Media sources confirm the seizure of an Israeli military vehicle in Al Qseir inside Syrian territory.
The vehicleâs licence plate corresponds to that of the Israeli military with a black background and the letter Tsade (×Ś) (see image below)
Al Qseir is a strategic border town on the Northern frontier of Lebanon. Occupied by rebels, it was taken back by Syrian forces on Monday.
Al-QseirÂ controls the highway which runs from the Lebanese border to Homs. It is through this border city that weapons and foreign mercenaries have entered Syria.
According to SANA, quoting (unconfirmed) media source:
âThe seizure of an Israeli military vehicle which terrorists had been using in al-Qseir refutes the allegations made by Israel to justify its aggression on Syria and proves the scale of Israelâs military and intelligence involvements in the events in Syria.â
âThe source said that the Israeli military support for the armed terrorist groups proves the involvement of Qatar, Turkey and Israel in the aggression on Syria which is waged through a single central operations room.
The source pointed out that the Israeli military support for terrorism in Syria proves once more that Israel was and still is adopting the policy of organized state terrorism, stressing that the world must act to confront this terrorism.
The source said that the questions raised by the seizure of the Israeli military vehicle and the surveillance and jamming equipment in al-Qseir show that the armed terrorist groups with all their different names are merely headlines for a single structure led by Israel, Qatar and Turkey.âÂ Â (SANA, May 20, 2013)
According to Press TV quoting Lebanese TV Station Al Mayadeem
The Lebanese channel al-Mayadeen broadcast the video of the confiscated vehicle on Monday.
The report also said that military uniforms as well as wiretapping and jamming equipment were found in the vehicle, but it did not display the items.
The Syrian army has restored security in al-Qusayr in the central province of Homs, after taking back control of 50 percent of the city from foreign-backed militants.
The army said it has killed two militant commanders during the operation in the strategic city, which is located near the border with Lebanon.
Fierce battles are still going on in the city as the Syrian army continues its operations there, while large numbers of militants abandon their weapons and flee the city.
The Syrian army entered the strategic city from every front on Sunday following weeks of battle.
The Syrian army says it has also found Israeli-made rockets in a weapons cache seized from militants in Homs province.(Press TV, May 20, 2013)
The issue of the vehicle requires confirmation.
The capture of an Israeli military vehicle does not in itself confirm the involvement of Israeli forces.
Israeli registered military vehicles would not normally be used in covert operations by Israeli special forces.
The Pentagon spent $334 million to stockpile an anthrax drug for a possible elaborate bioterrorist attack. The drug was produced by a company with a top government advisor on its board whoâs been warning decision-makers about such a threat for a decade.
Richard J. Danzig, former secretary of the Navy, a prominent lawyer and biowarfare consultant to the US government, was involved with Human Genome, a biotech company. He received more than $1 million in director’s fees and other compensation from the company between 2001 and 2012, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Over the decade he was a strong advocate of improving Americaâs capability to respond to a possible bioterriorist attack. One of the scenarios he was warning about involved terrorist creating a strain of anthrax resistant to common antibiotics and weaponizing it.
He had the ear of senior Pentagon and DHS officials, with the government eventually deciding to stockpile drugs to deal with such kind of anthrax. One of them called raxibacumab, or raxi, is produced by Human Genome.
It was the first product that the company managed to sale and the US government is the only customer, the newspaper says. The US ordered 20,000 doses of raxi in 2006 and 45,000 more doses after 2009, when the initial batch expired. At shelf price of $5,100 per dose, the company received $334 million for the product, the newspaper says.
The LA Times spoke to seven former top US officials, six of whom said they had no knowledge of Danzig being on board of the firm. One of them, Dr. Philip K. Russell, who helped the US prepare for biological attacks during the George W. Bush administration, saidÂ “Holy smokeâthat was a horrible conflict of interest,”Â when the newspaper explained the situation.
Danzig said in an interview that no such conflict existed and that he had acted âvery properly.â
“My view was I’m not going to get involved in selling that,”Â Danzig told the newspaper.Â “But at the same time now, should I not say what I think is right in the government circles with regard to this? And my answer was, ‘If I have occasion to comment on this, it ought to be in general, as a policy matter, not as a particular procurement.ââ
Danzig started sounding the alarm about possible anthrax terrorist act after the widely-publicized 2001 attack, in which anthrax-laced letters killed five people and infected 11 others. In 2008, the DoJ named senior biodefense researcher Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had died a month earlier, as the sole suspect in the attack, but no formal trial was ever conducted.
While the anthrax powder used in the 2001 attack was not resistant to antibiotics, Danzig said it would be âquite easyâ for terrorists to create one. “Even at the high school level, biology students understand that an antibiotic-resistant strain can be developed,” he wrote in his key policymaking 2003 report “Catastrophic Bioterrorism – What Is To Be Done?”
But the notion is not shared by some microbiologists.
“It’s not a trivial endeavor,”Â Paul Keim, a Northern Arizona University geneticist and anthrax expert, told the newspaper.Â “This is something beyond the capability of a high school student or even someone with graduate training.”
Keim added that if anthrax were made resistant to antibiotics, it would decrease the bacteriaâs stability and virulence, greatly reducing its lethality.
Human Genome was acquired by the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline last year for $3.6 billion.
Raxi was tested only on animals, since the lethality of anthrax does not allow for clinical trials on humans. Luckily, no terrorist group has used anthrax â antibiotic-resistant or otherwise â for a massive attack, which would put US stockpile of raxi to good use.
Two disturbing developments have occurred in the last couple of days that have gone relatively unnoticed compared to the recent IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals.
First, the senate is debating anÂ expansionÂ of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan. Â Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.
Senator Angus King said this interpretation of the AUMF is a “nullity” to the Constitution because it ignores Congress’ role to declare war. Â King called it the “most astoundingly disturbing hearing” he’s been to in the Senate.
Even ultra-hawk John McCain agreed that the AUMF has gone way beyond its authority.
“This authority … has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001,” McCain said.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece describing how this hearing reveals the not-so-secret plan to make the war on terror a permanent fixture in Western society.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war – justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism – that is the single greatest cause of that threat.
A self-perpetuating permanent war against a shadowy undefinable enemy appears to be the future of American foreign policy. Â How convenient for the war machine and tyrants who claim surveillance is safety.
But perhaps most disturbing of all of this is the military’s authority to police American streets as if it was in civil war. For all those still in denial that America is a militarized police state, this should be the ultimate cure to your delusion.
By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titledÂ âDefense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement AgenciesâÂ the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of âcivil disturbances.â According to the rule: âFederal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.â
A law from 1878 called theÂ Posse Comitatus ActÂ was put in place to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with local law enforcement. Â But now, the DoD claims they’ve had this authority for over 100 years.
“The authorization has been around over 100 years; itâs not a new authority. Itâs been there but it hasnât been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy,” said an unnamed defense official who also emphasized that all soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” indicating that citizens are a threat to the Constitution.
Yet, the Constitution is a document that polices the government, not the people. In other words, the only people who can be “enemies” of the Constitution are those who took an oath to defend it. Therefore, only government officials can be an enemy the Constitution.
This follows a recentÂ West Point studyÂ that sought to define the American people as “domestic enemies” in order to justify soldiers breaking their oath to corral pesky citizens.
The West Point Terrorism Center wrote that “conspiracy theorists” who worry that local law enforcement will be steadily replaced by federally-controlled law enforcement could potentially be a domestic enemy:
Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a âNew World Order,â (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government.Â The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled âNational Policeâ agency that will in turn merge with a âMulti-National Peace Keeping Force.â The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American societyâs deficiencies and US government incompetency.
So, as the US military claims to have the authority to be a “National Police” force, researchers who claim there is an agenda to do just that are now labeled as domestic terrorists?
Does this make any sense? Will oath takers see through these ridiculous interpretations and engage the real domestic enemy to the Constitution? Or will they just follow orders when the time comes to crack down on Americans?
Russia has sent sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria, US media report. Russia agreed to supply Syria with Yakhont missiles in a deal signed in 2007.
The New York TimesÂ quotes unnamed US officials as saying the missiles could be used to counter any potential future foreign military intervention in Syria.
Without confirming details, Russia’s foreign minister said Russian supplies did not break any international rules.
It comes amid growing alarm that chemical weapons may be being used in Syria, though many say this is propaganda by one or both sides in the conflict. The use of chemical weapons is something US President Barack Obama has said would be “a red line”.
The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met Mr Lavrov in Sochi on Friday to discuss the plans for the conference, which would aim to bring together the Syrian opposition and members of President Bashar al-Assad’s government.
At a news briefing, Mr Ban said it was important to “not lose momentum” on the drive towards holding a peace conference and dates for it were being “actively discussed”.
Mr Lavrov said the way the conflict is resolved
“will largely determine not just the fate of Syria and the region itself, but also the global community’s future vector when it comes to responding to crises”.
Russia is one of Syria’s few remaining allies and its major arms suppliers. Over the years, in contracts worth billions of dollars, it has sold thousands of tanks, artillery units, aircraft, helicopters and defence systems to Damascus.
The initial order – for 72 missiles along with launcher and support vehicles – was placed in 2007 and the first deliveries received in early 2011, said the paper. It quotes two unnamed senior US defence officials as saying the most recent shipments had more advanced radar guidance systems, enabling it to evade a ship’s defences.
Sergei Lavrov said he did not understand “why the media is trying to create a sensation out of this”.
