VIDEO- An Imperialist Springtime? 
Libya, Syria, and Beyond http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/amin280412.html
Samir Amin Interviewed by Aijaz Ahmad

Samir Amin: You see, the US establishment -- and behind the US establishment its allies, the Europeans and others, Turkey as a member of NATO -- derived their lesson from their having been surprised in Tunisia and Egypt: prevent similar movements elsewhere in the Arab countries, preemptthem by taking the initiative of, initiating, the movements.  They have tested their experience in Libya, and they have tested it in Libya with success, in the sense that, in Libya, at the start we had no [broad popular] movement . . . against Gaddafi.  We had small armed groups, and one has to question immediately . . . where those arms were coming from.  They were -- we know it -- from the beginning, from the Gulf, with the support of Western powers, and the US.  And attacking the army, police, and so on.  And the same day, not even the next day, those very people who qualified themselves as "liberation forces," "democratic liberation forces," called upon NATO -- the French and then NATO -- to come to the rescue, and that allowed for the intervention.  That intervention has succeeded in the sense that it destroyed the regime of Gaddafi.  But what is the result of the success?  Is it democratic Libya?  Well, one should laugh at that when one knows that the president of the new regime is nobody else than the very judge who condemned to death the Bulgarian nurses.  What a curious democracy it is!  But it has also led to the dislocation of the country on a Somalian pattern: that is, local powers -- all of them in the name of so-called "Islam," but local warlords -- with the destruction of the country.  One can raise the question: was this the target of the intervention -- that is, the destruction of the country?
I'll come back to this main question, because they tried to implement the same strategy immediately afterward on Syria -- that is, introducing armed groups from the very beginning.  From the north through Turkey, Hatay particularly.  The so-called "refugee camps" in Hatay are not refugee camps -- there are very few refugees -- they are camps for training mercenaries to intervene in Syria.  This is well documented by our Turkish friends.  And Turkey as a NATO power is part of the conspiracy in that case.  And similarly with Jordan, introducing from the south, with the support -- not only neutrality but, I think, active support -- of Israel, through Daraa, armed groups in the south.
Facing that in Syria we have objectively a situation similar to the one of Egypt: that is, a regime which a long, long time ago had legitimacy, for the same reasons, when it was a national-popular regime but lost it in the time of Hafez Assad already -- it moved to align itself with neoliberalism, privatization, etc., leading to the same social disaster.  So, there is an objective ground for a wide, popular, social-oriented uprising.  But bypreempting this movement, through the military intervention of armed groups, the Western imperialist powers have created a situation where the popular democratic movement is . . . hesitating.  They don't want to join the so-called "resistance" against Bashar Assad; but they don't want to support the regime of Bashar Assad either.  That has allowed Bashar Assad to successfully put an end, or limits, to external intervention, in Homs and on the boundary of Turkey in the north.  But opposing state terror to the real terrorism of armed groups supported by foreign powers is not the answer to the question.  The answer to the question is really changing the system to the benefit of, through negotiations with, the real popular democratic movement.  This is the challenge.  And this is the question which is raised.  We don't know, I don't know, I think nobody knows how things will move on: whether the regime, or people within the regime, will understand that and move towards real reform by opening, more than negotiations, a re-distribution of the power system with the popular democratic movement, or will stick to the way of meeting explosions just brutally as they have done until today.  If they continue in that direction, finally they will be defeated, but they will be defeated to the benefit of imperialist powers.
Now, what is the real target of imperialism, in Syria and in the region?  It is not at all bringing democracy.  It is destroying societies just as they have destroyed the society of Libya.  If you take the example of Iraq, what have they done?  They have replaced the real dictatorship of Saddam Hussein by three uglier dictatorships: two in the name of religion, Shia and Sunni, one in the name of so-called "ethnicity," Kurds, which are uglier even than Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.  They have destroyed the country by systematic assassination -- I have no other word for that.  In addition to hundreds of thousands of people who were bombed in humanitarian bombings and so on, the systematic assassination of the cadres of the regime: scientists, doctors, engineers, professors of universities, even poets, and so on -- all the real elite of the nation.  That is destroying the country.  This is the target of imperialism in Syria.  What does the so-called Liberation Army of Syria claim to have as its program?  That we should eradicate the Alawis, the Druzes, the Christians, the Shia.  When you add those four "minorities," you come to 45% of the population of Syria.  What does it mean?  It means democracy?  It means the ugliest possible dictatorship and the destruction of the country.
Now, who has interest in that?  This is the common interest of three intimate allies: the US, Israel, and the Gulf countries.  The US.  Why?  Because the destruction of the societies of the region is the best way to prepare the next stage, which is the destruction of Iran, with a view of the containment and possibly rolling back of major "emerging" countries, the dangerous ones, China and Russia (and potentially, if India is naughty, India -- but India is not naughty, for the time being).  That is the target.  It implies the destruction of the societies of the Middle East, including that of Iran, as a major target.  This project of destruction of societies, accompanied with the continuation of lumpen-development, is also the target of Israel.  Because, if Syria is split into four or five insignificant, confessional, small states, it allows for further easy expansion of the process of Israel's colonization.  It is also the target of the Gulf.  Well, it is almost a farce to see today the Emir of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, standing with the Westerners Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron, as the leaders of the struggle for democracy.  One can only laugh.  But their hegemony in the region in the name of Islam -- in the "name," because there are different possible understandings of Islam of course -- implies the destruction of countries like Egypt basically, because, if Egypt is standing on her feet, then the hegemony of the Gulf is, you know, what was the Gulf in the time of Nasser, in the days of Nasser?  So they have this in common.
And they are supported, within the societies, by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Therefore, I would conclude by that.  We should look at the Muslim Brotherhood not as an "Islamic" party.  The criterion for qualifying and judging organizations, parties, is not whether they are "Islamic" or whether they are "secular," but whether they are reactionary or progressive.  And when we look at the Muslim Brotherhood, on all real issues, they are against the strikes of the working class, they are against the resistance of poor peasants, they are for privatization, they are in favor of the dismantling of public service, which means that they are fully aligned with the most reactionary forces.  This is a reactionary party using Islam as a front.  This is the real criterion.
This is the global picture of what are the strategic targets of imperialists and their internal allies, reactionary forces, within the societies of the Middle East.

