Monday, December 17, 2012

(GLOBALRESEARCH) Islamofascist Killers Threaten Syria

Islamofascist Killers Threaten Syria
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, December 17, 2012

They’re merciless cutthroat murderers. They commit grotesque atrocities. Torture, beheadings, and other monstrous savagery are all in a day’s work.

They’re Washington favorites. They’re recruited, heavily armed, trained, funded and directed in all US regional wars. Ronald Reagan called earlier equivalents “freedom fighters.” Some got White House visits.

A March 1983 photo showed Afghan Mujahideen fighters there. Reagan called them “an inspiration to those who love freedom.”

He called Nicaraguan Contra killers “our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”

History doesn’t just rhyme. It repeats in horrifyingly disturbing ways.

Wherever America shows up, deaths, mass destruction, and brutal atrocities follow. Countries are ravaged one at a time or in multiples. Millions die. Appalling crimes are committed.

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya tasted US-style liberation. Since winter 2011, Syria’s been systematically ravaged. No end of conflict appears near. Many dozens or hundreds die daily. The worst is yet to come.

On December 15, China’s Xinhau headlined “Growing Presence of Extremists Sends Chills Down Syrians’ Spines,” saying:

Syrians now experience what’s happened regionally for years. Media scoundrels suppress it. They call mass slaughter and destruction liberation. They give short shrift to cutthroat mercenaries.

Syrians fear for their lives and country. They ask how things got this far. Many understand Washington’s responsibility. Complicit with key NATO partners, regional allies, and Israel, they’re systematically destroying Syria.

Many Syrians able to leave do so. Most end up in wretched refugee camps. More affluent ones find favorable safe havens. They’d rather be home. They leave to stay alive.

Forty-six year old engineer Maher perhaps spoke for others.

“Why would I stay here now that I can afford living in a neighboring country,” he said. “I could save my family some avoidable consequences.”

He hopes Syria won’t be another Afghanistan or Iraq. He prays for a miracle to save his country.

If Assad is ousted, many Syrians worry what’s next. Potential Islamofascist governance assures continuation of what’s now ongoing.

Raging Libyan violence reflects it. Syria’s turn perhaps is next. Washington bears full responsibility. It planned violent regime change years ago.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad’s recent comment offered hope, saying:

“The government is strong. The Syrian army is strong, and the Syrian people are still rallying behind President Assad. That’s why President Assad and the political system are still surviving and they will still survive.”

Hopefully the fullness of time will prove him right. Daily violence casts a pall over Syria’s future.

Iran and others warn that offensive Patriot missiles in Turkey on Syria’s border threaten possible global war. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cancelled a planned Ankara visit. He condemned a dangerous provocation.

Tehran’s armed forces chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi, called each missile “a black dot on the map.” They head events toward global conflict.

“This is very dangerous for everyone,” he stressed, “and even for the future of Europe.” They’ll be installed in January. Offensive provocations may follow.

On December 14, NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis accused Assad of firing scud missiles inside Syria. Several landed close to Turkey’s border, he claimed.

Damascus denounced alleged attacks as false. Syrian authorities called reports provocative and untrue.

On Friday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited US forces at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. Washington shares it. He said Patriot batteries can shoot down aircraft and short-range missiles.

Deploying them, he claimed, will “help Turkey have the kind of missile defense it may very well need to deal with the threats coming out of Syria.”

None exist. He knows it. He’s fooling no one. Patriot batteries are provocative. Installing them is for offense, not defense. Doing so heightens risks. In place, they’ll likely be used. Full-scale intervention may follow.

Deputy NATO Secretary-General Jesper Vahr warned Syria that “messing with Turkey means messing with NATO.” He barely stopped short of declaring war. Doing it perhaps is imminent. Events bear close watching. Post-holiday season may prove most threatening.

Michel Chossudovsky suggests possible “military escalation” and “Russia-US confrontation.”

What’s now ongoing is long-planned “US-NATO-Israeli led insurgency against Syria.”

French, British, Turkish, Qatari, and very likely US Special Forces are involved. US and UK intelligence operatives have been all along. Perhaps French, Mossad, and other regional elements with them.

Washington plays hard ball for keeps. Ravaging Syria won’t stop until the entire country is destroyed or enough of it to matter.

Western and regional Special Forces “are ‘embedded’ within rebel ranks.” They’re training and directing them. They choose targets and coordinate what happens.

They operate “in liaison with NATO.” The North Atlantic Alliance is a longstanding imperial killing machine. Its mission is slaughter, mass destruction, and regime change.

Led by Washington, it’s systematically dismantling and ravaging Syria. It has other targets in mind. NATO killers never rest.

Ambitious goals drive them. Unchallenged global dominance is planned. Aims to achieve it perhaps involve laying waste to planet earth.

Proxy cutthroat killers commit daily terrorism. Patriot missiles plan their own version.

Preparing for what’s coming, Chossudovsky said “Russia delivered advanced Iskander missiles to Syria (and) Russian defense system Pechora 2M.”

They’re fully operational. What’s next bears watching. January events may signal what follows.

Russian/US relations are at a “dangerous crossroads.” Russian citizens in Syria are targeted. So are foreign journalists.

In September, Press TV’s Maya Naser was murdered in cold blood. At the same time, its Damascus bureau chief Hosein Mortada was shot in the back and wounded. Both reporters were covering Damascus bomb blasts when targeted.