“We have not hidden that we supply weapons to Syria under signed contracts, without violating any international agreements, or our own legislation.Â And we most importantly supply an nti-aircraft system, and it doesn’t create any imbalance of power in the region or any kind of advantages in the fight against the opposition.”
Another US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, reports that Moscow has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus.
The paper quotes a senior US defence official as saying the deployment is a “show of force” by Moscow to demonstrate its commitment to the region.
Although there have been growing calls for arms to be channelled to the rebel fighters in Syria, there has so far been very limited enthusiasm in the West for outright military intervention.
But there is concern that the presence of sophisticated Russian-supplied weaponry will make it much harder to agree and carry out such intervention, implement a blockade or conduct targeted airstrikes in the future.
Nick Brown, editor-in-chief of the influential military journal Jane’s International Defence Review, said the Yakhont is:
“A real ship killer.Â It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or a shipping embargo were to be declared at some point” he told the Times.
In a shocking video that has recently emerged out of Syria, Syrian ârebelâ leader Abu Sakkar is seenÂ cutting out the heartÂ of a Syrian soldier and thenÂ biting it for the cameraÂ to see. Shortly before biting the manâs heart, Sakkar states to the camera âI swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers.â
The video can be seen hereÂ and it comes fresh on the heels of a pledge by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to provide $123 million in aid to the Syrian death squads and ÂŁ40 million by the UK, all in the midst of a worldwide economic depression and the imposition of brutalÂ austerity measuresÂ in both countries.
However, while the footage is clearly shocking, it is only shocking in its savagery as an act in and of itself, not in the fact that Syrian ârebelsâ (aka death squads) are engaging in such brutal acts. Let us not forget that the death squads have been responsible forÂ unspeakable atrocitiesÂ against innocent people ever since the destabilization effort began.
Last October, the death squads, in typical terrorist fashion, conducted at least four suicide bombings in Aleppo that killed around 40 innocent civilians.
Receiving more attention in the media, however, at least until the death squads were found to be responsible, was the infamous Houla Massacre of 2011 where approximately 90 people were killed.
Indeed, the videos of the torture of prisoners in the hands of the death squads are legion. One need only type the relevant keywords into a YouTube search engine to be greeted with generous results.
Likewise, aÂ number of chemical attacksÂ directed against innocent civilians on the part of the Syrian death squads have taken place over recent months. Although the mainstream media and Western governments have attempted to blame these attacks (and every other atrocity) on the Assad government, each and every one has, in fact, turned out to be the work of the Syrian death squads, who are themselvesÂ funded by Western governments, intelligence agencies, and NATO command structures.
Indeed, the connection between the Syrian death squads, al-Qaeda, and other fundamentalist terrorist organizations and Western governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies is the most important concept that one must grasp in order to understand the situation currently unfolding in Syria.
Putting together these pieces is not as hard as one might imagine. After all, the information and evidence of foreign intelligence and military intervention in Syria was publicized several years before the operations began to culminate in the recent ârebellion.â
As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report has documented on numerous occasions, the plan to invade and destabilize Syria by using hordes of al-Qaeda terrorists and mercenaries has been in existence since at least 2007.Â Cartalucci writes,
A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow bothSyriaÂ and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv’s role, in building the sectarian extremist front.
According to Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they “created it,” and therefore could “control it,” in meetings with Washington.The plan called for not only setting up terrorist enclaves in nations neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria’s borders and beyond – including in Egypt.Â [emphasis added]
Hersh also pointed out the long history between the Saudi Royals and their funding of religious fanatics for the purposes of destabilization since the 1970s’ proxy war against the Soviet Union, the Iranians, and to the more recent (in terms of the writing of the article) possibilities of using such types of fighters in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, and Syria.Â He wrote,
Nasr went on, âThe Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the SalafisââSunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. âThe last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you canât put them back.â
The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the familyâs myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administrationâs new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
In a more telling passage, however, Hersh describes the connection between the Saudis, Jihadists, and the U.S. government. He wrote,
This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that âthey will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was âWeâve created this movement, and we can control it.â Itâs not that we donât want the Salafis to throw bombs; itâs who they throw them atâHezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran,Â and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.â [emphasis added]
Hersh continued by stating that the Israelis, the Saudis, and the Americans have âdeveloped a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction.â In addition to the security of Israel, the weakening of Hamas, and the countering of âShiite ascendance in the region,â there was also a fourth goal of the three entities. Hersh wrote,
Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washingtonâs approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah. The Saudi government is also at odds with the Syrians over the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut in 2005, for which it believes the Assad government was responsible. Hariri, a billionaire Sunni, was closely associated with the Saudi regime and with Prince Bandar. (A U.N. inquiry strongly suggested that the Syrians were involved, but offered no direct evidence; there are plans for another investigation, by an international tribunal.)
Hersh also quoted Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze minority in Lebanon and adamant Assad opponent who stated to Hersh that he had actually traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with then Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the possibility of weakening and destabilizing the Assad government in Syria. Hersh stated,
Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be âthe ones to talk to,â Jumblatt said.
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashirâs father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, âWe told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syriaâand to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.â
There is evidence that the Administrationâs redirection strategy has already benefited the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood.Â A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, âThe Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.âÂ He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris,Â was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Frontâs members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.)Â A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents. [emphasis added]
Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, who told Hersh that he believed that the United States wished to cause the partitioning of both Lebanon and Syria. Hersh states that, âIn Syria, he [Nasrallah]said, the result would be to push the country âinto chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.â
The idea that Syria would be partitioned is an interesting concept to say the least since it echoes the typical geopolitical strategy of âMicro States and Mini Statesâ espoused by Neo-Liberal members of the governing class such as Zbigniew Brzezinski. Yet, the ruling regime at the time of the writing of Hershâs article and the interview conducted with Hassan Nasrallah was the Neo-Conservative regime of Bush/Cheney, a branch of the Anglo-American ruling class that typically expresses geopolitical strategy in the manifestation of hard power and ham-fisted warfare.
The fact that the Brzezinski method of using puppet states, mercenaries, and religious fanatics against target states while âleading from behindâ was being planned and orchestrated during a branch of the ruling elite that typically exhibits a different strategy is telling in that it shows both that the plan to partition Syria was developed long before the recent ârebellionâ and that the plan crosses not only both political parties but also both factions of the ruling elite. In short, the existence of such a plan during the Bush/Cheney regime and the attempted implementation of the plan by the Obama regime shows that not only are political parties operated by the same (somewhat) hidden forces but even the hidden hand behind the hidden forces are themselves more centralized than what many informed political analysts would choose to believe.
The Syrian partition issue is also interesting considering the fact that a potential false flag attack was discovered by German hackers involving the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian death squads to be blamed on the Assad government and accomplishing this goal. This âattackâ would have then been followed by the entrance of ambulances emblazoned with the words âSyrian Peopleâs Relief.” Although the pretext would have been humanitarian aid, the ambulances would have been, in reality, nothing more than armored personnel carriers designed to create âbuffer zonesâ in the border areas of Syria during the midst of a crisis and the panic that would have resulted.
Yet Hershâs information, which was published in 2007, was not the first mention of the Syrian destabilization being manufactured by Western powers.
In 2005, for instance, writing about the possible options for defeating the then-powerful insurgency in Iraq, Michael Hirsh and John Barry ofÂ NewsweekÂ wrote an article entitled, “‘The Salvador Option: The Pentagon May Put Special -Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq,’” where the writers acknowledged a plan by the Pentagon to install Special Forces hit teams or death squads made up of religious fanatics to engage in the policy of assassinations and outright terror. This strategy came to be known as âThe Salvador Option,â after the methods used by the United States in El Salvador in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of nearly 50,000 innocent civilians.
With this in mind, Hirsh and Barry write tellingly of the plan to use such a strategy in Iraq and Syria. They state,
[O]ne Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers,Â even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called ‘snatch’ operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that whileÂ U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria,activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries. [emphasis added]
It is interesting, then, that death squads would be invading and terrorizing the nation of Syria only six years later, attempting to accomplish some of the very goals set forward by the Anglo-Americans as indicated by the aforementioned reports.
Yet, while the majority of the fighting (as well as the looting, beheading, torturing, and raping) is being undertaken by the death squads themselves, one also wonders just what hand actual intelligence agents have played in the foreign-backed destabilization.
It is almost a certainty that the Western intelligence agencies that coordinated so much of the foreign insurgency would not leave the death squads, with their quality of intellect (or more accurately the lack thereof), alone to control the entirety of the operations themselves. The operation itself is much too important to be left in the hands of mere death squad operatives.
It is for this reason that many have suspected for some time that the intelligence agencies and military special ops divisions have themselves been involved in the fighting; or, at the very least, the direct coordination inside Syria.
Without a doubt, U.S. AmbassadorÂ Robert FordÂ has played a major role in the organizing of the Syrian death squads, alongside former CIA Director and U.S. General David Petraeus as I have documented in past articles such as âSyria Under Attack By Globalist Death Squad Experts.â In addition, serious questions have been raised regarding the role Norwegian General Robert Mood has played in the death squad organization.
The question of direct intervention via actual intelligence agents as opposed to mere coordination, however, has been a murkier question. Yet, although harder to decipher in terms of hard evidence, such a suggestion is not entirely without evidence.