In Photos: LA Unveils Arms Ship Perpetrators, Suleiman Hails Achievement http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=19759&cid=274

Local Editor The Lebanese Army (LA) confirmed Saturday the confiscation of weapons on the board of the ship carrying weapons to Syria' rebels. According to a statement issued by the LA, "the army intercepted off the northern coast the Sierra Leonean-flagged commercial vessel "Lutfallah2" on Friday." "The LA accompanied by the relevant authorities inspected the vessel and confiscated three containers with a large quantity of assorted arms as well as heavy, medium and light ammunitions," it clarified. Moreover, the statement unveiled that the LA detained eleven of the ship's crew members who are of various Arab and foreign nationalities. Commenting on the incident, the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman hailed the LA's success in intercepting the ship. "The army's detection of the ship is part of the Lebanese state's decision to preserve the Lebanese civil security and to prevent it from being an open ground for the disputes of others," Suleiman said. He further stressed that Lebanon mustn't turn to a corridor for settling accounts especially that it had paid a great human and materialistic price." "The Lebanese army and security forces must remain stressing remain completely vigilant to deter any attempt to create strife or instability in Lebanon or affect its ties with nearby fraternal states given the situation in the region," Suleiman confirmed. On another hand, Lebanese state commissioner to the military court Judge Saqr Saqr referred the ship's crew to immediate arrest and investigation.

Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador to Egypt “for consultation” and temporarily closed its embassy and consulate in Cairo. http://EndtheLie.com/2012/04/29/saudi-arabia-recalls-ambassador-to-egypt-closes-embassy/#ixzz1tabd7vZj

Saudi State media claims the move was prompted by “unjustified protests” in Egypt and attempts by demonstrators  to storm the Saudi Embassy and consulate that “threatened the safety of its employees.”The protests were sparked after the prominent Egyptian human rights lawyer Ahmed el-Gezawi was detained in the Saudi city of Jeddah earlier this month.Saudi authorities accused Gezawi of smuggling drugs into the country, but the Egyptian demonstrators claim he was locked up for insulting King Abdullah.Hundreds of Egyptian protestors surrounded the Saudi Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday demanding Gezawi’s “immediate” release. The Egypt-based  Arabic Network for Human Rights Information claims he was detained after being sentenced in absentia to one year in prison and 20 lashes for criticizing the Saudi government.The group also says Gizawi was targeted for his advocacy of Egyptian detainees in Saudi prisons. Gizawi has filed several cases in Egyptian courts against Saudi Arabia for arresting and allegedly torturing Egyptian nationals in the Kindgom.A Saudi Embassy statement disagrees, saying Gazawi has not been convicted or sentenced for any crime. Rather, it maintains he was detained at Jeddah airport after 20,000 anti-anxiety pills were allegedly found in his luggage.Gizawi’s family claims that he and his wife had travelled to Saudi Arabia to perform the omra, a minor pilgrimage to Islam’s holiest sites in Mecca and Medina.However, the Saudi statement further alleges Gazawi was not garbed in a pilgrim’s clothes, a fact they say contradicts his family’s claim he had entered the country to perform a religious rite.The religious circumstances surrounding his arrest have further infuriated Egyptians, prompting calls for the expulsion of the Saudi Ambassador following Gazawi’s detention.Egyptian activists have long accused their government of turning a blind eye to systematic abuses committed against their citizens in Saudi Arabia. They claim Cairo is afraid to stand up to the wealthy and influential Saudi rulers.

