zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Augusta Alternative. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Pages: (31) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 USA sliding irrevocably into WWIII &/or its doom?
Posted: May 22 2011, 03:07 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

When recent U.S. history is compared with a survey of historical developments down through the centuries, it can be logically surmised that this country is in deep trouble. When a nation such as ours knows what basic principles are fundamental, and then proceeds to ignore those principles, the system cannot endure. United States has slipped into plutocracy and militarism and ignores the fundamental human rights that this country was founded upon. It has never lived up completely to those principles but society has aspired toward them. Today our government is cynical and arrogant in its foreign policy and indifferent toward the plight of its denizens. War and violence have become endemic U.S. policies. I argue that we are sliding irrevocably toward WWIII and/or our demise. If karma equates with consequence then this can be said to be God's will.

Posted: May 22 2011, 03:19 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

The 10 year long U.S. war in Afghanistan has not only destabilized Pakistan in South Asia, it has also destabilized Central Asia. What is the point besides United States doomed intention of establishing military hegemony over this entire region and gain access to and control over oil and natural gas reserves in Central Asia? This continuing folly spells the end of the U.S. empire.

Taliban warns Muslim Kazakhstan on entering Afghan war
By Amie Ferris-Rotman

KABUL | Sun May 22, 2011 4:16am EDT

KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban has warned majority Muslim Kazakhstan that its decision to send troops to the NATO-led war in Afghanistan would have severe consequences and was not in its regional interest.

The statement, distributed to media on Saturday, appeared to nod to a growing Islamist tendencies in ex-Soviet Central Asia, where militants enjoy support from the Taliban and have worried Kazakhstan and neighboring Russia.

The Kazakh parliament decided on May 18 to become the first nation of mainly Muslim, ex-Soviet Central Asia to send troops to join the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) as the war drags into its 10th year.

Though not a member of NATO, Kazakhstan said it would send an unspecified number of soldiers on six-month missions. It has been providing air and ground corridors for the delivery of supplies to Western troops in Afghanistan.

"(Kazakhstan) has focused on protection of American interests instead of taking into account the aspirations of their people and the regional interests," the English-language Taliban statement said.

Kazakhstan is Central Asia's most successful economy and largest oil producer. Seventy percent of its 16.4 million people are Muslim. The vast nation has to date avoided the Islamist violence that has occurred in its ex-Soviet neighbors.

"The Muslim people of Kazakhstan should stand against this wrong policy of their rulers ... This step on the part of Kazakhstan will leave a long-term negative impact on relations between Afghanistan and Kazakhstan and the region," the statement said.

Analysts have warned that Central Asian militants, after years fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are filtering back across the region's porous borders to their homelands, bringing with them ambitions to spread jihad, or holy war.

Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan all border Afghanistan.

Tajikistan's army has been fighting insurgents in the country's mountainous east since an attack on a military convoy killed 28 troops last September, shortly after suicide car bombers attacked a police station in the country's second city.

Several militant Islamist groups have stated their objective of creating a Muslim caliphate incorporating large swathes of Central Asia, a region twice the size of Saudi Arabia.

However, in contrast with poorer republics in Central Asia, analysts have said militant groups were unlikely to garner much support in relatively prosperous Kazakhstan.

Despite the presence of up to 150,000 foreign troops, violence across Afghanistan is at its worst since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban government by U.S.-backed Afghan forces. Last year both sides suffered record casualties.

(Reporting by Amie Ferris-Rotman; Editing by Alex Richardson)
Posted: May 22 2011, 03:21 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

– 3:26 pm EDT Sun 22 May 2011

KARACHI (Reuters) – Militants attacked a Pakistani naval aviation base Sunday, killing at least four people, officials said, the latest attack on a heavily guarded military installation in Pakistan.

Senior police official Tahir Naveed said attackers were inside the Mehran base in Karachi fighting with base personnel.

An intelligence official said four people had been killed and five wounded.

Witnesses said they could hear sounds of gunshots and see smoke rising from the base. Officials said between 15 and 20 attackers were inside the base, and had attacked three hangars housing aircraft.

Al Qaeda-linked Taliban militants, who have vowed to avenge the killing of leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. special forces, have carried out several attacks since his death on May 2.

The Karachi attack evoked memories of an assault on Pakistan's army headquarters in the town of Rawalpindi in 2009, and revived concerns that even the most well guarded institutions in the country remain vulnerable to militants.

Pakistan has faced a wave of bombings and gun assaults over the last few years, some of them claimed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban.

Others have been blamed on al Qaeda-linked militant groups once nurtured by the Pakistani military which have since slipped out of control.


A U.S. forces raid on May 2 which found and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad has also revived suspicions that militants may be receiving help from some people within the security establishment.

Pakistan and the United States say the senior leadership in the country did not know bin Laden was in Abbottabad.

On April 28, suspected militants detonated a roadside bomb in Karachi, killing four members of the navy, the third attack on the navy in a week.

The attack came two days after two bombs hit buses carrying navy personnel, killing four people and wounding 56. Taliban insurgents took responsibility for the twin attacks.