After all, itÂ was reported early onÂ in the Syrian destabilization effort that 13Â French military officersÂ acting as mercenaries/death squad participants were captured by the Syrian government, all the while the mainstream Western media reported the events as âpeaceful protestâ and a grassroots level organic Syrian uprising against an oppressive regime.
Around the same time,Â hacked emails obtained by Anonymous in December 2011Â and released by WikiLeaks in steady drips ever since February 27, 2012, revealed that NATO troops, including those from the U.S., U.K, and France, were likely already operating inside Syria.
The emails were obtained from the private U.S. intelligence firm, Stratfor, and were apparently sent by Stratforâs Director of Analysis, Reva Bhalla (firstname.lastname@example.org) and contain discussion of a December confidential Pentagon meeting which was attended âby senior analysts from the US Air Force, and representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom.
Tellingly, the emailâs author stated that US officials âsaid without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.â Later in the email, it was stated that âthe idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.â
This should come as no surprise since Western troops and intelligence agentsÂ maintained a heavy presenceÂ inside Libya during the destruction of that nation, increasing their presence as the destabilization and subsequent invasion succeeded.
Regardless of the direct involvement of Western forces inside Syria, however, there is absolutely no doubt that the Syrian conflict is very much the result of Anglo-American treachery, control, and coordination. The entire invasion of secular Syria with religious fanatics, mercenaries, and maniacs was the brainchild of Western governments and Israel, the Mad Dog of the Middle East, along with the usual Gulf state feudal monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others acting as proxies and puppets.
Indeed, with theÂ recent announcementÂ of evenÂ more commitmentsÂ toÂ openly arm, aid, and assist the death squads, the idea that the Syrian destabilization was organized and is being controlled by Western governments is no longer up for debate.
The only debate yet to be had is whether or not citizens of Western countries will continue to allow their governments to run roughshod over both their rights and the rights of sovereign people in foreign countries.
Clearly, the continued assault on Syria is part of a major agenda that is slowly unfolding before our eyes. It would be wise for Americans and all other Western nations to get off of theÂ Path to PersiaÂ before the mutual destruction of the world is the only thing left at the end of the road.
The other day, during the hearings before the House Oversight Committee on Benghazi, I watched my Twitter feed (something I rarely do), in order to keep up posts on the page where our live feed was conducted.
One thing that stood out to me was how there wasnât a peep about the Benghazi hearings coming from the major news networks.
However, what was telling was that as soon as the Jodi Arias (in case you didnât know, she was a Mormon sex freak who murdered her ex-boyfriend by stabbing him repeatedly, slitting his throat and shooting him in the head) verdict was ready to be read, tweets came through like crazy wanting people to watch and follow that!
This has been typical for years under the Obama administration as real news that affects the nation gets sidelined for things that donât have any impact on our lives at all and many continue to push the idea that Benghazi just isnât important and no cover-up was, and is, going on, like our friend Juan Williams at Fox News demonstrates below.
However, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is now saying that Benghazi is a pretty big deal.
Mark Mardell, the North America editor for the BBC, referenced anÂ ABC article, in which new evidence has been obtained that the Obama administration did deliberately purge any reference to âterrorismâ from the accounts of the attacks that took place in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before sheÂ appeared on five talk showsÂ the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.Â The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
âThose talking points originated from the intelligence community.Â They reflect the ICâs best assessments of what they thought had happened,â Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.Â âThe White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word âconsulateâ to âdiplomatic facilityâ because âconsulateâ was inaccurate.â
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a ratherÂ puerile anti-Islamic video.
I understand President Barack Obamaâs careful use of the word âterrorismâ when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a âwar on terror.â
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I donât.
Mardell says that he is not persuaded that the changes in the language of the talking points were changed because it would âprejudice the FBI investigation.â There wasnât one at the time. He believes the âbutt-guardingâ rationale âis more credible.â
âAs Ms Nuland puts it,â Mardell writes, âsuch a report âcould be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?â However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.â
His conclusion is that is âvery seriousâ and that he suspects that heads will roll.
One would expect that of course, but with this administration, will it be the heads rolling of those responsible. After all, even if it were someone likeÂ Ben RhodesÂ who came up with the talking points about the YouTube video or general counsel and chief of staff to Secretary Hillary ClintonÂ Cheryl MillsÂ or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it doesnât matter.
These and others, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, along with countless others openly declared on national television that the attacks were the result of a protest of a benign YouTube video. That my friends is aÂ documented fact. It is so clear that even the people across the pond can see it!
For anyone who was paying attention, yesterday was an important day. No, Iâm not talking about the Arias trial (which certain networks covered all day without any mention of other, apparently more trivial news), or even Kim Kardashianâs latest appearance as a floral couch/sausage hybrid.
On Wednesday, May 8, we heard the testimony of three whistleblowers regarding the attack of our embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and there were some pretty eye-opening moments.
As expected, both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice were discussed in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, and what we heard was hardly flattering.
Gregory Hicks, a foreign service officer and former deputy chief of mission in Libya, gave testimony on the events of the night of September 11, as well as what transpired following the attack. In his initial description of that attack, Hicks stated âthe Secretary of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff were all on the phone, and she asked me what was going on. And, I briefed her on developments.â
Hicks was also asked by South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy if Ambassador Christopher Stevens had mentioned anything regarding the alleged YouTube video protest that was blamed by the Obama Administration as the cause of the attack:
Gowdy: Would a highly decorated career diplomat have told you, or Washington, had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?
Hicks: Yes, sir, he would have.
Gowdy: Did he [Amb. Stevens] mention one word about a protest?
Hicks: No, sir, he did not.
So we have testimony that Clinton was briefed on developments and that not a word was spoken about a protest of any kind.
Despite that, Rice appeared on a handful of talk shows the following Sunday and stated to the American people that it was in fact a poorly-made YouTube video depicting the prophet Muhammad that spurred the attack. Below is further discussion between Gowdy and Hicks regarding her appearances:
Gowdy: Fast forward, Mr. Hicks, to the Sunday talk shows with Ambassador Susan Rice. She blamed this attack on a video. In fact, she did it five different times. What is your reaction to that?
Hicks: I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.
Gowdy: Did she talk to you before she went on the five Sunday talk shows?
Hicks: No, sir.
Gowdy: You were the highest ranking official in Libya at the time, correct?
Gowdy: And she did not bother to have a conversation with you before she went on national television?
Hicks: No, sir.
Neither Clinton nor Rice made any mention of a terrorist attack until immense pressure was put on the Administration for answers, and itâs clear that they were lying to the American people by continually blaming this video. Yet as Hicks and his fellow whistleblowers, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, gave their testimony in Washington D.C. yesterday, Clinton was on the other side of the country in Beverly Hills, California to accept a public service award. The Pacific Council on International Policy awarded Clinton with the inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award, which supposedly honors âthe public service of others whose work reflects his [Warren Christopher, former Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton] distinctive leadership qualities.
As if that werenât enough, on May 7, 2013, the day before the Benghazi hearing, RiceÂ alsoÂ received an award. The 2013 Louis E. Martin Great American Award, presented to Rice by The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, is given to âan exemplar of change, progress and coalition-building across racial linesâ.
Apparently, blatantly lying to the American people is now an example of progress. Specifically, the organization honored Rice for âher work in advancing U.S. interests, strengthening the worldâs common security and prosperity, and promoting respect for human rights.â I suppose one could argue she advanced U.S. interests, but I think it would be more accurate to say she advanced the interests of the Obama Administration in the throes of an election season.
So there you have it. While Hicks testified that heâd essentially been marginalized and demoted due to questioning the response to the attack on Benghazi, Clinton and Rice are honored with awards for âleadershipâ and âprogressâ.
While itâs hardy surprising, itâs still disheartening to see that honesty is no longer considered a virtue and âCYAâ tactics are recognized as leadership.
Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis entertained questions from the United States House Committee on Homeland Security Thursday morning as lawmakers learn if last monthâs terrorist attack could have been prevented.
Authorities attribute three casualties and more than 260 injuries to a pair of ethnic Chechens brothers accused of detonating explosives near the finish line of the Boston Marathon last month in the state of Massachusetts. But as investigators learn that the Tsarnaev family raised international red flags in the years before the April 15 tragedy, congressional leaders are looking to see what could have been done to thwart the attack.
Investigators say 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his 19-year-old brother Dzhokhar plotted the attack and intended to detonate more explosives in New York City if they could ever made it out of Massachusetts.
During the Thursday morning hearing, Commissioner Davis was grilled over what the city of Boston â as well as state and national law enforcement â could have done to curb plots to terrorize the citizens of both cities.
Davis said the Boston Marathon bombing created âthe most complex crime scene we ever processed in the city.â
In a statement published before the testimony began, the commissioner advocated for having more resources that might be able to give law enforcement the upper-hand in instances where future plots are being hatched.
Ultimately it was footage of the Tsarnaev brothers caught on surveillance cameras that led authorities to identify them as suspects in the bombing, and many have made a push in the weeks since to increase the number of cameras across the city. Speaking to the committee on Thursday, Davis suggested he stands in line with this take but does have reservations about what it could lead to.
âI strongly support the enhanced ability to monitor public places,â Davis said. âThis monitoring .â.â. violates no constitutionally protected rights but gives police the ability to investigate and effectively prosecute. Images from cameras do not lie. They do not forget.â
But in the wake of what unfolded in his city last month, civil liberty proponents have condemned the response in Boston and elsewhere. Davisâ city was placed on lock-down after the bombings during a manhunt for the Tsarnaev brothers, and heavily armed police conducted warrantless searches of homes across the region. Coupled with calls for increased surveillance, critics have blasted Bostonâs response and have warned of what could come next.
