are Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries.

Meanwhile, the US Gulf allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have separately issued statements that they are willing to send arms to Syria to support the insurrection against the Damascus government. Given the still substantial popular support for the government of Bashir Al Assad, such a declaration by Saudi Arabia and Qatar towards a fellow Arab League member state signifies an unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Indeed, legal opinion could argue that it constitutes a self-indicting act of international aggression.

Besides, such a declaration by Saudi Arabia and Qatar of being willing to arm Syrian insurrectionists, can be seen as a cynical cover for what is already taking place. It is known that the Gulf monarchical states are already supplying weapons illicitly to the self-styled Syrian Free Army, along with Turkey and Israel.

So far, the US is officially maintaining the fiction that it is not involved in supplying arms to Syria even though Washington has demanded “regime change” and in spite of evidence that Western covert forces, including American, British and French operatives, are actively engaged with the opposition groups.

It is richly ironic that the unelected fundamentalist Sunni regimes of the Persian Gulf are supporting Al Qaeda affiliated groups within Syria purportedly to “bring about democratic reforms”. This is the same dynamic that prevailed in Libya where the overthrow of that country’s government by Western and Gulf Arab powers has now led to a collapse in human rights and social conditions.

Once again, Syria is indicating the same alignment of allies: Washington, London and other NATO powers comfortably in bed with Sunni/Salafist tyrants and terrorists, claiming to be supporting democratic freedom and human rights.

Of course, the real agenda has nothing to do with either democratic freedoms or human rights – as the awry alignment of allies clearly indicates. Rather, this is about Washington and its proxy powers trying to engineer regime change throughout the Arab World and beyond to conform to geopolitical objectives, principally the control of raw energy. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria are but a sequence of stops on a global roadmap of permanent war that also swings through Iran. Russia and China are the terminal targets.

Washington is evidently prepared to use any means necessary to assert this agenda: illegal wars, death on a massive scale, possibly triggering global war and the use of nuclear weapons. But surely the most preposterous mask is the “war on terror”, when it is seen – from the words of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – that Washington is now openly collaborating with the supposed “terrorist enemy” to bring about regime change in desired countries.

If somehow the weasel words from Washington could be taken at face value, then if it were serious about wanting regime change to facilitate democracy, human rights and world peace, the first regime that pre-eminently qualifies for such change is Washington itself.

Notes

[1] Transcript of Clinton interview on BBC, 26 February, 2012: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1202/S00690/interview-with-kim-ghattas-of-bbc.htm

[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234

by Jonathan Azaziah

Prelude: In the wake of my two-part deconstruction of “mask of Zion” wearer Uri Avnery and the grave intellectual and ideological  problems within the International Palestine Solidarity Movement, I was accused of “anti-Semitism” by a well-known voice within the blogosphere who rushed to Avnery’s defense. While this person’s reply to my vastly-documented work did not warrant such a response, I diligently composed this series to demolish and banish any similar accusations that are sure to arise in the future. In this first part, we delve into the true nature and wider historical context of Zionism, what it means to be a “Jewish Israeli” and the always-controversial realm of Holocaust® revisionism….

Like the moon rising upon the completion of sunset, it can be described as nothing other than inevitable that as soon as one raises one’s voice above a whisper in regards to the twisted, cancerous and supremacist ideology that guides the usurping Zionist entity occupying Palestine and the far-reaching global Jewish-Zionist Lobby that protects it from even the slightest criticism, one will be hysterically demonized, slandered, libeled, smeared and browbeaten with the label of “anti-Semitism.” If one criticizes any person of Jewish origin who expresses ‘support’ for Palestine but who also harbors blatant Zionist sympathies and actively attempts to impose this Zionism on others to delay, deflect and outright silence discussion on key matters relevant to full Palestinian liberation, one will once again face the same hysteria reignited like a supremacist conflagration and receive the chastisement of “anti-Semitism.” This inevitable calumny has now found its way to my person.