(Reporting by Faisal Aziz, Kamran Haider and Imtiaz Shah; Writing by Myra MacDonald; editing by Ralph Boulton)

Posted: Jul 7 2011, 04:28 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Look inside the NEW E-Book from Global Research

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 9, 2011

    Throughout the history of mankind there have been murderers and tyrants; and while it may seem momentarily that they have the upper hand, they have always fallen. (Mahatma Gandhi)

    The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok. (William Rockler, Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor)

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. (François-Marie Arouet – Voltaire, 1694-1778)

Look inside "Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War", the NEW E-Book by Michel Chossudovsky:

The US and its NATO allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against both Iran and North Korea with devastating consequences. This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity. While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu:

    "The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples."[1]

Realities are turned upside down. In a twisted logic, a “humanitarian war” using tactical nuclear weapons, which according to “expert scientific opinion” are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population” is upheld as a means to protecting the Western world from a nuclear attack.

The Cult of Killing and Destruction

The global killing machine is also sustained by an imbedded cult of killing and destruction which pervades Hollywood movies, not to mention the primetime war and crime TV series on network television. This cult of killing is endorsed by the CIA and the Pentagon which also support (finance) Hollywood productions as an instrument of war propaganda:

    "Ex-CIA agent Bob Baer told us, “There’s a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood” and revealed that former CIA director George Tenet is currently, “out in Hollywood, talking to studios.”"[2]

The killing machine is deployed at a global level, within the framework of the unified combat command structure. It is routinely upheld by the institutions of government, the corporate media, the mandarins and intellectuals of the New World Order in Washington’s think tanks and strategic studies research institutes, as an unquestioned instrument of peace and global prosperity.

A culture of killing and violence has become imbedded in human consciousness. War is broadly accepted as part of a societal process: the Homeland needs to be “defended” and protected. “Legitimized violence” and extrajudicial killings directed against “terrorists” are upheld in western democracies, as necessary instruments of national security. A “huma - nitarian war” is upheld by the so-called international community. It is not condemned as a criminal act. Its main architects are rewarded for their contributions to world peace.

America’s Mini-nukes

With regard to Iran, what is unfolding is the outright legitimization of war in the name of an illusive notion of global security. America’s mininukes, with an explosive capacity of up to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are upheld as a humanitarian bomb, whereas Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are branded as an indisputable threat to global security.

When a US-sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the world’s institutions and the highest authority, including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.

We are at a dangerous crossroads: the rules and guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons have been “liberalized” (i.e. “deregulated” in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The new doctrine states that Command, Control and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be “flexible”, allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use nuclear weapons:

    "Geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons."[3]

We have reached a critical turning point in our history. It is absolutely essential that people across the land, nationally and internationally, understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully against their governments to reverse the tide of war.

The details of ongoing war preparations in relation to Iran and North Korea have been withheld from the public eye and the media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Instead, fake “crises” – e.g. a worldwide flu pandemic, a “false flag” nuclear attack by “Islamic terro rists” – are fabricated by the media, the governments, the intelligence apparatus and the Washington think tanks. While the real danger of nuclear war is barely acknowledged, these fake crises are invariably front page news.

A Third World War is no longer a hypothetical scenario. Already in 2007, President Bush hinted in no uncertain terms that if Iran did not comply with US demands, the US-NATO military might “reluctantly” be forced into in a World War III situation:

    "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously..." (George W. Bush, 17 October 2007)


1. See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, Glob al Research, December 2005, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1703.

2. Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, “Lights, Camera, Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood”, Global Research, January 31, 2009, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11921.

3. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations”, Joint Publication 3-12, Washington DC, March 2005, http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts_2005..._Operations.pdf.

Continue reading "Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War" by Michel Chossudovsky

Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here

E-Book Series No. 1.0
Global Research Publishers
Montreal, 2011. ISBN 978-0-9737147-3-9

76 pages (8.5x11)
Tables, color photographs, maps, text boxes.
Active hyperlinks to major references in the text, hyperlinked footnotes. 

Introductory offer: $5.00 (plus $1.50 processing fee. Sent directly to your email!)

OR receive this book FREE with your Global Research Membership! Click to learn more.


Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

This E-Book is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Alice C. Tang, who devoted her life to global peace, the pursuance of truth, military disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war. Alice Tang's proposal was titled “Two Percent, No First Strike.” The pledge would be that no nation shall spend more than 2 percent of its GDP on military purposes, and no nation would be a “first strike” aggressor with nuclear weapons.

Order your pdf of this important new book from Global Research here
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2011

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=25540
Posted: Aug 17 2011, 04:49 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

There is fighting in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Syria, as well as ongoing uprisings in Bahrain and elsewhere. When do this wars become sufficiently intense and sufficiently intertwined that it can be labeled WWIII? Some say we have been in the beginning stages of such a worldwide conflict for the past 10 or 20 years. I think so.

Turkish warplanes attack PKK targets in Iraq
By Seyhmus Cakan

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey | Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:16pm EDT

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkey sent warplanes to attack Kurdish targets in northern Iraq on Wednesday, military sources said, hours after a rebel attack in southeast Turkey killed a dozen soldiers.