âI do not endorse actions that move Boston and our nation into a police-state mentality, with surveillance cameras attached to every light pole in the city,â Davis added with his statement.
Elsewhere in the hearing, Massachusetts Undersecretary for Homeland Security Kurt N. Schwartz said Bostonâs transit and traffic cameras are already linked to âa quite complex, sophisticated system,â but that admission didnât deter members of the House from inquiring about other means of foiling future plots.
Joe Lieberman, a former Independent senator from Connecticut and co-architect of the US Department of Homeland Security, opined at the hearing that the DHS was designed after the September 11 terrorist attacks essentially to prevent events like Boston from ever unfolding.
âThough it would not have been easy, it was possible to prevent the terrorist attacks in Boston,â Lieberman said.
The former senator took several opportunities throughout the hearing to offer criticism aimed at the DHS. âTo put it bluntly, our homeland defense system failed in Boston,â he said in a statement offered before he took the microphone.
Of particular concern, he would later explain, was how information sharing between agencies didnât occur to a degree that ended with Tamerlan Tsarnaev being detained, or even deported, after Russian intelligence notified the US Federal Bureau of Investigation about him years before the attack.
âWhy didnât the [Department of Homeland Security] notify the FBI and the Boston JTTF [Joint Terrorism Task Force] when its system âpingedâ that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had left America for Russia on his way to Dagestan?â Lieberman asked.
But while Lieberman suggested that US agencies didnât do their job properly, he had powerful words for Moscow too. âIt could be that the most consequential failure to share information was the failure of the Russian intelligence to explain in more detail to us why they were interested in Tamerlan Tsarnaev,â he said.
âIâm agitated by,â he said, âwhy nobody was particularly looking for the name Tamerlan Tsarnaev by the time he came back.â
âSomeone should have been on him,â he said.
Commissioner Davis admitted during the hearing that the FBI failed to inform the Boston Police Department about the Tsarnaev family despite Russian intelligence issuing a warning to the US.
When Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) asked, âWere you aware of Russian intelligence warning?â the police chief responded that he was ânot in fact informed of that particular development.â
â[W]e would have liked to know,â Davis said.
âThe whole point of the fusion centers and the Joint Terrorism Task Forces is to share information,â McCaul said. âThe whole idea of information not shared defies why we even have a Homeland Security Department in the first place.â
As the Obama administration contemplates its next moves in Syria, a decision that is now more pressing with Israel twice bombing Syria in the past week, U.S. credibility hangs in the balance.
If the U.S. escalates its involvement in Syria by directly arming rebels (Obama has already authorizedÂ clandestine operations, according to sources, and has pledged at leastÂ $250 millionÂ in âaidâ to the rebels), it runs the risk of violating U.S. laws that prohibit material support of terrorists.
And in the context of U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, where President Obama claims to be targeting al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the administration appears to be gambling that people won’t recognize the double standard of the U.S. being on the same side as al-Qaeda in the struggle to overthrow Syriaâs president Bashar al-Assad while fighting against them in other parts of the Middle East and Africa.
Regardless of how advocates of increased Syrian intervention attempt to nuance the debate, included amongst the Syrian rebels are theÂ al-Nusra Front, a group the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization, andÂ Al-Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the U.S. Further, the leader of al-Qaeda,Â Ayman al-ZawahriÂ has urged all Muslims to help Syrian rebels. (Zawahiriâs has also said that he wants Syria to become anÂ Islamic state, not the secular state that currently exists under al-Assad.) Thus, it is self-evident that arming the rebels in Syria would violate U.S. law since providing material support to groups designated as terrorists is a violation of the USA PATRIOT Act (18 U. S. C. Â§2339B).
Proponents of arming the rebels have claimed that they would work to ensure that the non-terrorist elements of the Syrian rebels would be the only ones who would get U.S. weapons. This claim has only been taken seriously by the terminally naĂŻve. Libya and Afghanistan are just two recent examples of how weapons eventually end up in the hands of a wide range of people, including âenemiesâ of the U.S.
Another double-standard scenario faces the Obama administration: The issue of the âred lineâ of chemical weapons being used in Syria. In August 2012, Obama stated that if âwe start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculusâ in Syria. Well, now that it appears possible, if not likely that sarin gas was used byÂ Syrian rebelsÂ and not the government, will Obama apply his âred lineâ to rebels and consider arming the Syrian government? Of course he wonât, but it further points out the hypocrisy and double-standards of U.S. foreign policy, and puts U.S. credibility at risk.
Proponents of âFirst Strikeâ Nuclear War against Iran Rob billions from their own Citizens
While the Pentagonâs modernization budget for the pre-emptive nuclear option is a modest ten billion dollars (excluding the outlay by NATO countries). the budget for upgrading the US arsenal of âstrategic nuclear offensive forcesâ is a staggering $352 billion over ten years. (See Russell Rumbaugh and Nathan Cohn,âÂ Resolving Ambiguity: Costing Nuclear Weapons,â Stimson Center Report, June 2012).
These multi-billion military outlays allocated to developâbigger and better nuclear bombsâÂ are financed by the massive economic austerity measures currently applied in US and NATO countries.
The war economy is largely funded by compressing all categories of civilian government expenditure. In the US, these refurbished state of the art nuclear bombs are largely funded by the dramatic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. America is aÂ âKiller Stateâ. The gamut of economic austerity measures impoverish the American people while generously funding the âKiller Stateâ through multi-billion dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon et al.
War preparations to attack Iran are inÂ âan advanced state of readinessâ. Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.
At the height of an Economic Depression,Â âWar is Good for Businessâ.
Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran, is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, the US-NATO military agenda also threatens Russia, China and North Korea.
The Western media, the Washington Think Tanks, the scientists and politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads threatens the future of humanity.
The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance.
The main actors in the Iran pre-emptive nuclear warfare
Thermo-nuclear weapons are deployed by the three âofficialâ Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) of the Atlantic Alliance, namely the US, the UK and France. The official NWS status is established under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Five other NATO member countries (categorized under the NPT asânon-nuclear statesâ), namely Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, possess an arsenal of B61 tactical nuclear warheads orÂ âmini-nukesâÂ (Made in America) which are deployed under national military command and are targeted at Iran. The B61 can be delivered by a variety of different aircraft.
Are these five countries in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty of which they are signatories?
In relation to ongoing war plans, the US-NATO-Israel military alliance includes a total of nine countries which possess a nuclear weapons arsenal:
The three official NWS (US, UK, France) plus the fiveâUndeclared Nuclear StatesâÂ (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey) plus the State of Israel (Undeclared Nuclear State). With the exception of Israel, these countries are signatories of the NPT.
Pre-emptive Nuclear Warfare
While reports tend to depict the tactical B61 bombs as a relic of the Cold war, the mini nukes are the preferred weapons system for pre-emptive nuclear war. Were an attack directed against Iran to be launched involving the deployment of B61 bunker buster nuclear bombs, these five countries, with Turkey and Italy in the forefront, would play a major strategic role.
The involvement of these fiveÂ ânon nuclear statesâÂ as major actors in a US sponsored pre-emptive nuclear war raises the issue of definition and categorization of nuclear weapons states. In the words of Time Magazine:
âIs Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike?âŚÂ Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?âŚ
Germanyâs air force couldnât possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?âŚ
Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands â and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them.âÂ (âWhat to Do About Europeâs Secret Nukes.â Time Magazine, December 2, 2009)
The Time report is careful not to address the fundamental question. Are Turkey and Italy nuclear weapons states? The B61s are described as a leftover from the Cold War. The issue of post 9/11 pre-emptive warfare is not mentioned:
âThese weapons are more than a historical oddity, says Time. They are a violation of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) âŚ that provides a legal restraint to the nuclear ambitions of rogue states.âÂ (Ibid).
While Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities as confirmed by the latest US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the nuclear weapons potential of these five countries âincluding delivery proceduresâ are formally acknowledged.
These five countries possess WMDs, yet they do not constituteâin the eyes of public opinionâ a threat to global security. Moreover, at no time have these five countries been designated asÂ ârogue statesâÂ orÂ âundeclared nuclear weapons statesâ.
US and NATO military documents attest to the fact that the B61 is the weapon of choice of pre-emptive nuclear war as opposed to the larger thermo-nuclear bombs of the Cold War era. Moreover, were military action to be launched against Iran, these five countries would play a key role in the delivery of B61 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads.
The US had originally supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to these fiveÂ ânon-nuclear statesâ, as well as to the United Kingdom, which is categorized as a Nuclear Weapons State (NWS). (See map below)
Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe and Turkey. While, some of these bombs were decommissioned as a result of political pressures, particularly in Belgium and Germany, the US âin liaison with NATOâ has launched a multi-billion dollar modernisation program of its tactical nuclear weapons arsenal.
As part of this European stockpiling and deployment, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005). This is all the more significant in view of theÂ âreconciliationâÂ and renewed bilateral military cooperation between Ankara and Tel Aviv in the wake of President Obamaâs March visit to Israel.
The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 (including the B61-11 earth penetrating warhead) in these fiveÂ ânon-nuclear statesâÂ are intended for targets in the Middle East. In accordance withÂ âNATO strike plansâ, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by theânon-nuclear statesâ) could be launched against Iran, Syria and Russia:
âThe approximately 480 nuclear bombs in Europe [350 according to 2007 estimate] are intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Syria.