On February 2nd, 2012, I completed and published a two-part series deconstructing and exposing the ‘Israeli’ activist for ‘peace,’ Uri Avnery (real name: Helmut Ostermann), a highly-regarded figure in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. The first part secondarily dealt with Avnery’s expertly-masked supremacism and chiefly, his elephantine lies against Islamic Resistance movements, which were smashed to pieces as perversions of history (1). The second, more controversial part of the series examined and documented Avnery’s support for the Zionist entity’s current top stooge in the United States, President Barack Obama, as well as his glowing approval for NATO’s genocidal aggression against Libya and his obscene call for more genocide in Syria. It also delved deeply into the reasons behind the degeneration of the Solidarity Movement and the relation of persons like Avnery to this deterioration (2). For this, I was vitriolically accused of “anti-Semitism” by one Steve Amsel, operator of the website ‘Desert Peace,’ in a short, slanderous op-ed that he penned entitled, “In Defense Of Uri Avnery (3).”

Continue reading at MaskOfZion.com

by Martin Iqbal.

As the next step of NATO’s military strategy in Syria is revealed, the Orwellian buzzwords evolve a stage further to include ‘collective air shields’ as well as the ‘humanitarian corridor’ – euphemisms for the deadly bombardment, annexation and occupation of Syria’s sovereign territory.

As Syrian rebels retreat from the Babr Amr district of Homs, yesterday’s report from Israeli intelligence outfile DEBKAfile reveals the military strategy being adopted by the NATO powers. In summary this strategy involves an effective annexation of a portion of Syria’s territory under the guise of a ‘humanitarian corridor’, as well as the standard ‘no-fly zone’ (this time it is termed as a ‘collective air shield’).

Though the report states (as is customary for the contemporary ‘humanitarian intervention’) that there will be “no boots on the ground”, several reports of foreign special forces already being on the ground have put paid to this myth. The recent Russia Today report of French troops being detained in Homs, as well as reports of British special forces on the ground in early February (in Homs, no less), should remove any shred of doubt from observers’ minds.

‘Humanitarian corridors’ is the new buzzword for the next stage of the ongoing Syrian intervention. This is Orwellian parlance for the effective annexation of Syria’s sovereign territory, enforced by a ‘collective air shield’ (read: carpet bombing by NATO forces). This evolution of language is designed to ensure public opinion continues to be deceived about the true intentions of NATO, after the brutal and merciless decimation of Libya.

DEBKAfile reveals the eight-point plan that delineates the emerging military strategy being pursued by NATO. The first point of the plan involves annexing 25% of Syria’s territory as a ‘safe haven’ that will be protected by a ‘collective air shield’.

1. A group of nations led by the United States will reserve a quarter of Syrian territory (185,180 sq. km) as a safe haven for protecting more than a quarter of the nation’s population (5.5 million people) a under a collective air shield.
…
5. The safe haven will be placed off limits to Syrian military and security personnel and its air space declared a no fly zone. Syrian intruders will be challenged by the Western fighter-bombers shielding the protected area.

Of course ‘collective air shield’ is code for a ‘no-fly zone’, which is code for relentless aerial bombardment of civilians, civilian infrastructure (ostensibly to prevent the movement of military forces) as well as any and all military targets, using fighter-bombers, Tomahawk missiles, heavy explosive ordnance and depleted uranium.

Whereas the Libyan intervention began as a ‘no-fly zone’ and then evolved into the outright targeting of all military targets including ‘troop concentrations’, the Syrian strategy begins immediately with this stated mandate of attacking any and all ‘Syrian intruders’. Most notably this will also include all Syrians (army or otherwise) who decide to defend their homeland from criminal foreign invasion and occupation.

2. The operation will be exclusively airborne. No foreign boots will touch the ground in Syria. American, Turkish, French, Italian and British Air Force planes will fly out from three Middle East air bases – Incirlik and Diyarbakir in Turkey, where the US maintains substantial air force strength, and the British facility in Akrotiri, Cyprus.

As we saw with Libya, and as we have already seen with Syria, the operation, if successfully initiated, will most definitely not be confined to aerial operations. French troops have reportedly already been captured in Homs, and in fact DEBKAfile itself had reported foreign special forces (British & Qatari) on the ground in Syria as far back as early February.

British and Qatari troops were instrumental in the war on Libya, and they likely played a central role in the murder of Muammar Gaddafi also.