The planes took off from a base in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir and struck targets in the mountainous Kandil and Zap areas of Iraq where the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) operates a number of bases, the sources said.

They said the targets included anti-aircraft defenses and rebel shelters in the region.

The air raids came hours after reports of an attack by Kurdish guerrillas on a military convoy in southeastern Turkey.

Eleven solders and a member of the state-backed village guard militia were killed in the ambush in Hakkari province's Cukurca district near the Iraqi border, Turkish media reported.

The PKK did not immediately claim responsibility.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan condemned the killings, saying those who carried out such attacks would "pay the price."

"Our patience has finally run out. Those who do not distance themselves from terrorism will pay the price," Erdogan told reporters on the sidelines of a conference in Istanbul.

President Abdullah Gul said the cost of carrying out such raids against the Turkish state would be "very big," state-run Anatolian news agency said.

Recent Turkish media reports have said Erdogan plans to launch a new offensive against the PKK in southeastern Turkey after the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

In July, Kurdish fighters killed 13 troops, the highest death toll for Turkish troops in an attack since the PKK ended a ceasefire in February. More than 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict since the PKK took up arms for Kurdish self-rule in 1984.

(Additional reporting by Ece Toksabay in Istanbul, writing by Daren Butler and Jonathon Burch, editing by Maria Golovnina)
Posted: Aug 29 2011, 06:18 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Leon Panetta's appointed USSOD and Gen. Petraeus' appointed CIA head. The neocon plans for United States to prevail militarily in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Libya, in Syria, and in Iran are on track. We are likely in the early stages of a long WWIII. So, this business about The War on Terror being over is hogwash IMO.

Who Killed the War on Terror?

Aug 29 2011, 11:16 AM ET

photo caption: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (L) and former Vice President Dick Cheney leave the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 10, 2011/Reuters

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of Navy Seals last May marked a turning point in the fight against al Qaeda. But one thing it did not mark was an end to the War on Terror. That's because the War on Terror was already dead, abandoned by the very agencies responsible for implementing it after 9/11.
9-11 Ten Years Later

There are, of course, still terrorists plotting to kill Americans, and the U.S. continues to take aggressive measures to stop them. But it would be a mistake to confuse all counterterrorism strategies with the War on Terror. The War on Terror was based on the notion that Islamic terrorism represented a unified, ideologically coherent, and operationally centralized threat, demanding a singular and predominately military response. This notion was rejected by U.S. security officials long before the killing of Bin Laden. Indeed, it was abandoned well before the election of President Obama.

By the latter years of the Bush administration, the exceptional tactics that defined the War on Terror -- preventative detentions, pain-based interrogation, ethnic and religious profiling, and widely expanded domestic surveillance powers -- were either abandoned or dramatically scaled back based on overwhelming evidence that they were ineffective. Meanwhile, the actual wars initiated in the name of the War on Terror, in Afghanistan and Iraq, rapidly evolved into counter-insurgency and then counterterrorism campaigns as military leaders recognized that the U.S. was unable to replace theocrats and autocrats with stable, western-style democracies.

The War on Terror lives on today only as political theater. Policymakers, from President Obama to Members of Congress, continue to fear the accusation of being "soft on terror," and hence continue to describe contemporary counterterrorism efforts in martial terms. Congress continues to legislate War on Terror approaches that the security establishment, for the most part, hasn't asked for and, in some cases, has even explicitly rejected.

But while the political class remains stuck in the past, the security establishment has moved on. Virtually all of the progress that U.S. authorities have made in dismantling al Qaeda and countering terrorism has been accomplished in spite of, not because of the War on Terror. As we consider the future of U.S. counterterrorism after Bin Laden, we would do well to consider what we have learned from the evolving security response to the 9/11 attacks, and how those lessons might keep us safer in a world where the War on Terror may be over but the threat of terrorism still remains.


In many ways, the War on Terror ended because the American security state relearned forgotten lessons. Over the past four centuries, modernizing nation-states have become increasingly effective at securing their citizens' safety and allegiance through ever more refined and subtle means. Where sovereignty was once invested in a single monarch -- think Louis XIV's famous quip, L'État, c'est moi ("The state, it is me") -- gradually the state became all of us. Populations who were "subjects" beholden to state authority became "citizens" willing and empowered to defend it.

By granting increasing freedoms and privileges to their citizens, extending the bonds of trust and mutualism, and organizing public education campaigns around the notions of etiquette, civic duty, and love of country, modernizing states inspired their citizens to identify with the state and internalize its security interests.

This shift represented a dramatic evolution in the way states achieved security. Earlier brutal intimidation tactics -- publicly torturing and executing deviants in what social historian Michel Foucault dubbed "festivals of pain" -- gradually gave way to softer means of control like "panoptic" powers, which create the impression that one is always being observed, mostly by fellow citizens. The conventional reading of this shift has imagined that state's relinquished coercive security powers in response to citizens' rising demands for new political and economic freedoms, but this is at best only half the story. The evolution of our expanding freedoms has been inseparable from the development of state security practices that are both more effective and more humane.