The report shows for the first time how many U.S. nuclear bombs are earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear NATO countries. In times of war, under certain circumstances, up to 180 of the 480 nuclear bombs would be handed over to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey for delivery by their national air forces. No other nuclear power or military alliance has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries.â
Does this mean that Iran or Russia, which are potential targets of a nuclear attack originating from one or other of these five so-called non-nuclear states should contemplate defensive pre-emptive nuclear attacks against Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey? The answer is no, by any stretch of the imagination.
While theseÂ âundeclared nuclear statesâÂ casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case ofâdouble standardsâÂ by the IAEA and the âinternational communityâ is a understatement.
(Source: National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
While political pressures have been exerted in recent years towards decommissioning the stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, the arsenal of B61 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads remains fully operational. In the case of a conflict with Iran, mini nukes in the five non nuclear states would be actively deployed in liaison with NATO, which has fully endorsed the doctrine of nuclear pre-emption. According to the Pentagon:
âŚ keeping these weapons in Europe is that they allow NATO members to participate in shaping alliance nuclear policy [i.e. pre-emptive nuclear doctrine]. In this view, transatlantic ties are strengthened when the risks and costs of deploying and securing nuclear weapons are shared between the US and the respective host nations. (Quoted inÂ âParting words: Gates and tactical nuclear weapons in Europeâ.Â Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 14 July 2011)
Modernising the Mini-Nukes Arsenal
The decommissioning of the B61 nukes stockpiled in Western Europe and Turkey is a smokescreen. The European tactical nuclear weapons project is not being phased out as some reports have suggested. Quite the opposite. In 2010, the US National Nuclear Security Administration initiated a programÂ âto refurbish and extend the life of the B61 bombâÂ at an initial estimated cost of 4 billion dollars (Ibid). By 2012, the mini nukes refurbishing program had skyrocketed to $10 billion. (US Department of Defence, Case Independent Cost Assessment for B61 LEP, Washington, July 13, 2012)
Described by the Federation of American Scientists, asÂ âa gold plated nuclear bomb projectâ, this initiative consists in modernizing the existing pre-emptive nuclear arsenal of B61 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the five undeclared nuclear states. Moreover, a new version of the B61 bunker buster bomb is envisaged: the B61-12. The latter is to be developed for deployment in Western Europe and Turkey with the backing of NATO and the German government, (Federation of American Scientists, November 2012).
The Obama administration and Congress have pushed the program forward despite the enormous cost âŚ of refurbishing such complex weapons âŚ Advocates, including the Obama administration..
Germany: Nuclear Weapons Producer
Among the fiveÂ âundeclared nuclear statesâ,Â âGermany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster] bombsâ (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe.) In accordance withÂ âNATO strike plansâ, these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.
While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear weapons state, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. Moreover,Â The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company â EADSÂ , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by the powerful Daimler Group is Europeâs second largest military producer, supplying Franceâs M51 nuclear missile.
Germany imports and deploys tactical nuclear weapons from the US. EADS produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet Germany is classified as a non-nuclear state.
Dangerous Cross Roads
The tactical nuclear weapons deployed by the five non declared nuclear states are under national command and could be used in a pre-emptive US-NATO sponsored nuclear attack against Iran.
Tactical nuclear weapons are also deployed by Israel.
While it is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used at the outset of an attack, they could be envisaged as part of a scenario of military escalation.
It is, therefore, important that public opinion in Western Europe, Turkey and Israel be made aware of the consequences of pre-emptive warfare and that political pressures be exerted on the governments of these 5 countries, with a view to blocking the deployment of the B61 nuclear warheads in their respective military bases as well as withdrawing outright from ongoing US-NATO pre-emptive war plans directed against Iran.
Tactical nuclear weapons are in essence slated to be used against non-nuclear states in the middle East. Their use was contemplated in both the Iraq war in 2003 as well against Libya in 2011.
The focus on tactical nuclear weapons (mini-nukes) as part of the conventional war arsenal, does not mean that the the US and its allies have scrapped the idea of using their arsenal of larger strategic thermonuclear weapons. While the latter would not be used against a non-nuclear state in the Middle East, they are deployed and targeted against Russia, China and North Korea.
For those who believe the use of thermonuclear nuclear weapons belongs to a bygone era, think twice.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.
Weâre rapidly approaching a potential checkmate moment in the Mideast. There are 41 nations plus the U.S., for a total of 42 nations currently participating in military maneuvers off the coast of Iran. Despite all of the saber rattling about Iran, we are being deceived about the coming global battle, which will almost certainly begin in Syria, not Iran.
What we are seeing is both deadly serious and under-appreciated by most Westerners, who have grown weary of wars and rumors of wars in the Mideast long ago. Exhaustion aside, the events continue to march forward, the consolidation of forces and interests are forming until that final moment when we will have a single group of tyrannical global controllers left standing. A checkmate moment, where the aspirations of the globalists will have succeeded in a plan of global domination, consolidation of power, energy and wealth, all obtained from the blood and bodies of our family members fighting a war without our consent.
It was during the darkest hours of last Sunday morning, during the time that exists when sunrise seems so distant and the stillness of the night that keeps most of humanity in the Western hemisphere in a deep slumber. It was then I began to contemplate the best way to report the complexities behind the recent bombings near Damascus of missile storage facilities and the missiles themselves by Israel. Even at this early hour, the media already had their talking points well refined, preparing to hold captive their audience by asserting that the strikes took place in the readily accepted historical context of a limited Israeli action against their regional Arab enemy protagonists. A short, sharp, precise operation with a beginning and an end all in a tidy time period. Except itâs not. Not this time. We are seeing something much differentâŚ a step in the path to global war.
I was troubled by this inaccurate description of events, like many of you who are reading this, as we know that what we are seeing is part of something much larger and much more ominous take place. It was here, on this very site that I wrote about the beginning of World War IIIâŚ and that it would not start with Iran, but with Syria. The death race to Damascus by an agenda so nefarious that it could only be ascribed to an unseen evil. Yet, my treatise was called hyperbole by some, and described as the writings of an alarmist by others. While I discount the former, I happily embrace characterizations of the latter knowing that we are witnessing events that cannot be âwalked back.â We are watching the end stages of a larger agenda play out before us, while those in power and the media want us to believe otherwise.
It was during this darkness that I decided to turn on my television for updates from the media with which most Americans are so enamored, and by which they are so controlled. At this early hour, I stumbled across an infomercial selling DVDs of old television variety shows from a seemingly much simpler time, momentarily taking me away from my task.
Perhaps caught up by the motion of a man spinning several plates atop wooden sticks, my German Shepherd suddenly awoke from his light slumber and looked at the on-screen motion that seemed to be a staple of variety shows of the 1960â˛s. His gaze was captivated by the spinning motion of the plates and the man frantically moving from one side of the table to the other, trying to keep all of the plates spinning and airborne while adding even more. I watched my dog as he seemed mesmerized, staring at the television without even blinking for at least a full minute.
When the man finally lost control of the spinning plates and they all crashed to the floor amid the guffaws of the audience, my eyes met those of my Shepherd, who was now looking at me as if to ask whatÂ thatÂ was all about. It was actually an out-take of an act that was never broadcast, replaced instead by the successful act that concluded with all plates intact.
I suppose that seeing the reality of the events that never aired was the major selling point of the DVD. The things that are not broadcast during normal programming; the messes, the mistakes, breakage and what really takes place behind the scenes, but is carefully screened from the audience. I noticed that this man had two or three assistants who stood just outside of visual range, hidden from view, who quickly came to his aid after the broadcast feed was cut and once the curtain that separated the actor from the audience was closed. For my dog, however, the visual spell was broken once the plates stopped spinning and crashed to the floor.
There it is,Â I thought, in the dark of night and outside of the normal viewing times of network television, is the broader explanation of the events currently unfolding on the world stage.
The plate spinning of the Obama-Saudi-globalist cabal
If one looks beyond the two dimensionality of the media and the talking points from Washington, the three dimensional aspect of current events begins to emerge. Like the plate spinner whose first act began with one single plate on a stick, so too did the so-called âArab Spring,â which would be more appropriately named the âGlobalist Spring.â After the audience warm up act in Tunisia, the complete act opened with Egypt, after which more plates from the Obama-Saudi-Globalist agenda were added, further captivating the attention of the world.
Like my just-awakened dog and the on-screen action that captivated his stare, people have been watching the spinner add more and more plates, awestruck at this exhibit of talent. The audience anticipates a successful conclusion to this marvelous feat of balance and dexterity and is ready to cheer when the spinner removes the plates from their thin balancing posts, and the act successfully concludes neat and tidy to the television audience, with nothing broken.
Obama himself could be compared to the visible plate spinner in this act known as the Arab Spring. âGlobalist Spring,â that is, where the fate of nations, like plates atop thin sticks, are spun as props entertaining a global audience. Â Captivating the world by the many plates on sticks, he is the front man entertaining the world audience while the producers, the media and the globalists, quickly edit out any missteps, or broken plates, keeping the reality from the captive audience. Some breakage, however, cannot be edited out by the media and must be explained away in a different manner. Such was the case with Benghazi, and as is the case with the Israeli airstrikes on the missiles in Syria. Their explanation in place of edits transcend the realm of perception to that of deception.