Point 3 of the plan reinforces the importance of the American military in any full-scale assault on Syria:

3. France has offered to make its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle available but accepts that without US air power, spy satellites and operational and logistical resources, the operation will not be feasible.

This is reminiscent of the Libya war, wherein Obama had ordered American pilots to fly French jets to make up for shortcomings in French military capabilities. Any large-scale intervention in Syria will only be possible with the central involvement of the U.S. military, regardless of public proclamations to the contrary.

The ‘no boots’ myth is terminally shattered in the seventh point of the eight-point plan:

7. A regional Syrian administration assisted by Western liaison officers would run the safe haven’s day-to-day affairs. The coalition would take care of the population’s food, medicines and medical care needs.

In this case, “Western liaison officers” is a euphemism for soldiers, special forces, and military consultants who will be completely running the show for all intents and purposes. This was the model for the war on Libya, and this aspect of the strategy has not changed whatsoever.

The final point of the plan states that the military coalition “would not seek Bashar Assad’s ouster as a mission goal“. Again, this is precisly what these international criminals claimed with respect to Muammar Gaddafi as they relentlessly hunted him down with SAS death squads, before mercilessly putting him to death.

Every single point of this plan, without exception, is taken from the strategy demonstrably used in Libya, the only difference being that certain points have been watered down somewhat due to NATO’s frustrated progress thus far in Syria. This strategy to annex only a quarter of Syria’s territory indicates a piecemeal approach, no doubt adopted in the face of the Security Council vetos cast by Russia and China.

The fact that this eight-point plan was first revealed exclusively by Mossad-connected DEBKAfile in the DEBKA-Net-Weekly 530 of Feb. 24 gives a clue as to who the main player behind the war on Syria is – Tel Aviv.

What this strategy indicates most importantly is that these international criminals masquerading as the ‘international community’, will stop at nothing in their crusade to destroy all resistance to Zionist hegemony.

For the release of our compatriots and colleagues held captive in Baba Amr

by Thierry Meyssan, 26 February, 2012.

Several journalists are held in the sealed-off Baba Amr area. According to Atlanticist leaders, they are prevented from leaving by the constant pounding of the rebel stronghold by the Syrian Army. As an on-the-spot privileged witness of the negotiations, Thierry Meyssan gives an account of the situation: the journalists are kept as prisoners by the Free “Syrian” Army which uses them as human shields. Their evacuation by the Syrian Red Crescent has been obstructed by the rebels.

Our colleagues Marie Colvin (Sunday Times) and Remi Ochlik (IP3 Press) were killed on Wednesday, 22 February 2012, in the rebel-held area inside Homs.

According to Western news agencies quoting the Free “Syrian” Army, they were victims of the shelling inflicted by the Damascus forces on the area. However, the National Army made use of multiple rocket launchers only for a very brief period to destroy firing positions, and at no time after 13 February. Furthermore, if it were true that the city was pounded for 21 days, as reported by the news agencies, it would have been reduced to a heap of rubble without a living soul a long time ago.

At least three other journalists still remain in the rebel zone: Edith Bouvier (Le Figaro Magazine), Paul Conroy and William Daniels (Sunday Times), and probably a fourth one of Spanish nationality.

In a video posted on the Internet, Edith Bouvier, who was wounded in the leg, and William Daniels called for a cease-fire and for their evacuation to a hospital in Lebanon. Immediately, an intensive communication campaign was mounted for them, including the creation of several Facebook groups and thundering declarations by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé.

There is no GSM or G3 coverage left in Homs, and the telephone wire lines in the rebel zone have been cut.

It won’t escape anyone’s notice that if the journalists were able to upload a video to call for help, it is because they had access to a satellite connection. And if it hasn’t been possible for them to contact their families, their employers or embassies, it is because those who control that satellite connection have denied it to them. They are, therefore, not free in their movements and are kept as prisoners.

The military situation

The Syrian generals deemed that the Battle of Homs was won on 13 February and reported to President Bashar al-Assad that it was over on Thursday, 23 February, at 1900 hours.

Victory does not have the same meaning for civilians as for the military. The former dream of a return to a peaceful life. The latter proclaim it much in the same way as a surgeon at the end of a successful operation. The fact remains that the injured are still subjected to months of treatment and years of rehabilitation. Specifically, what the end of the battle means to them is that the rebels have been confined inside a completely encircled area and no longer pose a threat to their security.