They and other independent journalists receive frequent death threats. They courageously stay and do their job. Some like Maya pay with their lives. Hosein was flown to Tehran for surgery.

Syria is one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists. Those doing their job responsibly are most vulnerable. Cutthroat killers target them.

Washington decides which ones. NATO partners and Israel choose their favorites. Truth-tellers beware.

Since conflict erupted last year, around six dozen journalists died. Many independent ones succumbed. Major media ones included London Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin and New York Times columnist Anthony Shadid. Officially an asthma attack took him. Death by drowning is more likely.

Alawites and others considered Assad loyalists are imperiled. Many bravely hold firm. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said residents of Aleppo’s al-Sabil neighborhood turned out in force.

A massive pro-Assad rally was held. Support was expressed for Syria’s army. Expelling foreign terrorists was urged. Syrians know who’s friend and foe. They stuck their necks out saying so.

Syria’s conflict indeed may be at a dangerous crossroads. What affects Assad’s government imperils the region. It can’t avoid what Washington plans. Nor can other nations if conditions escalate out of control. The possibility is real and ominous.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Labels: , , ,


Read more...

Saturday, November 10, 2012

(WHATS LEFT) “Non”-State Actors Construct a Case for War on Iran

“Non”-State Actors Construct a Case for War on Iran
Posted in Iran, Media by what's left on November 9, 2012
By Stephen Gowans

“There have been,” write Julian E. Barnes and Jay Solomon in the Wall Street Journal (November 8, 2012), “a series of provocations by Iran in recent years. US officials say Iran has been responsible for a series of cyberattacks this year on US banks. There have also been incidents in the Persian Gulf, where Iranian fast boats have threatened US and British warships.”

Barnes and Solomon make no mention of the more frequent and menacing provocations aimed at Iran by the United States and its Middle East partner in aggression, Israel:

• Washington virtually declaring war on Iran when it designated the country a member of an “axis of evil.”

• Cyberattacks on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities.

• Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

• Penetration of Iranian airspace by US drones.

• Massing of US and British warships in the Persian Gulf.

• US deployment of anti-missile systems to its Gulf allies (what an aggressor preparing for an attack does to protect its allies from retaliation.)

• Innumerable threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

• Economic warfare of crippling trade sanctions and financial isolation which is destroying Iran’s economy and its ability to provide medical care to its population.

The United States bases its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, only 150 miles from Iran. It has an aircraft carrier-led battle group in the Persian Gulf. Its warplanes and thousands of US troops are stationed in Kuwait and Qatar. In terms of provocation, this is roughly equivalent to the Chinese basing a naval fleet in Havana, a battle group in the Caribbean, warplanes in Venezuela and Nicaragua, and troops in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. We needn’t ask whether Washington would denounce China’s massive deployment of military force close to US borders as provocative, doubly so were this accompanied by Beijing branding the United States part of an axis of evil and declaring that in its dealings with Washington all options are on the table.

And this tells only part of the story. China is no match militarily for the United States, but US military capabilities overwhelmingly outclass Iran’s. The hypothetical aggressive deployment of Chinese military force to US borders isn’t a tenth as provocative as Washington’s actual deployment of massive military force to the Persian Gulf.

So it is that no one with a rudimentary grasp of current international relations could possibly conceive of the relationship between the United States and Iran as one of Iran provoking the former, rather than the other way around. Since it’s fair to assume that the journalists Barnes and Solomon are not without a rudimentary grasp of the subject, it can only be concluded that they write propaganda for the US state despite working for a private organization—and that the propaganda is every bit as much chauvinist and congenial to US foreign policy goals as the bilge pumped out of Washington’s official propaganda agency, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

So how does the Journal reporters’ selective-references to provocation aid US foreign policy? In this way: There is a pattern of aggressive powers—from imperial Britain to Nazi Germany to the United States—justifying their military interventions as necessary responses to “provocation.” If cruise missiles are to smash into Iran, it will be helpful to justify Washington’s unleashing of its military force as a response to Iranian provocations, since a legitimate casus belli doesn’t exist. Even a case for war that public relations specialists could falsely invest with the appearance of legitimacy—namely, eliminating an Iranian nuclear weapons program—has become impossible ever since the US intelligence community declared that there is no credible evidence Iran has one. This led George W. Bush to lament in his memoirs, “How could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons?”(1)—a question that doubtlessly troubles his successor. Iranian “provocations,” then, become a useful pretext for the use of military force in the absence of a legitimate case for war.

That Barnes and Solomon should act as imperialist-friendly propagandists is hardly surprising, since any dispassionate analysis of the mass media’s multiple linkages to the state through the corporate ruling class inevitably leads to the conclusion that the mainstream media’s take on foreign affairs will portray US foreign policy as admirable, virtuous and right, while the intended victims of the profit-driven quest to extend US hegemony will be depicted as democracy-hating, terrorist-promoting, economy-mismanaging, human rights-abusing, provocateurs (which, come to think of it, is a fairly apt description of the US government itself.)

(1) David Morrison, “George Bush was ‘angry’ when US intelligence said Iran hadn’t got an active nuclear weapons programme,” http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-bush-on-nie.htm . Morrison has written a number of trenchant and beautifully crafted analyses, available on his website http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/.

Labels: ,


Read more...