While the globalist controlled media and power elite do their best to divert the publicâs attention from Benghazi and attempt to convince their captive audience that the Israeli missile strikes are limited, localized events, the truth is that both occurred during the same stage act. Different plates, but the stage and the show are the same.
Obama, the visible plate spinner, like his TV counterpart, has a revolving cadre of out-of-sight assistants that have included Hillary Rodham Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, and a long list of others. In addition to his assistants, we must also consider the executive producers for the show now underway. Some refer to them as the puppet masters, other, the paymasters. However defined, they are the ultimate producers of this and all of the stage acts we are seeing. They are the individuals who control the money and wealth, and now want to not only control,Â but ownÂ the future.
While the masses continue to watch the balancing act, what is taking place offstage that weâre not supposed to be seeing?
For those not as easily entertainedâŚ
Readers might recall my many reports about Benghazi, and that this entire operation was nothing more than a covert weapons-running operation to arm anti-Assad terrorists to destabilize and take down the Syrian government. Whether we refer to it as âDeath Race Damascusâ or âObamaâs real-world game of Risk,â the operation has placed the world in the beginning stages of World War III. Notice that the Israeli missile strikes took place just outside of Damascus, and Syria is Russiaâs âred lineâ in the sand.
Benghazi and the Israeli strikes near Damascus are not unrelated. The Israeli attacks in Syria are collateral effects of our covert operations throughout the Middle East and North Africa and in that manner, tangentially related to Benghazi. Benghazi was, and is, all about Syria. And Syria is not Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Egypt or Libya. Those countries imploded, while Syria is set to explode, and therefore enjoin other nations into a regional and ultimately, a world war.
For this reason, people need to fully understand the significance and secrets that full disclosure about Benghazi would reveal. You see, opening the curtains to expose the planners and producers of the Benghazi stage act would reveal secrets so closely held that it threatens the agenda of the Obama regime who are working on behalf of the Saudis and their globalist handlers. Such a misstep of full disclosure about Benghazi could cause a critical setback of an agenda advancing across the world stage where timing is critical.
For those not easily entertained or intellectually challenged by spinning plates, the situation playing out before us may also be compared to a game of three dimensional chess. Using this analogy, we are able to view the multi-dimensional board and the movement of chess pieces required to set up World War III. One board consists of players involving North Korea, Japan and China, while the second of three boards represents the entirety of the Middle East, and all of the proxy nations of China, Russia and the United States. Â But what about the elusive but critically important third board? It is on this level where the real story exists.
The third board: Who benefits?
It is here that one must pay very close attention to everything that is not being reported over the very visible reports we are intended to see. As I have asserted many times, we are in the midst of a proxy war that has created some very unusual alliances, and some very dangerous opposition. Superpower nations are using allied nation-states to fight battles in order to jockey for their ultimate fighting positions. You can read about these alliances and the minutia of the battles elsewhere. Here, I am attempting to draw your attention to the larger picture, the end result, and the end game scenarioâŚ because the key to understanding the alliances and actions exists and only make sense in the larger picture of this 3-D global chess game.
The third board represents a field of play that is virtually misunderstood by most and therefore, rarely mentioned in the context of the nation building and reconfiguration we have watched unfold over the last several years. It is a process underway for a reason, but not for any of the noble causes we are being told to believe.
It is at this level where a select group of people are making their moves that prompt those of all others. It is at this level that the international bankers, the globalists, the secret cabal of unseen forces are at work and playing to win. It involves a currency war, and a currency war is as much a war as one with bombs and bullets. We can see it with the international transfer of wealth. the manipulation of the gold reserves, and in other areas â but only if we look.
Quite simply, the motives behind global conflict can be found within the military-industrial complex operated at the highest levels of the internationalists, the bankers and financiers â the same surnames have been present in nearly all conflicts throughout history.
There is a firewall that exists between these global power elite and their objectives. It is a sovereign United States of America, much as it always has been in modern times. Now, however, we have been weakened from within, and our sovereignty is being significantly eroded through multiple and tenacious assaults against our freedoms and liberties. This is the result of a collective acquiescence and our lack of resistance to tyranny disguised as security, and immorality in many forms presented as tolerance. We are thus left in a weakened state, with a collective majority unable to think clearly or fight to regain the Godly values upon which our nation was founded. This has been by design, not default.
As our national moral compass has been compromised, so too has our ability to recognize the other assaults to our sovereignty, or our willingness to speak out against our own destruction. Specifically, we have an occupant of the White House who, by the admission of an unnamed senior member of his own staff, has an agenda to âkill the U.S. dollar,â the most widely held currency in the allocated reserves of many nations. On what planet, on which stage, in what venue does the killing of our national currency make any sense whatsoever? That is a question that has yet to be answered.
The only sense one could possibly make of this treasonous act is the ultimate destruction of the United States as a nation, as the last firewall of freedom.Â Who better to usher in our demise, then, is a man whose past is shrouded in mystery, and whose future intent is becoming clearer with each passing day. Ultimately, though, who would benefit from our destruction? Who benefits from a third world war, where millions will most certainly perish. The answer is clear, as we see parallel agendas of wars fought with bullets and bombs, and wars fought with food and wealth.
Once the plates stop spinning and nations have fallen, or the chessboard is cleared of the pawns, the only clear winners will be the architects who are behind this global perversity of power realignment. The winners will be the power elite, whose goal has always been to lock in their future by taking away ours. They will usher in a global currency, and ultimately control the wealth of the world not only for this generation, but for future generations.
So, while your focus is being directed to the flash-bangs of bombings designed to leave you stunned, understand the real objective. Itâs a fight for the future â your future â and the future of your offspring, who we have permitted to be sold into bondage through perpetual shooting wars and money wars. It is imperative that you see we are in the beginning stages of a global makeover, and prepare accordingly.
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann hostÂ The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of theÂ Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
In aÂ brochureÂ issued to personnel at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina obtained byÂ Danger Room, potential victims are told, âIt may be advisable to submit [rather] than to resist,â if they are attacked.
This comes just a day after it wasÂ reportedÂ that Jeffrey Krusinski, the Air Forceâs now former chief of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, was arrested for sexual assault.
The brochure contains several ârisk reductionâ recommendations and Sgt. Alexandria Mosness, a public affairs officer at Shaw, said that she thinks the brochure is current.
The brochure advises individuals being sexually assaulted in parking lots to âconsider rolling underneath a nearby auto and scream loud. It is difficult to force anyone out from under a car.â
When jogging or walking, the brochure recommends ârick [sic] reductionâ measures like, âWalk confidently and at a steady pace.â
Danger Roomâs Spencer Ackerman points out that the brochure âdoes not offer instruction to servicemembers onÂ notÂ committing sexual assault. Prevention is treated as the responsibility of potential victims.â
Brian Purchia, the spokesman for Protect Our Defenders, an advocacy group raising awareness of sexual assault within the military, called the brochure âan affront to victims.â
âThe Air Force should be passing out pamphlets to our men and womenÂ in uniformÂ on how not to commit sexual assault. âŚ This brochure is just the latest in a long history of failed programs and policies,â Purchia said to Danger Room. âThe militaryâs sexual assault prevention campaigns are rooted in a wrong headed 1950â˛s paradigmâ
While Purchia recognizes that rape-crisis counselorsÂ at times adviseÂ that there are certain circumstances in which fighting back against an assailant is not recommended, it should not be applied across the board.
âYou can always identify some circumstances,â Purchia said, âbut as a general ruleÂ researchÂ indicates and itâs generally understood that fighting back often can fend off the attacker and usually does not lead to greater injury.â
âTo any rational person this is completely backwards and shows the scope of epidemic,â he said. âFundamental reforms are needed â the reporting, investigation and adjudication of sexual assault must be taken out of the chain of command.â
During a Senate hearing today, Gen. Mark Welsh III, the Air Forceâs chief of staff and outgoing Air Force Secretary Michael Donley both said that taking adjudication of sexual assault out of the chain of command could pose a risk to âgood order and discipline.â
While the military has taken some small steps in that direction, it is far from what critics think it should be.
Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck HagelÂ proposedÂ a limited step to prevent commanders from overturning verdicts in criminal cases as they currently can.
This came after the commander of the Third Air ForceÂ overturned a sexual assault verdictÂ reached by a military jury, wiped the conviction from the conviction from the individualâs record and reinstated him to active duty.
The Pentagonâs annual report on sexual assault prevention and response will be released later today and will reportedly estimate around 26,000 instances of sexual assault according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). ThatÂ numberÂ is up from 19,000Â reported last year.
Perhaps most troubling is that only 3,374 were actually fully reported. This can at least partially be due to âvictimsâÂ fears of retaliation, including possible discharge from service or being overlooked for a promotion,â according to Hayes Brown ofÂ ThinkProgress.
While a 2011Â surveyÂ conducted by the Pentagon and just releasedÂ late last monthÂ indicated that around one of five women in the military say they were victims of unwanted sexual contact by another servicemember, theÂ numberÂ of full reports remains low.
Why that is the case is up for debate but it isnât all that hard to understand that women wouldnât want to go through the process of filing a full report when the conviction can simply be overturned.
It remains to be seen if legislation will pass on the Hill and if anything tangible is done to push back against the massive problem of sexual assault in the military besides telling potential victims to submit to their attacker.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The LieÂ and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can findÂ HERE.Â If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him atÂ admin@EndtheLie.com
Syrian rebels have abducted four UN peacekeepers monitoring a ceasefire line between Syria and the Israel-occupied Golan Heights, a UN peacekeeping spokesman has said.