The main arteries of the city were reopened to traffic, but they are strewn with speed bumps for miles on end. Cars must zigzag their way along. The city has been emptied of the vast majority of its inhabitants and is nothing more than a ghost town.

The Battle of Homs unfolded in three stages:
- The first day, Syrian troops were stopped from entering the besieged neighborhoods by the anti-tank missiles fired by the rebels, notably Milan missiles.
- Then, the Syrian troops bombarded the missile firing posts, at the cost of significant collateral damage among their fellow citizens, while the rebels regrouped into a single zone which they appropriated.
- Finally, the troops surrounded the rebel stronghold, penetrated it and began liberating each street, one by one. To avoid being ambushed from the rear, the Syrian army advanced row by row, which slowed its progression.

The encircled area was once inhabited by 40,000 people. It now shelters an unspecified number of civilians, mostly old men who could not flee in time, and about 2,000 fighters of the Free “Syrian” Army. This label hides several rival groups divided into two main currents: on one hand, the Takfirists who consider not only that democracy is incompatible with Islam, but that the Alawites (including Bashar al-Assad) are heretics and should be barred from any political responsibility in Muslim lands; on the other hand, the felons who were recruited to strengthen the so-called Free “Syrian” Army. No longer paid, these gangs have resumed their independence and do not follow the same logic as the Takfirists. Most foreign fighters left Homs before the bastion was sealed off. They are currently assembled in the northern district of Idlib.

All the rebels in Baba Amr have considerable stocks of arms and ammunition, which in the current situation are no longer replenished, and sooner or later they will have to give themselves up, short a foreign military intervention. Their arsenals contain night vision Dragunov sniper rifles, as well as 80 to 120 mm mortars and incalculable quantities of explosives. They converted basements into warehouses and even set up weapons caches in the sewers. However, contrary to what has been reported, the pipes are too narrow to allow them to circulate. Similarly, the tunnels that were dug in the days when they had the protection of the former Governor of Homs, are no longer ventilated and can no longer be used. As for the ex-governor, he has long been exiled in Qatar, where he quietly enjoys the salary for his treachery.

The population had backed the rebels for a while, but it is now being used as human shields. Civilians who attempt to flee are shot by snipers. They have no way of rebelling, especially since most of them are elderly.

One could suppose that in the medium term, the rift within the Free “Syrian” Army, its lack of popular support, and the drying up of international reinforcements should lead some of the rebels to surrender. However, the Takfirists may decide to fight to the death.

At present, the rebels won’t allow civilians to flee their area and are blowing up the empty houses, at a rate of about a dozen per day. Moreover, rebel commandos located outside the cordoned zone attack the camps of the regular army to disorganize it and loosen the noose. They resort mainly to car bombs, thanks to the reopening of the streets, which explains the need to maintain the speed bumps.

Baba Amr is not being pounded. The only shelling still taking place is rebel mortar fire against the National Army.

The situation of the journalists

The journalists inside the rebel area are grouped into the same apartment, called a “media center,” whose precise location is unknown.

They entered Syria illegally, when they could have applied for a press visa, which all would have obtained, with the exception of Israeli citizens in view of the state of war between the two countries.

Their transportation to Homs was organized by a single smuggling ring, either from northern Lebanon or from southern Turkey. This ring serves as Office of Public Relations for the Free “Syrian” Army. It is responsible for having put the journalists in contact with the persons hosting them, and whose identity is unclear.

On Friday, 24 February, the International Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent began negotiating with the Free “Syrian” Army via the Red Crescent workers inside the cordoned area. They were given permission to enter the premises with ambulances to repatriate the bodies of the two dead journalists, and to evacuate the rest, both injured and sound. However, at the last moment, the journalists refused to leave, fearing a trap set up by the Damascus authorities. Indeed, they had been told by their French colleagues who left the scene earlier that the Syrian government would strive to eliminate them. Moreover, having access only to satellite TV channels controlled by NATO and the GCC, they are convinced that the fighting of which they are the victims is not only limited to their neighborhood, but extends throughout all of Syria.