PressTV - Saudis hold anti-regime demonstrations in Eastern Province

 

State Dept Reveals 21st Century NATO’s Global Priorities
Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, Apr 27 2012

The State Dept’s top Eurasia hand addressed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’s Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia on Apr 26 to present Washington’s perspective on and expectations of next month’s NATO summit. In a presentation titled “The Chicago Summit and US Policy,” Principal Deputy Asst Sec for European and Eurasian Affairs Tina Kaidanow laid out what the military alliance’s main powerhouse and financial backer demands of its 27 allies and in so doing indicated many of the top geopolitical objectives of her department and the US government as a whole for the upcoming years. Commenting on the fact that the May 20-21 gathering of over fifty heads of state from nations supplying troops for the longest war in her nation’s history, that in Afghanistan, will occur in Chicago, only the second NATO summit in the US and “the first ever outside of Washington,” Kaidanow reiterated the main purpose of the world’s only military bloc:

Our hosting of the Summit is a tangible symbol of the importance of NATO to the US, as well as an opportunity to underscore to the US people the continued value of NATO to the security challenges we face today. NATO is vital to US security. More than ever, the Alliance is the mechanism through which the US confronts diverse and difficult threats to our security. Our experiences in the Cold War, in the Balkans, and now in Afghanistan prove that our core interests are better protected by working together than by seeking to respond to threats alone as individual nations.

What the House members listening to her, if not the casual reader, would understand by the above comments is that NATO is the chief vehicle employed by the State Dept, White House and Pentagon to advance US political, economic and military interests in Eurasia and increasingly the rest of the world. As such, it’s well worth the US’s effort to provide the preponderance of its funding and military assets and further engineer its evolution into an expanding, ultimately global, military-political network. Kaidanow included an elementary school primer-level synopsis of NATO’s history from its founding:

For 40 years, we stood united in purpose against the specter of communism. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO helped to rebuild Central and Eastern European countries while integrating them into the trans-Atlantic community of democratic states.

The latter was accomplished by absorbing every former Soviet ally in the Warsaw Pact, and three past Soviet republics, into the alliance from 1999-2009, in the process conscripting troops from every one of them for deployment to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. No troops from the Warsaw Pact except the Soviet Union had been deployed outside Eastern Europe during the entire Cold War period. Her presentation dutifully echoed that of her boss, Sec State Clinton, in the latter’s speech at the World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference on Apr 3. The US is the only NATO member whose leading officials speak authoritatively in advance of the outcome, in fine detail, of the upcoming summit as the nation effectively determines the agenda, with a friendly nod in the direction of its fellow NATO Quint states, Britain, France, Germany and Italy, but nevertheless calling all the important shots. One wonders why, except for a vain propensity for pageantry and pomposity, summits are held at all, given that the results have been decided upon long in advance. Early in her talk Kaidanow invoked the new Strategic Concept adopted at the last NATO summit in 2010, particularly highlighting the bloc’s Article 5 mutual military assistance (war) clause, affirming:

First and foremost, NATO remains committed to the Article 5 principle of collective defense.

That article is responsible for the stationing of 152,000 troops, at peak strength, from 50 nations in Afghanistan. When Kaidanow spoke of integrating the twelve Eastern European nations incorporated into NATO from 1999-2009 into the trans-Atlantic community, she was in fact if not openly confirming the practical results of NATO expansion: To provide the US and its Western allies with air, infantry, naval, radar and drone surveillance, missile, strategic airlift, cyber warfare and other bases and facilities east of the former Berlin Wall and legionaries for neocolonial wars and military occupations in the Balkans, Asia and Africa. She has been no disinterested observer in that process. In her current position and in a post that preceded it, Kaidanow has cultivated and consolidated the power of what are without dispute Washington’s two most favored and pampered satraps, Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili and Kosovo’s Hashim Thaci, than whom there are no less savory and more malicious heads of state in the world. If the sociopathic ghoul in Kosovo and the megalomaniacal self-styled reincarnation of the medieval King Davit IV in Georgia are indicative of the US’s political alliances, and if an empire can be judged by the foreign stooges it employs, then Washington has plummeted to a new imperial nadir.

Like most of the current US foreign policy elite, Kaidanow cut her teeth in the Balkans in the 1990s, her first State Dept assignments being in the US embassies in Serbia (1995-1997) Bosnia (1997-1998) and Macedonia (1998-1999), in the last instance focusing on neighboring Kosovo. She attended the infamous Rambouillet conference in Feb 1999 where the US delegation headed by Sec State Madeleine Albright threw down the gauntlet to Yugoslavia with the infamous Appendix B ultimatum and set the stage for the 78-day war that began on Mar 24. Rambouillet was also the debut of US asset Thaci, then an underworld kingpin and head of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, who was even then being groomed as the head of state he became in 2008 ahead of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February of that year. Four years later a majority of the world’s nations still don’t recognize his organized crime-ridden fiefdom as a nation. Kaidanow was the Chief of Mission and Charge d’Affaires at the US Office in Kosovo from Jul 2006 to Jul 2008, until the Bush 43 administration appointed her the first US ambassador on Jul 19 of the latter year. In 2009, as Deputy Asst Sec State for European and Eurasian Affairs (her position as Principal Deputy Asst Sec, a promotion, was obtained last July), she visited Georgia a year after the Saakashvili regime invaded South Ossetia, thereby provoking a five-day war with Russia, and met with Defense Minister Bachana Akhalaia to discuss modernizing the nation’s armed forces (described as “reforms”), the impending deployment of US Marine Corps-trained Georgian troops to Afghanistan to serve under NATO command and the US-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership signed four months after the war of the preceding year. She returned two months afterward for the same purpose.