Today, profiling, suspecting, and punishing wide swaths of society have faded from practice because states found it more effective to maintain the good will and allegiance of increasingly empowered citizens. States developed better tools to discern innocence and guilt on an individual basis rather than punishing whole villages. And as states learned more about individual psychology, they found they could get better information out of detained enemies by "befriending" them than brutalizing them.

Since World War II, states have also found that they can more effectively accomplish their international objectives using highly targeted military power, as opposed to large occupying forces. During WWII, all sides, including the U.S., deliberately bombed civilians -- think London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima. Contrast such blanket, deliberate bombardments to the surgical bombings in Libya and the use of drones in Pakistan.

Whatever Orwellian anxieties the new technologies of state security may incite, it is difficult to say - when touring the torture chambers of Venice or considering the pogroms of Eastern Europe, for example -- that the move to the use of softer and more sophisticated security powers does not represent a form of human progress. The turn back towards "the dark side," as former Vice President Dick Cheney described it after 9/11, required a deep forgetting and misunderstanding of the previous centuries' evolutions in state security powers.


As American security authorities abandoned the War on Terror, they moved in almost every instance towards more discerning and sophisticated practices. Where the War on Terror made blanket assumptions about the nature of the terrorist threat, objectives, and organization, security authorities today increasingly recognize the threat as disparate, decentralized, and motivated more by local grievances than the apocalyptic desire for a Caliphate.

Initially, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were very much "wars" as described and theorized by Carl von Clausewitz - featuring attacks on military targets with the goal of forcing capitulation. But the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did little to end terrorism and, in Iraq, dramatically increased it. The U.S. military quickly shifted to a more discerning counterinsurgency strategy, and today it is moving to even more focused counterterrorist operations.

The shift in the U.S.'s non-military security and counterterrorism tactics has been no less stark. One after another, the sweeping measures put in place after 9/11 have been discarded for more discerning policies. The Defense Department recognized the folly of the preventative detentions that filled the cell blocks of Guantanamo Bay Prison. Within months of sweeping up fighting-aged men in Afghanistan, military officials found that they had not only scooped up hundreds of innocents, but also that they had no means (i.e. evidence) with which to prosecute the guilty. They quickly transitioned back to pre-War on Terror battlefield detention protocols and gave trial authority over to local Afghan courts.

The FBI also unilaterally abandoned its War on Terror "Interview Project" within months of 9/11. FBI agents repeatedly complained to their superiors that the intimidating interviews targeting immigrants from Muslim-majority countries were generating few leads and undermining their ability to win the trust of potential collaborators. Finally recognizing that they were losing far more than they were gaining, FBI officials shut down the profiling program and refocused efforts toward fostering cooperative relationships with informants in Muslim communities.

The Transportation Security Agency has walked back from its own profiling policies as two would-be bombers - one Jamaican-British, the other Nigerian - were able to avoid heightened screening targeting Arabs and South Asians. Other programs, too, have been scaled back at the request of security officials. FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey both threatened resignation as they held the line against counterproductive policies pursued by the Bush administration. And multiple NSA data-mining programs have been abandoned as independent reports, most notably from the National Academies of Sciences, concluded that they simply push terrorist activity further underground.

Perhaps most famously, the signature tactic of the War on Terror -- pain-based interrogation -- was rejected by the FBI, CIA, and military leaders and interrogators during the Bush years because it plainly did not work. "When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop," FBI interrogator Ali Soufan explains. "Most of the time they will lie, make up anything, to make you stop hurting them. That means the information you're getting is useless."

Torture defenders have repeatedly claimed that classified intelligence documents would vindicate the use of physically coercive interrogation techniques. But time and again, declassified documents have proven the opposite. Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times without providing any useful intelligence to his interrogators. It was only many months later, after a skilled CIA interrogator won his admiration and respect, that KSM offered the CIA a series of blackboard lectures on Al Qaeda's modus operandi. Another detainee subject to enhanced interrogation erroneously fingered thirty separate men as Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguard, then provided the "intelligence" that Saddam Hussein was planning to give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda. That information, of course, turned out to be false.

In these and many other cases, authorities quickly abandoned the extreme measures some had imagined were necessary. To date, there is no credible evidence that any of the controversial and unprecedented policies adopted after 9/11 helped to foil a single terrorist plot or capture a single terrorist.
Posted: Aug 30 2011, 08:35 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

CONFIRMED: Libya War is CIA Op 30 Years in the Making | Intelwars.com
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer Activist Post Alternative media activist David Icke, who has been warning about the false nature of the Arab Spring since it began over six months ago, has pointed out an astounding flashback regarding an Aug...
LikeUnlike · · Share · Saturday at 12:05pm