A Syrian rebel group identified as the âYarmouk martyrs brigadeâ claimed responsibility for the act, saying the peacekeepers had been detained for their own safety after clashes erupted in the separation zone between Syria and Golan, Reuters reports. They further said the presence of Syrian government forces threatened the safety of the peacekeepers, as well asÂ âcriminal elementsâÂ in the area.
The rebel group made the announcement via their Facebook page, which was accompanied by a picture of four peacekeepers wearing the signature light-blue UN flak jackets marked âPhilippines.â
The peacekeepers were seized while on patrolÂ near the Syrian village of Jamla,Â the same area where 21 Filipino observers were taken and held for three days in March, a UN spokesperson said. The Yarmouk martyrs brigade was also responsible for the March abductions.
The rebel unit has suspected UN peacekeepers of shielding Syrian government troops, who the armed fighters accused of killing civilians during an army sweep of Wadi Raqat, a town in southern Syria, AP reports.
Kieran Dwyer, a spokesman for the UN, saidÂ âefforts are underway to secure their release now.â
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has strongly condemned the detention of the four peacekeepers and called for their immediate release. The UN chief called on all partiesÂ âto respect UNDOFâs freedom of movement and safety and security,âÂ as quoted by his spokesman.
The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) consists of some 1,000 troops and is only equipped with light arms, though the UN deployed additional armored personal carriers, security equipment and ambulances following the March incident.
UN peacekeeping forces have been in the Golan Heights since 1974.
Israel first captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 war. The country agreed to return the land to Syria in return for a peace agreement that was rejected by the Arab world.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syrian forces crossed the ceasefire line into the Golan Heights in an attempt to retake the territory. Syria’s troops were repelled by Israeli forces.
Israel annexed the Golan in 1981, though they returned about 5 percent of the territory to Syria. The land was merged into a demilitarized zone.
Two Bear H nuclear-capable bombers were detected flying into the militaryâs Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located, and Alaskaâs North Slope region by the Arctic and Chukchi Seas on April 28 and 29, military officials told theÂ Washington Free Beacon.
Lt. Cmdr. Bill Lewis, a spokesman with the U.S. Northern Command, confirmed the fighter intercept of the latest bomber incursion but declined to provide details.
âTwo U.S. F-22â˛s from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, were launched and visually identified Russian aircraft on the night of April 28, as the Russian Air Force flew standard out of area flights near Alaska,â Lewis said.
The bombers did not enter U.S. airspace, he said.
However, the Alaska ADIZ is a formal national security zone used by the military to monitor both civilian and military aircraft. The dispatch of F-22s is an indication the bomber flights posed a potential threat to U.S. territory.
The bombers were âwere visually identified by NORAD fighters,â Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said.
This is the second incident involving Russia and the airspace near Alaska, and the fifth incident involving Russian bombers since June. Back in late June, two Tu-95 Bear H bombers near Alaska were conducting âwar games,â which included mock simulated attacks on air defenses and strategic facilities, according to a Russian military spokesman.
Back in February, I reported that two Russian Bear bombers circled the U.S. territory of Guam, which is a key U.S. military hub in the Pacific.
While the current panderer-in-chief is set to make concessions to the Russians on missile defenses, just two days after this incident Northern Command announcedÂ issued a press releaseÂ that it would be cooperating with Russian military in implementing plans for a joint U.S.-Russian flight exercise that would be designed to counter hijacked aircraft.
âThe VIGILANT EAGLE exercise series has been an extraordinary and historic opportunity for NORAD and the Russian Federation to coordinate on the response to a mutually acknowledged hijacking threat,â said Joe Bonnet, Director of Joint Training and Exercises for NORAD and U.S. Northern Command. âFrom a participantâs perspective, it is more than a military exercise; it is creating lasting bonds and partnerships extremely valuable for the security of our nations.â
âThis yearâs exercise will continue building and strengthening the cooperation and partnership established between the two countries,â the statement reads.
To me this has to be one of the stupidest things to do. In fact, itâs next to the stupid ideas we have about bringing foreign troops on our soil to engage in counter terrorism training or training Afghan police officers. All the while we are teaching themÂ exactlyÂ how we do things. They are not teaching us how they do things. In fact, it seems not only stupid to me, but incredibly foolish.
Others have a problem with the way the Obama administration is working with the Russians as well.
âThe Russians continue to play the administration like a fiddle, sending signals that they still have a strategic air force and can project power while the U.S. continues to ground alert squadrons and unilateral disarms,â said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a former Alaska Ari Command commander.
âIs this the administrationâs idea of âreset relationsâ with Russia?â he asked.
Back in April McInerneyÂ said, âRussia continues to conduct aggressive offensive missile training in the Pacific against U.S. and Allied Forces.â
âWe should understand that they look at âresetâ differently than we do,â said the retired three-star general. âThey look at it as regaining their previous USSR position as a superpower while this administration is moving towards unilateral disarmament.â
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, a former director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), who has since left government, said that he has continued to take part in talks with the Russians on missile defense cooperation in much the same manner as he did previously.
Last month heÂ toldÂ the Beacon,Â âThese efforts were met with Russian intransigence. The Russian opposition and now simulated attacks âmeans to me that there is no way the Russians want to cooperate on missile defense in any meaningful way. We should not be conceding anything to the Russians. We should be pursuing our national security interests to defend this country and our allies.â
In other words, Obering believes Moscow will not be cooperating in any meaningful way with the United States. What a surprise, not!
The US should be looking after her own interests, not making concessions with the former Soviet Union.
There has been a lot in the news the last two days about Joanne Deborah Chesimard who is the first woman ever placed on the âFBI Most Wanted Terroristsâ list. Joanneâs connections with the Weather Underground and Obama mentor Bill Ayers have been much publicized. Rather than beat that story into the ground I thought I would take a moment to make a point that fails to be made often enough.
With all the constant rhetoric about the dangers of the American Patriot and right-wing-Christian terrorists, the facts still remain. The current list of âFBI Most Wanted Terroristsâ contains 32 people. 30 of those people are Muslims and two are left-wing liberals. In addition to Chesimard, Daniel Andreas San Diego is the other non-Muslim on the list.
Who is San Diego? He is an animal rights activist who is accused of involvement in two San Francisco bombings.
Below is a full list of âFBI Most Wanted Terroristsâ that can be found atÂ FBI.gov. We must always embrace the truth. Notwithstanding sick individuals like Timothy McVeigh, there is zero evidence that American Patriots are a greater terrorist risk than other groups. This is all about a leftist agenda and when someone brings up the conversation you should point them to this list. Donât be afraid to openly discuss the fact that most or all the recent mass shooters have been perpetrated by left-leaning criminals as well. I am not necessarily trying to blame the left today but, more so, trying to expose the truth and show that there is little to no reason to suspect that terrorists are going to start springing from right-wing ideologies. Bad people are bad people no matter how they worship or what candidate they vote for.
War is a horrible thing.Â Just ask anyone that has ever been in the middle of it.Â And in this day and age governments around the world possess weapons of such incalculable power that war should be unthinkable.Â In future wars, we could literally see millions of people killedÂ on a single day.Â Nobody should want that or look forward to that.Â Unfortunately, the next major regional war in the Middle East appears to be closer than ever.Â But nobody should want it to actually happen.Â During the next major regional war in the Middle East we will likely see death on a scale that is unprecedented.Â It won’t be like the wars of 1967 or 1973.Â It will likely be a fight to the death where nothing is held back.Â You see, the truth is that most Americans have no idea what is really going on in the Middle East.Â There are ancient grudges and ancient hatreds that go back for thousands of years.Â There is no “peace plan” that is going to suddenly make everything okay.Â The Middle East is a simmering volcano of hate and resentment that could erupt at any moment.Â That is why what is happening in Syria right now is so important.Â An Israeli airstrike in Damascus that reportedly was attempting to destroy a shipment of Fateh-110 missiles that Iran was sending to Hezbollah has brought Israel and Syria to the brink of war.Â In fact, Syria is calling the airstrike a “declaration of war” and is vowing retaliation.Â The Syrian government is saying that “Israeli aggression opens the door to all possibilities“, but they have not provided any specifics about what they plan to do.Â Meanwhile, Israel has made it very clear that they will do whatever is necessary to keep Fateh-110 missiles from getting into the hands of Hezbollah.Â With those missiles, Iranian-backed Hezbollah would have the capability of striking the heart of Tel Aviv with a very high degree of accuracy.Â So it is definitely understandable why Israel would not want Hezbollah to have those missiles.Â Just think about it – would you want Russia or China to deploy highly advanced missile systems in northern Mexico which could rain down hell on Los Angeles and Dallas in less than five minutes?Â Unfortunately, this gives Iran the perfect way to provoke a war between Israel and Syria.Â All they have to do is keep rolling trucks loaded with Fateh-110 missiles through war-torn Syria toward Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.Â Israel will feel forced to intervene, and the rest of the Islamic world will get angrier and angrier.
The explosions that rocked northern Damascus on Sunday were absolutely massive.Â It is being reported that they registered about two or three on the Richter scale, and enormous balls of fire that lit up the sky could be seen from all over Damascus.