In her Apr 26 appearance before the House committee, she hailed NATO as an alliance of “like-minded states who share our fundamental values of democracy, human rights, and rule of law.” NATO’s first war, against Yugoslavia thirteen years ago, and its partnerships with nations in former Soviet space have produced the likes of Hashim Thaci and Mikheil Saakashvili. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Speaking of goals to be discussed and promoted at the Chicago summit, she said:

In addition to being a collective security alliance, NATO is also a cooperative security organization. Unlike an ad hoc coalition, NATO can respond rapidly and achieve its military goals by sharing burdens. In particular, NATO benefits from integrated structures and uses common funding to develop common capabilities.

That is, NATO is a mechanism for the permanent military integration of European states for the purpose of the US securing auxiliary troops for wars outside the Euro-Atlantic zone. Concerning the first of three main items of discussion at the summit, the war in Afghanistan, Kaidanow asserted:

The Summit will make clear that NATO will not abandon Afghanistan after the ISAF mission concludes. In Chicago, the Alliance will reaffirm its enduring commitment beyond 2014 and define a new phase of cooperation with Afghanistan.

As to the true and residual purpose of the Afghan campaign, she added:

We must continue our efforts to develop NATO’s role as a global hub for security partnerships.

This is what Afghanistan has been used as the crucible for. It relates to the third point, building worldwide military partnerships, regarding which one is reminded of Aesopian cautionary tales about being offered cooperation by wolves and lions. Upon hearing such propositions, a sensible creature starts inching backward into the sheep pen or out of the lair. The other priority at next month’s summit is what both Kaidanow and Clinton before her referred to as critical defense capability requirements, pressuring allies to cough up the funds to ensure it, with the former saying:

NATO’s ability to deploy an effective fighting force in the field makes the Alliance unique. Its capacity to deter and respond to security challenges will only be as successful as its forces are able, effective, interoperable, and modern. The US is modernizing its presence in Europe at the same time that our NATO Allies, and NATO as an institution, are engaged in similar steps. This is a clear opportunity for our European Allies to take on greater responsibility. The US continues to encourage Allies to meet the 2% benchmark for defense spending and to contribute politically, financially, and operationally to the strength and security of the Alliance.

She, like Clinton, accentuated several key projects in Europe, the most important of which is the US-created European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system. She acknowledged commitments already obtained to that end in Poland, Romania, Turkey and Spain and said:

We would welcome additional Allied contributions.

Another summit item is the further integration and expansion of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Lest anyone be confused about the purpose of those and mistake them as in any way defensive in character, the following comments from Kaidanow will disabuse them of the notion:

Allies contributed more combat power in Libya than in previous operations. Almost 90% of all air-to-ground strike missions in Libya were conducted by European pilots, as compared to 10% in the Kosovo air campaign in 1999. However, Libya demonstrated considerable shortfalls in European ISR capabilities as the US provided one quarter of the ISR sorties, nearly half of the ISR aircraft, and the vast majority of analytical capability. This past February, NATO defense ministers agreed to fund the Alliance Ground Surveillance program. The five drones that comprise this system will provide NATO with crucial information, including identifying potential threats, monitoring developing situations such as humanitarian crises, and distinguishing possible targets for air strikes.

She also spoke of the now over eight-year patrol of the Baltic Sea sky by NATO warplanes which this year has been extended to 2018, which is to say in perpetuity, revealing an interesting link along the way:

This helps assure the security of allies in a way that is cost effective, allowing them to invest resources into other important NATO operations such as Afghanistan.

Kaidanow also assured her congressional interlocutors,again in advance, that next month’s NATO summit will endorse the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review. Doing so “will reaffirm NATO’s determination to maintain modern, flexible, credible capabilities that are tailored to meet 21st century security challenges. The DDPR will identify the appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities that NATO needs to meet these challenges.” She then touted the role of NATO’s global partnership arrangements, “working with a growing number of partners around the world,” as they “allow the Alliance to extend its reach, act with greater legitimacy, share burdens, and benefit from the capabilities of others.” Regarding which regions among others the expanding military partnerships will be focused on, Kaidanow stated:

In light of the dramatic events of the Arab Spring and NATO’s success in Libya, we envision a particular focus on further engagement with partners in the wider Middle East and North Africa region.

She also promoted a new category of nations being cultivated for full NATO accession called aspirant countries, currently Bosnia, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro, which are “all working closely with Allies to meet NATO criteria so they may enter the Alliance.” Regarding the most controversial of those four candidate nations, Georgia, she insisted:

US security assistance and military engagement support the country’s defense reforms, train and equip Georgian troops for participation in ISAF operations, and advance its NATO interoperability. In January, Obama and Saakashvili agreed to enhance this cooperation to advance Georgian military modernization, defense reform, and self-defense capabilities. US support for Georgia’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders remains steadfast, and our non-recognition of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not change.