      David Austin, Marilyn Brake- Conner and 2 others like this.
            Gerard Dailey That's quite a commentary. Good one.
            Saturday at 12:40pm · UnlikeLike · 1 personLoading...
            Michael Wilson Let's still hope "the op" bears fruit with Assad and his backers, the Iranian mullahs.
            9 hours ago · LikeUnlike
          John Randolph Hardison Cain
            Michael Wilson, do you think if United States establishes its hegemony over North Africa, East Africa, The Arabian Peninsula, The Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia that the world will be a more free, democratic, peaceful, or sustain...able? If we have Russia ringed with missiles, China boxed in, and dominate every theater on earth will our economy prosper and will be it sustainable? IMO U.S. superpower status does not lead to a more egalitarian world. Our economic system and environmental lifestyle will not deliver be able to deliver the goods to 7 billion people. Plus no one wants to be forced to be under the U.S. national security umbrella. Multilateralism rather than unilateralism along with peace (moving beyond the high tech warfare and the prospect of the use of nuclear arms) along with environmental initiatives are the sine qua nons for civilization to survive on this planet.See More
            18 minutes ago · LikeUnlike
            John Randolph Hardison Cain "General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran"

General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran
General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran

by Activist on 2011/08/27

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Alternative media activist David Icke, who has been warning about the false nature of the “Arab Spring” since it began over six months ago, has pointed out an astounding “flashback” regarding an August 3, 1981 Newsweek article titled, “A Plan to Overthrow Kaddafi.”
The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a ‘disinformation’ program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a ‘counter government’ to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third — potentially the most risky — was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force.Quite obviously this plan has been executed verbatim with the necessary addition of a NATO intervention to rescue the above stated “paramilitary” campaign from Libyan security forces – a contigency plan explicitly spelled out in another Wall Street-London subsidized, signed confession, Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?”

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): “Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it.” “This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.”

The disinformation campaign began in February as overt, now verified lies were told to the public regarding both the nature of the uprising and the Libyan government’s reaction to it. As tank driving, jet flying battle hardened LIFG Al Qaeda mercenaries waged war against the Libyan army, the corporate media in tandem with NATO member states preparing to intervene, portrayed the uprising as peaceful placard waving activists being mowed down by machine gun fire and strafed by Libyan warplanes. Evidence now confirms no such atrocties took place, however the UN citing this intentional disinformation authroized NATO intervention.

The very nature of the Benghazi rebels has been deceptively presented to the public. In fact, they are a collection of extremists and mercenaries, many of whom had been fighting recently in Iraq and Afghanistan against US forces. These mercenaries, who have been backed by the CIA and MI6 for the last 30 years (see time line), are being portrayed as an “an indigenous political force” opposing Libya’s government. It has just been recently revealed that the rebel commander attempting to seize Tripoli is none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj, an Al Qaeda asset who was previously captured by in Malaysia, tortured by the CIA in Bangkok, Thailand in 2003, before being release back in Libya where he is now fighting on behalf of NATO.

Additional disinformation comes in the form of media attempts to portray Qaddafi as a rambling madman who despite the disparagement, has turned out to be one of the few heads of state speaking any truth at all regarding the conflict besieging his nation. From his earlier claims that the uprising was foreign backed Al Qaeda, to now verified claims that the rebellion was nothing more than a means to usher in a foreign occupation and the despoiling of Libya’s resources, he has been spot on.

As rebels loot his home and his compound in central Tripoli, he is now being disingenuously portrayed as an opulent tyrant who hoarded state resources at the cost of his population. Betraying the duplicity of this lie is the UN’s own Human Development Index which lists Libya as one of the most developed nations in Africa and is ranked higher than many other nations including Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. Quite obviously Libya’s oil wealth was put to good use, and as Libya has ensured the West’s nefarious corporate-funded NGOs were excluded from Libyan society, no other explanation for Libya’s development exists beyond the government’s own initiatives.

What we are witnessing in Libya is a concerted, admitted war of aggression by corporate-financier interests who have openly conspired to carry out a campaign of military and economic conquest throughout the Middle East (and beyond), including Northern Africa and specifically including Libya.

From Wesley Clark’s 2007 speech, to Newsweeks’ 1981 article, we have been handed a signed confession that “our” governments are the true enemies of free humanity, masking their agenda with the thinnest veneer of moral justification, almost as if to insult the intelligence of so many who eagerly continue to empower them as they maliciously move forward. Once again, we must commit ourselves to identifying the corporate-financier interests truly driving this agenda, lurking behind the military and political leaders paraded before us as the executors of “international policy.” We must also commit to boycotting and replacing these corporate-financier interests as well as ending the recognition of any of the legitimacy they endlessly heap upon themselves.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.   

Posted by Alexander Higgins - May 22, 2011 at 4:08 pm - Permalink - Source via Alexander Higgins Blog
General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plant To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3.50 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...




General Wesley Clark reveals the US plan to invade and take over 7 countries,  Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran, before we even invaded Afghanistan. The first part of the plan was revealed 10 days after 9/11 and was expanded to included the other nations. Clark is quoted as saying the invasion wasn’t based on links to Al-Queda or any other intelligence reports but just because the US has an army that is great at taking over other nations.

    In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran


    [Wesley Clark] About ten days after 9/11 I went to the penatagon and I say secretary Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Wolfweitz.

    I went down stairs to see some of the staff who used to work for me and one of the Generals called me in and said “Sir, you have got to come in. Come in, you have got to come in and talk to me a second.”

    I said “Well, your to busy”.

    He said, “No, No, we have made the decision to go to war with Iraq”. This was on or about the 20th of September [2001].