Ultimately, the Syrian Red Crescent was allowed to evacuate twenty-seven sick and injured civilians who were driven to the Al Amin hospital in Homs (in the liberated part of the city). The London office of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, according to which hospitals have become torture centers, had spread the rumor that several of the wounded people were later arrested by the Syrian police. Following an investigation, the Red Crescent attested that these charges are absolutely unfounded.

On Saturday 25th, the International Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent asked the Free “Syrian” Army for permission to re-enter the area. Being on the spot, I offered my services to the authorities to facilitate the removal of my compatriots and colleagues. The negotiations lasted over four hours. Several states, including France, were kept abreast of these events.

After several twists and turns, the officers of the Free “Syrian” Army received the instruction via satellite to decline. Their encrypted communications with their superiors either ended up in Beirut or were relayed via Beirut. De facto the journalists are being used as human shields even more effectively than civilians, the rebels fearing a final assault by Syrian forces.

Therefore, journalists are now the prisoners of those who sponsor the Free “Syrian” Army, the very same ones on whose behalf the “Friends of Syria,” gathered at the Tunis conference, appealed for support, funds and arms.

by Martin Iqbal

Updated Sunday 26 February, 2012. Click here to go to the update.

Angelina Jolie, Goodwill Ambassador to the UN and member of CFR, is now using her profile to promote NATO’s genocidal ‘humanitarian intervention’ war doctrine. In an interview with the Balkans branch of Al Jazeera (NATO’s ‘Ministry of Truth’), Jolie (whose father has been a staunch defender of George W. Bush and who also visited Israel to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Nakba) promotes her new film ‘In the Land of Blood and Honey’, a pro-war propaganda set-piece centred around the ‘humanitarian intervention’.

Set in Sarajevo, Jolie’s directorial debut aims to justify NATO’s brutal butchery in Bosnia during the 1990s, and Jolie even specifically refers to Syria in her Al Jazeera interview. She puts forth a string of utterly hollow gripes about the inactivity of the ‘international community’ as civilians suffer and die. Jolie’s selective morality means she doesn’t once mention Libya – a nation now butchered, fractured, and transformed into a torture state by NATO’s genocidal ‘humanitarian intervention’; an estimated 100,000 innocent people slaughtered by the very same ‘international community’.

Most likely reading from her pre-defined talking points, Jolie even calls out Russia and China for using their veto powers against the ever benevolent ‘international community’ vis-à-vis Syria.

“I think Syria has gotten to a point, sadly, where some form of, certainly, where some sort of intervention is absolutely necessary.

It’s so disheartening, it’s so sad, it’s so upsetting, it’s so horrible, what’s happening…at this time we just must stop the civilians being slaughtered…when you see that sort of mass violence and murder on the streets we must do something. And I know that the countries in the region are pushing as well, so I feel that this is a good global effort, but then there are these countries that are choosing not to intervene and I don’t feel, I feel very strongly that the use of a veto when you have financial interests in a country should be questioned, and the use of a veto against a humanitarian intervention should be questioned.”

Listen from approximately 8 minutes and 20 seconds in:

Hollywood superstar Angelina ‘Humanitarian’ Jolie is now baying for Syrian blood. The worst part is, due to our pitiful culture of celebrity worship and braindead media consumption, this episode may do great damage to the months of hard work that truth-seekers have done to expose this genocidal doctrine of war.

Update: 26 February, 2012

Yet another celebrity has been conscripted to sell the war on Syria. This time it’s UK singer Joss Stone telling the BBC that “these stories have to be told” otherwise the “massacres will just get worse”.

by Martin Iqbal.

Updated February 24, 2012. Click here to go to the update.

In 1983 American police foiled a significant terror attack that most Americans to this day are utterly oblivious to. On October 18, 1983, a suicide bomber strapped with explosives was caught in the spectators’ gallery of the US House of Representatives, attempting to blow up the US Capitol.⁽¹⁾ The reason most Americans know nothing of this plot, is that the terrorist was a Jewish Israeli named ‘Israel Rabinowits’. The astounding ignorance of Americans is owing to the supreme control that Zionist Jews wield over the American press. Michael Collins Piper reports⁽¹⁾ that this event was mentioned

just once in The Washington Post – the so-called newspaper of record in the American capital – and only once, in passing, in The New York Times.