The US makes decisions for the military bloc it created and its 27 allies rubber-stamp them. With the results already determined, the claim by NATO that it is an alliance of equals and that their summits are in any many deliberative is given the lie. What has already been decided, as confirmed by Kaidanow on Apr 26, is that NATO will remain the world’s only nuclear alliance, one which will continue stationing US strategic weapons on air bases in European countries under NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement. That NATO military forces, including NATO Training Mission Afghanistan, will remain in Afghanistan long past 2014. That the US will steadily expand its interceptor missile system from one end of Europe to the other under NATO auspices. That the US and NATO will continue to move military forces and equipment to Russia’s borders. That the hallmark of NATO mutual obligations is the bloc’s Article 5, which commits all members to intervene, up to and including going to war, on behalf of any member state which requests intervention. That NATO will be used to recruit national contingents from scores of nations for military actions like those in Afghanistan and Libya. That NATO will continue to build a global military network even beyond its 80 or so current members and partners. That the US-led organization will even more aggressively promote itself as the only international military intervention force.

VIDEO- Grant F. Smith: The Rise of AIPAC

Libyan weapons seized in Lebanon- headed for NATO's terrorists in Syria http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2012/04/libyan-weapons-seized-in-lebanon-headed.html

Libyan weapons seized in Lebanon- headed for NATO's terrorists in Syria http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2012/04/libyan-weapons-seized-in-lebanon-headed.html

Only the first 20 seconds is relevant, the rest is the usual media perception management!


Weapons bound for Syria seized in Lebanon by euronews-en

Who organized this shipment? 

Since we know NATO’s goons are running Libya, simply connect the dots.

Lebanese authorities seized a large consignment of Libyan weapons including rocket-propelled grenades and heavy calibre ammunition from a ship intercepted in the Mediterranean, the army said on Saturday.

Labelling on one box said it contained fragmentation explosives, and several identified them as coming from Libya.

One was marked "Tripoli/Benghazi SPLAJ", referring to Libya's formal name during the 42-year rule of Muammar Gaddafi - the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Another was stamped Misrata, the Libyan town which formed a base for rebels who overthrew Gaddafi last year in one of several uprising which swept the Arab world.

Misrata is contained with the 'independant' Eastern Libyan state that is aNATO protectorate

This "independent" eastern Libya would-be emirate is already recognized by a few countries, Sarkozy's France included. No wonder; it is already configured as a NATO protectorate.

Therefore these weapons, originating from Libya, would have had to leave with the full knowledge of  NATO. It would be pretty hard to think otherwise.

A thought-  Though this type of warfare would be called a covert,  if you have been paying attention long enough, you realize just how overt and in your face this weapons shipment really is. It has been very clear for a long, long time now that NATO has it's sites set on Syria.




You may recall that after the NATO bloodbath in Libya there was much fretting about the Libyan armaments falling into the 'wrong' hands....


There were a number of concerns expressed at that time. Scenarios.
I entertained one myself

 "Al-Qaeda's North African branch, AQIM, has expanded from northern Niger, Mali and Mauritania into northern Nigeria and southern Senegal.

How swimmingly does that work out for the Western/NATO world army?
The seed planted with news of looting in Libya. Al quaeda/quaida. Always there when western powers need them.

Reviewing: We have armed activists and Al quaeda flooding into Syria. 
What we need is a people's army.. Yes, a people's army for all the fighters and arms to flow to
Cue: Free Syrian Army.
Is this for real?
Or, are these Al Quaeda members imported in from elsewhere?

Weapons from Libya- check!
"Free Syrian Army' appearing - check!
Who was instrumental in making this happen- Why our great AVAAZ  humanitarian Wissam Tarif- from Lebanon

Recall this? 

The Telegraph has also learned that preliminary discussions about arms supplies took place when members of the Turkish-based Syrian National Council [SNC] — the country's main opposition movement — visited Libya earlier this month.

"The Libyans are offering money, training and weapons to the Syrian National Council," added Wissam Tariff, a human rights campaigner with links to the SNC.

And AVAAZ.
The scummiest human rights organization of them all. Or maybe one of many?


Back to today's weapons confiscation-

The army said in a statement the weapons were found in three containers carried by the Sierra Leone-flagged Letfallah II, which was impounded along with its 11-man crew and taken to a navy port in Beirut.

Khafaji said a broker from Lebanon (Wissam Tarif?) had made contact, asking originally for a shipment of 12 containers of "general cargo" to be shipped from Libya to Lebanon. In the end, after two days' delay, the ship left with just the three containers, he said. Incredible. Truly. How many Syrians would NATO's terrorists have killed with these weapons?



Some further news-
Syria takes Ban Ki-moon to task. Justifiably. For his one sided condemnations which serve to embolden the NATO terrorists-

Tishrin said Ban has avoided discussing rebel violence in favour of "outrageous" attacks on the Syrian government.

 "The continued disregard of the international community and its cover for armed groups' crimes and terrorist acts ... is considered as direct participation in facilitating and carrying out the terrorism to which Syria is subjected," the editorial said.

"Such a stance seemingly encourages those groups to go on committing more crimes and terrorist acts," Tishrin said.

It most certainly does.

-The Syrian capital was hit by four explosions on Friday that left at least 11 people dead and dozens wounded.
- Military units stationed off the Mediterranean foiled an infiltration attempt by "armed groups" from the sea in the early hours of the day.