    I said “We are going to war with Iraq? Why” [emphasis added].

    He said, “I don’t know” [crowd laughs]

    He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do”. [crowd boos].

    So I said “Well did they find come information connecting Saddam to Al-Queda?”

    He said, “No, No. There is nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”

    He said, “I quess its like, we don’t know what to do about terrorists but we have a good military and we can take down governments”

    So I came back to see him a few weeks laters and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.

    I said “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”

    And he said “Oh, its worse than that.”

    He reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper.

    He said, “I just got this down from up stairs from the Secratary of Defense’s office today. This is a memo that describes how we are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years.”

    “Starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon. Then Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. Then finishing off Iran.”

    [Amy Goodman] “Go Through the countries again.” [crowd laughs]

    [Wesley Clark] “Well starting off with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon, and Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. and back to Iran.”

Fast forward to today and we have indeed invaded and occupied Afghanistan.

Intellegence reports were fabrictated to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to justify the ousting of Saddam Hussien.The released secret documents that revealed the intel reports were fabricated also revealed the invasion of Iraq was for the “prize of oil”.

We are currently bombing Lybia as the war hawks push for authorization to send in ground troops.

The US propaganda machine is also beating the war drum for an invasion of Syria.

To make matters worse if the World War 3 Legislation that is being voted on in Congress is passed there will be no need to push out propaganda to justify the invasion of the rest of the countries on the list. The president will have full authority just to invade any country he wants.

Related Posts
9/11 ANALYSIS: 9/11 and America’s Secret Terror Campaign
By Andrew Gavin MarshallGlobal ResearchAnticipating An AttackFor several years prior to the events of 9/11, top American strategists had been acknowledging the necessity of what they ...
Posted: Sep 1 2011, 10:47 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

I'm wondering if these might some of the first volleys of WWIII? We have numerous conflicts underway that pit the interest of Great Powers against the interest of other Great Powers. As a minimum we can expect proxy wars to continue for another 20 to 50 years. Wars over resources loom and portend unpleasant times to come.

Kashmir border deaths spark India and Pakistan row
1 September 2011 Last updated at 07:19 ET - BBC News

Indian forces have killed three Pakistani soldiers in firing across the Line of Control in the disputed region of Kashmir, the Pakistani army says.

It has accused Indian forces of opening "unprovoked" fire across the LoC - which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan - in the Neelum valley.

India denied the allegations, saying Pakistani forces opened fire first.

Kashmir has a history of such clashes, though they have become less frequent in recent months.

Correspondents say the latest incident underlines the fragility of ties between India and Pakistan, which have fought two of their three wars since 1947 over Kashmir.

There were regular clashes across the LoC before the nuclear-armed neighbours agreed to a ceasefire in 2003. They now exchange only sporadic fire and there have been just a handful of clashes over the past three years.

Correspondents say that the latest incident is unlikely to have any impact on renewed efforts by the two countries to improve their relations.

Ceasefire violations

"[Our] soldiers were moving from one post to another when they came under fire. Three soldiers were killed," Pakistani military spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas said.
Indian troops on the LoC The LoC is one of the most heavily militarised areas of South Asia

He said that Pakistani forces returned fire and the incident was raised with local Indian commanders.

But India gave a different version of events.

A military spokesman in Srinagar told the BBC that tension along the LoC first began on Tuesday night when militants tried to cross from the Neelum valley into the Indian sector.

The spokesman said that an Indian soldier had been killed in the clash.

On Wednesday night, an Indian border post came under attack from Pakistani troops, the spokesman said, and Indian soldiers retaliated.

The exchange of fire continued throughout Thursday after a brief lull, the spokesman said, accusing Pakistan of two ceasefire violations over the past 15 hours.

In February, the two countries resumed a formal peace process suspended after the 2008 attack on Mumbai (Bombay), in which gunmen killed 165 people. Delhi blamed the attack on Pakistan-based militants.

Foreign ministers from India and Pakistan met in Delhi in July and hailed what they said was a new era in ties, agreeing to fight militancy and boost trade and travel.
Posted: Sep 12 2011, 10:17 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Turkish-Kurdish violence continues. Iranian-Kurdish violence continues. Egyptian-Israeli tensions continue to escalate. Unrest continues in Syria. The war on terror continues in Yemen and Somalia and Pakistan. U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. The NATO-led "humanitarian war" continues in Libya. Repression in Bahrain continues. What prevents continuing violence and escalating tension from coalescing into what will come to be regarded as WWIII?

5 dead in southeast Turkey after Kurdish attacks
By SUZAN FRASER, Associated Press ~ 4 am EDT Mon 12 Sep 2011

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Kurdish rebels attacked a police station and a paramilitary police headquarters near Turkey's border with Iraq, killing five people, including three civilians, the region's governor said Monday.

The Kurdish rebels, who are fighting for autonomy from Turkey, have stepped up attacks on Turkey's military and police, killing dozens of security forces since July, but this was the first civilians deaths in the conflict in recent months.

Turkey responded to the escalated attacks with air raids on suspected rebel positions in northern Iraq last month.