Israeli warplanes bombed the outskirts of Damascus early Sunday for the second time in recent days, according to Syrian state media and reports from activists, signaling a sharp escalation in tensions between the neighboring countries that had already been exacerbated by the conflict raging in Syria.
Videos posted on the Internet by activistsshowed a huge fireball erupting on Mount Qassioun, a landmark hill overlooking the capital on which the Syrian government has deployed much of the firepower it is using against rebel-controlled areas surrounding the city.
So why did Israel do this?
Despite what the anti-Israel crowd is suggesting, Israel did not do this just to be mean.Â AsÂ ReutersÂ is reporting, Israel was specifically targeting Fateh-110 missiles that were on their way to Hezbollah…
Israel does not confirm such missions explicitly – a policy it says is intended to avoid provoking reprisals. But an Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the strikes were carried out by its forces, as was a raid early on Friday that U.S. President Barack Obama said had been justified.
A Western intelligence source told Reuters: “In last night’s attack, as in the previous one, what was attacked were stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah.”
These missiles would significantly change the balance of power if they got into the hands of Hezbollah.Â According toÂ the Times of Israel, Fateh-110 missiles would be a very serious threat not only to Tel Aviv – these missiles would also threaten cities all the way down to Beersheba…
Uzi Rubin, a missile expert and former Defense Ministry official, told the Associated Press that if the target was a consignment of Fatah-110 missiles, then such weaponry did constitute a âgame-changerâ: Fired from Syria or south Lebanon, these missiles, he said, could reach almost anywhere in Israel with high accuracy.
Rubin emphasized that he was speaking as a rocket expert and had no details about the reported strikes.
âIf fired from southern Lebanon, they can reach Tel Aviv and even [the southern city of] Beersheba,â Rubin said. He said the rockets are much five times more accurate than the Scud missiles that Hezbollah has fired in the past. âIt is a game-changer because they are a threat to Israelâs infrastructure and military installations,â he said.
So that is why Israel carried out these airstrikes.Â They feel like they simply cannot allow Hezbollah to have these weapons.Â And with Hezbollah’s track record, that is very understandable.
Unfortunately, these airstrikes have also brought the Middle East much closer to the next war.
According toÂ the Jerusalem Post, Syria is positioning units for a potential conflict with Israel…
Syria has stationed missile batteries aimed at Israel in the aftermath of alleged Israeli air strikes in the country, the website of Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen TV, considered close to the regime of President Bashar Assad, quoted a top Syrian official as saying on Sunday.
But Syria may choose not to retaliate against Israel directly.Â According toÂ WND, Syria may decide to allow jihadist groups to carry out their vengeance for them…
The Syrian government will soon declare it is opening its borders with Israel for Palestinian and other jihad groups to carry out attacks against the Jewish state, a senior Syrian official told WND.
Separately, informed Middle Eastern security officials said the Syrian army held a meeting Sunday afternoon with the leaders of the military wing of the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad terrorist group to discuss retaliation against Israel for the recent air strikes near Damascus.
According to those officials, Islamic Jihad and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah are coordinating a possible reaction to Israelâs reported strikes.
In any event, things are definitely becoming more unstable over in the Middle East.
So what would a war between Israel and Syria do to the already fragile global economy?
Well, a war between Israel and Syria would likely paralyze the entire region.Â Hezbollah and Hamas would almost certainly jump into the war on the side of Syria, and there is the potential that nations such as Iran, Egypt and even Jordan could get involved as well.
In such a scenario, the flow of oil from the Middle East could become interrupted for an extended period of time, and that would have serious consequences for the global economy.
Strong blasts hit the outskirts of Syriaâs capital early on Sunday, with reports saying that they were results of Israeli airstrikes on a military research center and Damascus Airport. Israel is thought to have carried out a similar attack days ago.
Syrian TV accused Israel of the attack and of being in alignment with rebel forces.
“The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army,”Â the report said.
The notion was backed by Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad, who said the attack proved that there is an alliance between Israel and Islamists trying to topple the Syrian government. In an interview with CNN he said the airstrikes are a “declaration of war” by Israel and that Syria would retaliate in its own time and way.
Massive explosions have been heard near Mount Qasioun in Damascus. The area hosts the Jamraya military research center, which came under Israeli attack earlier in January and marked the first incursion by Israel into Syrian airspace in six years.
A senior US official confirmed to NBC News that Israeli Air Force bombed the military research center.
The overnight Israeli strike reportedly targeted Iranian-supplied missiles to Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, a Western intelligence source told Reuters.Â “In last night’s attack, as in the previous one, what was attacked were stores of Fateh-110 missiles that were in transit from Iran to Hezbollah,”Â the source said.
There have also been reports that the airstrikes targeted the 104th and 105th brigades of the Syrian Republican Guards, a source told RT Arabic.
A senior Israeli official confirmed to AFP that the Israeli airstrike on Syria was carried out near Damascus Airport overnight, targeting Iranian missiles destined for Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah movement.
“The attack was very close to the airport, the target was Iranian missiles which were destined for Hezbollah,”Â he said.
Mount Qasioun and Damascus Airport are located in different parts of the city, so if both were targets of airstrikes, this would likely require a more complex coordinated attack.
There are reports of gunfire shots heard in outskirts of Damascus, apparently indicating that some rebel groups tried to seize the opportunity and went into offensive amid the commotion caused by the airstrikes. However, no major breakthroughs on their part were reported.
The rebel offensive however may give the Syrian government grounds to further accuse Israel of supporting the Syrian armed opposition by saying they had foreknowledge of the Israeli airstrikes and were prepared to move out.
Syria’s Ministry of Health did not confirm if there were any deaths or injuries.
Rumors fly as official info remains scarce
RT has managed to speak to local journalist Abdallah Mawazini, for a report on the latest developments.
âWhen the explosion happened in Damascus, all the houses were shaken. There was dust everywhere. Right now weâre receiving more information about the attack, which targeted the Jamraya military research center,”Â he told RT.Â “Everyone woke up, most of the people ran downstairs â to make sure they are safe. Now we are getting more information. The sound of the explosion was heard everywhere in Damascus. People are scared.â
While no official casualty number has been made public, rumors on Syrian social media say that at least 300 soldiers stationed at Mount Qasioun have been killed and hundreds of others injured, Mawazini said. Many Syrians are calling for retaliation as the possibility of a full-scale war with Israel is speculated upon.
During the attack, one Israeli jet was reportedly shot down by Syria’s Air Force, according to Hezbollah’s Manar TV channel, citing security sources in Damascus.Â Two Israeli pilots of the downed IDF jet have been taken to a military area in Damascus under Assadâs control, according to reports in Lebanese and Syrian media.
War spillover into region feared
There has been no immediate official comment from Israel. “We don’t respond to this kind of report,”Â an Israeli military spokeswoman told Reuters.
Israelâs Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the security cabinet on Thursday night to approve the airstrike, a source told Reuters.
Israeli military has called up several thousand reservists earlier this week for what it called a “surprise” military exercise on its border with Lebanon, AP reported.
Earlier this week, the IDF deployed two Iron Dome batteries near the cities of Haifa and Safed in northern Israel, amid tensions along the border in that area.
Video footage uploaded onto the Internet showed a massive ball of fire rising into the sky. RT could not immediately verify the authenticity of the videos.
âUntil we get a clear picture of what exactly was targeted itâs difficult to speculate why the targeting took place. Iâd say that the US gave Israel the green light for the previous attack in past months and reportedly gave them an OK to launch future strikes. So this probably isnât something that happens on the spur of the moment,âÂ news editor at antiwar.com Jason Ditz told RT.
âOf course, Syria is unlikely, being in the middle of a civil war, to launch much of retaliation against Israel directly, but at the same time this probably undermines some of the more Islamist factions in the Syrian rebels especially with reports that they are benefiting from these airstrikes,âÂ he added.
In the meantime Netanyahu is leaving on Sunday afternoon for a five-day trip to China that will focus on economic ties and regional issues such as Iran, Syria and Egypt. His departure however was delayed by two hours to make room for a security cabinet meeting, according to Haaretz newspaper.
The Israeli Air Force conducted an airstrike on Syrian territory onÂ Friday, reportedly targeting a shipment of advanced missiles. Unnamed US officials claimed that the missiles had been en-route from Iran to Lebanonâs Hezbollah.
Among the varying descriptions of the actual rockets, Fateh 110s have come up, which are advanced enough to strike Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon and, therefore perceived as a threat by Israel.
On Saturday, before Sundayâs overnight strike, US President Barack Obama stated that Israel has the right to defend against the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah.
“I’ll let the Israeli government confirm or deny whatever strikes that they’ve taken,”Â Obama said in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo.
Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yaâalon earlier told journalists that any alleged delivery of Syrian weapons to Hezbollah would be considered a “red line.” Ya’alon then said Israel would not permit “sophisticated weapons” to fall into the hands of “Hezbollah or other rogue elements.”
Obama has also said in the past that the crossing of a âred lineâ would warrant further action from outside. This was in relation to the possibility that Assad forces may have used chemical weapons against Syrians â a claim that is still being investigated, with no evidence so far.
Nonetheless, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Thursday that the US may now consider arming the Syrian opposition â something the US has shied away from openly doing in the two years since the start of the Syrian uprising.
Asked directly if the administration was reconsidering its position on that option, Hagel said “yes”.“Arming the rebels â that’s an option,” he said. “We must continue to look at options.”
The conflict in Syria has entered its third year. According to UN estimates, at least 70,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Bashar Assad began in March 2011.