How come whenever NATO's extremist  nut jobs appear, suicide bombers blow themselves up?

-There was also a horrific suicide bombing, that killed many.

SYRIAWATCH- DRUZE ''LEADER'' AND ''LIKUD MEMBER'' SAYS OPPOSITION IN SYRIA WANTS PEACE WITH ISRAHELL

Should Assad GO?http://pomed.org/blog/2012/04/should-assad-go-congress-has-not-decided.html/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=should-assad-go-congress-has-not-decided#.T5z91KuoMuM

Geoffrey Aronson writes that U.S. should rethink its policy towards Syria. By demonizing Assad’s regime, Aronson says that the U.S. has “walked away from the table” and dissolved all hope of “mounting a insider’s coup.” Lack of White House initiative has left the U.S. not just leading from behind, but being dragged in from behind by the Gulf States and oppposition groups
Druze lawmaker and Likud Member Ayoub Kara said that talks with Syrian opposition members reveal that they will “strive for peace with Israel.”

WESTERN PUPPET,ZIONIST AND NATO CHEERLEADER ,TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTER FRAUD SAYS HE WILL OWN ''NEW MIDDLE EAST'' http://www.news.az/articles/turkey/59096

Davutoglu hails Turkey’s ‘pioneering’ role in the Middle East.

Turkey is set to carve itself a primary role in shaping the Middle East as it guides the “winds of change” in the region, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said yesterday.“A new Middle East is about to be born. We will be the owner, pioneer and the servant of this new Middle East,” Davutoglu told Parliament after attracting criticism from opposition parties over Ankara’s Syria policy.Davutoglu criticized the opposition parties that have rejected Ankara’s stance on Syria, saying it was not possible to understand those who embraced “autocratic regimes” instead of the people of the Middle East.“Dealing with Syria is not a matter of choice, but an obligation,” the minister said, adding that Turkey would be involved in every step of the process to help the Arab republic attain peace.The minister said the government had advised the Syrian administration to make reforms even before the “Arab awakening” had started. But when they saw how Damascus turned the country into an “open prison” for its people, Turkey sided with the latter, he added.Replying to criticism that the government had interfered in Syria too much at the expense of neglecting domestic issues, Davutoğlu said critics had misinterpreted the Zeitgeist and wrongly perceived what was happening in Syria.“The era of policies [such as] ‘wait and see’ and following behind big powers has ended,” the minister said, adding that Turkey would not become involved in any policy that did not originate from Ankara.The minister rebuked the opposition for failing to understand the government’s foreign policy.“Turkey is no longer a country which does not have self-confidence and is waiting for foreign approval [in its policies],” Davutoglu said.Turkey now has “puissance,” Davutoglu said. “Even your dreams can’t and won’t reach the place where our power has come to.” 

[ED NOTES:READ NEXT ARTICLE,WHERE ISRAHELLI OFFICAL MET WITH SYRIAN OPPOSITION ON TURKISH SOIL RECENTLY MY DEAR READERS...AS FARAS HIS CLAIM TURKEY FOLLOWING BIG POWERS AS AN ERAIS OVER AND ENDED,MIND YOU THIS IS SAME TURKISH GOVERNMENT,WICH IS ABOUT TO ATTEND THE IMPERIALIST NATO SUMMIT,SETTING UP MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS TO PROTECTISRAHELL,AND SAME FRAUDS WHOAREATTENDINGRIIA(CHATTAM HOUSE),GERMAN MARSHALL FOUNDATION'' AND EVERY OTHER IMPERIALIST THINK TANK,WICH IS THE LEADING FORCE BEHIND THE NEW NEOCOLONIALISM OF THIS ERA

FORMER DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ISRAHELLI FOREIGN MINISTRY MET WITH SYRIAN OPPOSITION IN ''TURKEY'' RECENTLY  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/27/israeli-leaders-speak-up-about-syria/
Israeli leaders speak up about Syria
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-leaders-speak-syria-16225619

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last week that Assad's ouster would be "very positive" for Israel. "The toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis," he said in a CNN interview. "It will weaken dramatically Iran."Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Israel would welcome international action against Assad, just as international action in Libya helped oust the late Moammar Gadhafi. But he said Israel is not openly pressuring the West to take action.Alon Liel, a former director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said he met with opposition figures in Turkey several weeks ago. Liel said he believes fundamentalist Muslims are not so influential in Syria as they are in Egypt.

[ED NOTES:ERDOGAN EXPOSED AS WELL,ALLOWING ISRAHELLI OFFICIAL TO MEET WITH SYRIAN OPPOSITION IN TURKISH SOIL!!! 