Gov. Muammer Turker said three civilians, a police officer and a soldier died late Sunday after the guerrillas opened fire on the two buildings in the town of Semdinli. The town is located in the mainly Kurdish province of Hakkari, which borders Iraq.

Ten other people, most of them soldiers, were injured in the raids by members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, he said.

The pro-Kurdish Firat news agency, however, said the civilians were killed by shots fired by the police and said the dead included a 14-year-old. The agency, which is close to the rebels, did not cite a source.

Turker said the military immediately launched an operation to catch the rebels, which the private Dogan news agency said was being backed with attack helicopters.

Dogan said the attack touched off a two-hour-long clash with the security forces and that the civilians died in the crossfire.

Video footage from Dogan showed people at an open-air wedding near one of the buildings that came under attack running and huddling for safety amid gunshots. None of the wedding guests appeared hurt.

The PKK, which has been designated as a terror organization by the United States and the European Union, is fighting for autonomy in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast region, often using bases in northern Iraq for attacks in Turkey. Tens of thousands of people have died in the conflict since 1984.

Meanwhile, a U.S. official said Sunday that Turkey and the United States were discussing how to keep cooperating against terrorist targets in northern Iraq after U.S. forces leave Iraq in December, including the possibility of basing U.S. Predator drones in Turkey.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The U.S. currently is sharing Predator surveillance data with Turkey as part of a joint effort to combat the PKK. The Predators, capable of transmitting video, are flow from bases in Iraq.
Posted: Sep 12 2011, 05:40 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

So, did the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq succeed in its stated objectives of stemming violence and giving Iraqis political space so they would unite and reconcile? No it did not. And it won't succeed in Afghanistan either. IMO We are careening toward a coalescing of numerous disparate wars which will come to be regarded as WWIII. It hate it. Human life is precious.

Officials: 22 Shiite Pilgrims Found Dead In Iraq
by The Associated Press

BAGHDAD September 12, 2011, 05:43 pm ET

BAGHDAD (AP) — Gunmen forced their way onto a bus of traveling Shiite pilgrims Monday and shot the 22 men as they traveled through western Iraq's remote desert on a trip to a holy shrine, security officials said.

The bodies were discovered late Monday night, hours after the gang of gunmen stopped the bus at a fake security checkpoint and told all the women to get off, according to one security official who interviewed a survivor.

The gunmen then drove the bus a few miles (kilometers) off the main highway between Baghdad and the Jordanian border in Iraq's Sunni-dominated Anbar province. The pilgrims were ordered off the bus and shot one by one, the security officials said.

Two Iraqi security officials and a political leader from the southern Iraqi city of Karbala, where the pilgrims were from, confirmed the shooting details. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

Shiite pilgrims have been a favorite target for Sunni insurgents who are trying to revive the sectarian violence that brought Iraqi to the brink of civil war just a few years ago. Monday's attack comes fewer than four months before U.S. troops — who surged into Iraq in 2007 to stem the religious killings — are scheduled to leave the country.

An Iraqi army patrol found the deserted women, weeping and wailing, by the side of the highway and brought them to the provincial capital of Ramadi for help.

One of the women told officials that there were four gunmen who were dressed in military uniforms and stopped the bus at a fake checkpoint.

It was not immediately clear if the caravan was headed to the Sayyida Zainab shrine in Damascus or coming home.


Associated Press Writers Saad Abdul-Kadir and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.
Posted: Oct 15 2011, 08:55 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Friday 14 October 2011 Last updated at 19:17 ET - BBC News

US President Barack Obama has said he is sending about 100 US soldiers to Uganda to help regional forces battle the notorious Lord's Resistance Army.

Although combat-equipped, the troops would be providing information and advice "to partner nation forces", Mr Obama wrote in a letter to US Congress.

A small group is already in Uganda, and the troops could later be deployed in other central African nations.

The LRA is blamed for mass murder, rape and kidnapping in the region.

'Kill or capture'

"I have authorised a small number of combat-equipped US forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of (LRA leader) Joseph Kony from the battlefield," Mr Obama wrote on Friday.

But he stressed that "although the US forces are combat-equipped... they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defence".

Mr Obama did not provide any details about the deployment duration, but a US military spokesman later told the BBC that the "forces are prepared to stay as long as necessary to enable regional security forces to carry on independently".

The LRA and Joseph Kony

    * Founded in the late 1980s
    * Kony is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court
    * Believed to be responsible for 2009 'Makombo massacre' in DR Congo that killed 321
    * Kony considered disbanding his army through a Sudanese-negotiated peace treaty but backed out

    * African nations vow LRA crackdown
    * Behind the LRA's terror tactics
    * Campaign for Uganda's child soldiers

The force will use hi-tech equipment to assist in what analysts say is a "kill or capture" policy, the BBC's Marcus George in Washington reports.

The deployment follows recent US legislation to help disarm the LRA and bring its leader to justice. The theory is, our correspondent adds, that without Joseph Kony, the movement will collapse from within.

Senator John McCain said Central Africa would be more stable if the threat of the LRA "under the sadistic leadership of Joseph Kony," would be "diminished".