A search of the New York Times online archive mirrors Piper’s findings, and it reveals the staggeringly trivial and obfuscatory nature of the NYT’s reportage. The November 2, 1983 article⁽²⁾ titled “BOMB CARRIER IN U.S. HOME PROMPTS TIGHTENED SECURITY” is significant for a number of reasons.

First and foremost it must be acknowledged that the article appeared not on the first page (as would be expected for a suicide bomb attempt on the US Capitol), but on the paper’s Late City Final Edition, Section A, Page 22, Column 1. After searching the archive from 1981 to the present day, I can say confidently that there is no other mention of this event, even on the day of or following the attempted attack.

This is consistent with Michael Collins Piper’s findings with respect to the Washington Post:⁽¹⁾

And for the record, even though it was certainly qualified as “big” news, even The Washington Post buried the story in its local news section – across from the obituaries.

The title of the NYT article is purposefully misleading and deceptive. The terrorist is described as a ‘bomb carrier‘, (no mention of ethnicity or religion) and the U.S. House is referred to as ‘home‘ in what on the face of it seems to be a mistake, but what is likely intentional. This euphemistic description of the event (buried on page 22) is clearly meant to make the article less of a ‘grabber’ so that readers pass over the information. One can only imagine what the (front page) headline would have been if the Jewish terrorist had been Muslim: Islamist Suicide Bomb Attempt Prompts Tightened Security at U.S. House.

Reading further into the article we see that the terrorist’s name is eventually revealed in the fifth paragraph, and the fact that he is Jewish is completely omitted from the entire text. Conversely, reportage on terror attacks perpetrated (allegedly or otherwise) by Muslims consistently pivots on and emphasises the perpetrator’s ethnicity and religion (information which is always conveyed in the headline).

Despite publishing not a word on the terrorist’s potential motives, the NYT also actually tries to humanise the terrorist in indirectly suggesting that Rabinowits had moralistic ambitions. The article reveals that Rabinowits’s lawyer told a court that his client “wanted to address Congress about world hunger“.

The very fact that most Americans know nothing of this event is a telling indictment of the Zionist-controlled nature of the ‘free’ media in the United States. This important event has been barely covered, and where it has been covered, it has been documented in a deceptive, misleading, and trivial manner. What is even more sickening and telling is how this Zionist media outlet in particular actually attempted to humanise the terrorist – no doubt purely because he was a member of the tribe.

Update: 24 February 2012

Hat tip to Irradiee for suggesting newspaperarchive.com, a search of which has uncovered the fact that Israel Rabinowits was not locked up by the American authorities for his attempted terror attack. Instead – just like his modern day Mossad cohorts who took part in the 9/11 attacks – he was sent back to Israel.

A January 9, 1986 issue of the Titusville Herald⁽³⁾ reveals that approximately two years after the attempted terrorist attack, Israel Rabinowits was sent back to Israel where he is “apparently” in prison:

Meanwhile, a House official said Wednesday that a man carrying a homemade bomb who was arrested in the House gallery after threatening to blow up the Capitol more than two years ago was deported to Israel, where he is apparently in prison.

Jack Russ, the House sergeant at arms, said Israel Rubinowits was ordered never to return to the United States after the October 18, 1983 episode.

What is interesting about this passage, buried on page 9 of the paper, is that it appears within an article that is placed on the front page of the newspaper. The title of this article is “US Says Khadafy Trains Terrorists“. Laughably, the newspaper attempts to contextualise this Jewish Israeli’s attempted terror attack within alleged terrorism committed by Muammar Gaddafi – revolutionary and longtime enemy of the terrorist states of Israel and the United States of America.

Notes

1) ‘The Confessions of an anti-Semite’ by Michael Collins Piper, Chapter 18
2) ‘BOMB CARRIER IN U.S. HOME PROMPTS TIGHTENED SECURITY’ – New York Times, November 2, 1983

Editor’s note: Only an abstract of the archived New York Times article can be viewed online (here), however I have gained access to the full version which is published here [rtf].

3) Titusville Herald, January 9, 1986, page 9, article titled: ‘US Says Khadafy Trains Terrorists’