GENOCIDAL WARCRIMINAL MADELINE ALBRIGHT WINS PRESIDENTIAL US MEDAL OF FREEDOM WHILE INVOKING HOLOCOUST MEMORIES  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/26/madeleine-albright-wins-presidential-medal-of-freedom.html
Today, Madeleine Albright, the United States’ first female secretary of state, was named one of 13 recipients of this year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor that the country bestows upon civilians. Commended for her efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and Africa, reduce the spread of nuclear weapons, and for her role as a longtime champion of democracy and human rights all over the world. “These extraordinary honorees come from different backgrounds and different walks of life, but each of them has made a lasting contribution to the life of our Nation,” President Obama said in a statement announcing this year’s winners. “They’ve challenged us, they’ve inspired us, and they’ve made the world a better place.” Albright spoke of her time as secretary of state and the importance of individual action. But she spoke most movingly of her family, and how, as an adult, she had learned that she was Jewish and that many of her relatives had perished in the Nazi death camps—a subject she bravely explores within the pages of her new memoir. “


[ED NOTES:OBAMA THE FRAUD GIVES THIS WAR CRIMINAL A MEDAL OF FREEDOM...ONE WAR MONGER REWARDING ANOTHER.... War CRIMINAL Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500000 Iraqi children was worth it. War CRIMINAL Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500000 Iraqi ...   Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman  [ALBRIGHT IS A GENOCIDAL WAR CRIMINAL]   WAR CRIMES Madeleine Albright http://www.zpub.com/un/un-ma.html ALBRIGHT BEHIND ARAB SPRING http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/11/exposed-lunatic-warmonger-isra-hillary.html


P.S. KEEP IN MIND BUSH JR GAVE THE MEDAL OF FREEDOM AWARD TO 
EX COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT(NARCO PRES) URIBE,ANOTHER WARCRIMINAL AND GENOCIDAL MANIAC..THE WHITEHOUSE WARCRIMINALS LOVE REWARDING WARCRIMINALS,YES ONE HAND DOES WASH THE OTHERS BLOOD..LITERALLY!

Confronting Damascus: U.S. Policy Toward the Evolving Situation in Syria, Part II http://pomed.org/blog/2012/04/pomed-notes-confronting-damascus-u-s-policy-toward-the-evolving-situation-in-syria-part-ii.html/#more-33922

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs conducted a hearing on examining U.S. response to the evolving crisis in Syria. The witness were Marc Lynch, a professor at George Washington University, Andrew Tabler, a next generation fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Mara Karlin, instructor in strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University. Steve Chabot (R-OH) presided over the committee.

For full event notes, continue reading below or click here for the PDF

Steve Chabot characterized the human rights abuses in Syria as “horrifying” and the regime as “morally depraved.” Chabot criticized the current steps in Syria as not enough, and the only solution is the “removal of Assad from power.” While Chabot believes in allowing diplomacy time to succeed, President Bashar al-Assad has indicated he is not sincere about adhering to the Kofi Annan’s Six Point Peace Plan. Stressing for action to be taken in Syria, Chabot said, “No decision is a decision in and of itself.”

Gary Ackerman (D-NY) believes it is in the U.S.’ best interest morally and nationally to have Assad leave power, but not if the ensuing power vacuum creates a chaotic non-pluralistic Syrian society.

While Andrew Tabler believes Assad is a “dead man walking,” there are multiple resources at his disposal that can extend his stay in power. The U.S. should work to accelerate Assad’s departure. Pressure should be directed from the ground up, while augmenting current support to the opposition, such as, sharing intelligence about Assad’s forces with the opposition. Tabler feels Assad cannot abide by Annan’s peace plan, since removing the heavy weapons and tanks will allow citizens on the street to protest – the real threat to the regime.

Mara Karlin stated, “The U.S. knows what it does not want in Syria, but getting to what it wants will be messy.” While the U.S. does not want Assad in power, a civil war, Syria being manipulated as a rogue state, or the U.S. being involved in a long-term nation-building effort, are all possible problems in a post-Assad power vacuum. The U.S. should work to end the Assad regime, while “coalescing alternative, viable and inclusive leadership,” and leverage its comparative advantage to become a critical actor in Syria’s future.

Marc Lynch cautioned against rushing military intervention, and with taking any action in “half-measures.” While disagreeing that Annan’s plan helps Assad, Lynch reinforced the peace plan “creates space without involving the U.S. in an insurgency.” Even though the current strategy may seem frustrating, the opposition cannot win by force alone. So far, Assad has been successful in using fear to keep the different minority groups from deserting from the regime. The cease-fire alleviates the Assad imposed fear and gives Syrians time to realize they are better without Assad.

Responding to Chabot’s inquiry about Annan’s peace plan in Syria, Tabler contends the problem is not with Annan’s plan, but Assad’s failure to adhere to it. It is the peaceful protests that have “kept Assad on his heels,” and Assad cannot implement point 2 (removing tanks and artillery) because he will not tolerate point 6 (allowing peaceful protest). Karlin added, it is not in Assad’s interest to adhere to the plan and therefore he does not. Chabot asked if the conflict in Syria could spread. Tabler looked to Iraq and Lebanon as examples of the domino theory not spreading; Lynch feels Iraq is vulnerable and a conflict could spill over, or Syria could become a proxy war for external actors; Karlin feels that if Turkey invokes Article 5 with the U.N. against Syria, the conflict will spread. Tabler told Chabot creating “safe zones” are half-measures and problematic due to imperfections.

While Ackerman recognizes the positive effects of the Peace Plan, he believes that arming the opposition will create a shift in the power balance that will only increase the violence levels and cause the minority groups to gravitate back to Assad. Tabler contended the U.S. should not blankly support the opposition, but specific groups should be provided arms. As this type of support is already being funneled into Syria, should the U.S. “allow other countries not in our shared interests to influence the situation?” Ackerman wanted a gauge as to how other countries were viewing the U.S. response to Syria. Lynch said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want the U.S. to take a firmer line, while the Peace Plan has so far kept Russia on board. Karlin believes Turkey is looking to the U.S. to provide stronger signals on what action it will take in Syria, while China has been exerting little support in alleviating the situation because it “becomes uncomfortable when other States begin to look domestically.”

Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) wanted to know what a post-Assad Syria would look like. Tabler responded it was difficult to determine since the exiled Syrian National Council (SNC) is divided. There have been sign the opposition within Syria has come together, and since the SNC is not under fire there is little pressure for them to coalesce. Karlin believes a future Syria will be violent, since “Syria has been ruled through violence the violence will continue.” Karlin responded that leveraging military assets to create “safe zones” would be a turning point and cause Assad to lose control. Lynch argued that “safe zones” would not work due to the effort exerted in maintaining and enforcing, and are a “band-aid” to the overall situation. The next steps in Syria need to be U.N. mandated, according to Lynch.

Gerald Connolly (D-VA) questioned the witnesses on Turkey’s involvement with the ongoing crisis in Syria. Karlin stated the Turks have maintained a very close relationship with Assad, but that relationship soured when Turkey perceived Assad as not living up to previous agreements at the onset of the conflict. Turkey is the country most directly affected by events in Syria and therefore has a greater concern for the outcome.

------------------------------------

[ED NOTES; WHO IS STEVE CHABOT?  Steve Chabot, a Republican, represented the First Congressional District of Ohio in the U.S. House of Representativesbetween 1992-2009. Chabot voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.^[1]  

2008 elections In the 2008 race for Ohio's First Congressional District, the MAF Freedom PAC endorsed Chabot over his Democratic challenger, State Representative Steven Driehaus. The PAC is affiliated with the conservative pro-war group Move America Forward. ^[2] (MAF describes itself as created to merely support the troops and the global "War on Terror," but its leaders have made an array of extreme statements supporting war and the Bush Administration's terror policies

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew J. Tabler is a Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy  

Affiliations

• AIPAC – featured speaker at the AIPAC Annual Policy Conference (21 Mar 2010) In fourteen years of resident consultancy, research, and journalism in the Middle East, Andrew served, most recently, as a consultant on U.S.-Syria relations for the International Crisis Group (2008)  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARA KARLIN-Video: Interview with Mara Karlin - Part One - AIPAC

Video: Interview with Mara Karlin - Part Two - AIPAC

Holocaust Day, Iran and Muslim Holocaust survivor   This year’s Holocaust Day was no different than the last year’s event. The Israeli, American, German, British, French and Canadian Zionist leaders who attended this year showcase event – all gave speeches about the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program being an ‘existential’ to the Zionist entity which poses greatest threat to world peace.Benji Netanyahu commented that Holocaust Day might as well be ‘Iran Day’ this year. War-criminals Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak in their speeches called ‘Iran a threat to world peace’. Barack Obama invoked Holocaust to ratchet up war threats against Iran and Syria. Canadian Stephen Harper highlighted Iranian regime’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and recent murder of Jewish children in France as threats the “civilized world” must face. As usual, the murder of tens of thousands of Muslim and Christian children by Jews in occupied Palestine – doesn’t bother Harper’s Christian conscience.Interestingly, none of these Jews and Crypto-Jewish ‘bleeding hearts’ spent a single day in Auschwitz or any other Nazi concentration camps.Helen (Leah) Brashatsky, a Jewish Holocaust survivor born in Auschwitz concentration camp – had a different message than these Muslim hating Zionist creeps on the Holocaust Day. In an interview with AFP to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, Helen, now 70, chuckles as she talks about what to call her.Helen was only 6-year-old when her Hungarian-Russian parents immigrated from Yugoslavia to the British occupied Palestine in 1948. Helen was 17 when she fell in love with Ahmed Jabarin, a young Native Muslim Palestinian. She married him against her Jewish parents permission and moved to Umm al-Fahm from Atlit (near Tel Aviv) where her parents lived.They were among the Jewish refugees on board a ship which was forced to anchor off the coast of Haifa – waiting for return to Europe when it damaged by members of Jewish terrorist group Haganah, killing several refugees.Her Muslim name is Leila, but in this Arab town in northern Israel where she has lived for the past 52 years, most people call her Umm Raja, Arabic for “Raja’s mother” after her first-born son.Helen did not convert to Islam until her oldest son turned 18 and was asked to report for the compulsory military service as Israeli Jewish citizen. At that point, Helen’s mother advised her to leave Jewish religion for Islam and save her son from killing innocent Palestinian children.“My mother said I should convert to Islam to save my daughter from serving in the army because Muslims would not let a girl live away from home on an army camp,” said Leila Jabarin.“I hid my pain for 52 years and the truth about my past from my eight children and my 31 grandchildren. I hid the fact that I was born in Auschwitz and what that painful past means. I was just waiting for the right moment to tell them,” said Leila.