But Mr McCain, a long-serving senator, former veteran and Mr Obama's opponent in the 2008 presidential election, expressed "regret" that the president did not consult with Congress on the decision to sent troops to Uganda.

"I remember how past military deployments intended to further worthy humanitarian goals, whether it was peace-keeping operations in Lebanon or Somalia, resulted in tragedies that we never intended or expected," Mr McCain said in a statement.

Child soldiers

At least 30,000 people died as the LRA spread terror in northern Uganda for more than 20 years, displacing some two million people.

It is notorious for kidnapping children, forcing the boys to become fighters and using girls as sex slaves.

The group is listed by the US as a terrorist organisation and now operates mainly in neighbouring countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Central Africa Republic.

Joseph Kony and his close aides have been wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2005.

He refused to sign a peace deal with the Ugandan government in 2008 when it could not guarantee the withdrawal of the ICC arrest warrants.
Posted: Oct 15 2011, 10:40 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

IMO we are clearly already involved in WWIII. The OWS movement must also become an anti-war movement. That is the only way to stop this juggernaut run amok. CBS News reported at 10 am EDT that there may be "economic ramifications" involved in United States sending 100 special operations troops into Central Africa. Uganda has oil, and oil now figures prominently in U.S. geostrategy. There are also rare earth minerals in sub Saharan Africa that the U.S. wants to control instead of China.
Posted: Oct 15 2011, 10:45 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, October 11, 2011

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

digg    409Share 

Third of Four Installments on Libya: Israel and Libya

Once again, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya peels away the veneer of legitimacy and deception enveloping the U.S./NATO genocide currently taking place in Libya. In his first article, Nazemroaya exposed the mechanism by which the world came to "know" of the need for a humanitarian intervention in the Libyan Arab Jamahirya and U.S./NATO admissions of targeted assassination attempts against the Leader of the 1969 Libyan Revolution, Muammar Qaddafi. In his first of these four installments since his return from Libya, Nazemraoya makes it clear that there never was any evidence given to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to warrant or justify United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 or current U.S./NATO operations inside Libya.

In his second article detailing this very sad story, Nazemroaya exposes the relationships between the major Libyan protagonists/NATO collaborators and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Incredibly, when leading Members of Congress publicly proclaimed repeatedly that they did not know who the Libyan "rebel" NATO collaborators were, select so-called rebel leaders were political intimates with stakeholders at the National Endowment for Democracy. The leaders of the National Transitional Council, contrived to appear highly influential to publics in former colonial capitals, have very little influence or support inside Libya, and can be likened to a Hamid Karzai type of morally bankrupt neo-colonial authority that presides over and gives a fig-leaf of "legitmacy" to those outsiders whose objective is the total destruction of recalcitrant citizens who demand self-determination over their own communities and country. Nazemroaya also exposes that, despite its Global War on Terror, the U.S. government actually financed Libyan terrorists and criminals wanted by INTERPOL.

In this, his third of four installments, Nazemroaya removes the U.S./NATO fig leaf and what he reveals are the abhorrent, obnoxious, inhumane, and cynical machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby that is the only political force that seems to be able to command the mightiest of militaries and the strongest of leaders to act in ways that threaten the peace and tranquility of their own political parties and national security of their own governments. Indeed, by its policy to support Israel, no matter how belligerent its policies, the United States has eroded its own national interest, as warnings from U.S. military leaders continue to point out.

In fact, my own personal experiences with the pro-Israel Lobby inside the United States demonstrate Israel's intense interest in Africa. I have written about my experience with "the pledge" to support Israel that is forced on every candidate for the U.S. Congress; refusal to sign it, as I did, means not one dollar of the millions expended each election cycle in campaign contributions and can ensure the most vicious media demonization as the major descriptor of the un-cooperating candidate. The demonization of Alabama's first Black Member of Congress since Reconstruction, Earl Hilliard, in his 2002 re-election campaign, with specific regard to his visits to Libya, immediately come to mind. Weeks later, many of the New York contributors against his re-election, reappeared in my own opponent's campaign coffers. While I was portrayed in letters to supporters of the pro-Israel Lobby as anti-Israel, I will continue to believe that it was my very real activities in Africa that the pro-Israel Lobby found most threatening. From land reform to blood diamonds to various warnings I sent to certain African oil-producing countries to support for African self-determination and against artificial efforts to create divisions in Cote d'Ivoire, Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan, I found an incredible interest in all things African on the part of the pro-Israel Lobby.

In fact, I was invited to lease my "Black" face to these very interests and get arrested in front of the Sudan Embassy to sow the very "Black versus Arab" narrative being tragically created in Libya which Nazemroaya describes so thoroughly in this current text. I note here that some Blacks inside and outside of the U.S. Congress did choose to accept this particular invitation and get arrested. My representative was present at the meeting where these activities were planned, finance was arranged, and actions put in motion. This was a purposeful manipulation of U.S. policy and more importantly, of the despicable behaviors in Sudan that led to human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. My own legislation to de-list corporations from the U.S. stock exchange that aided or abetted or engaged in any way in human rights abuses in Sudan was deemed by guardians of the pro-Israel agenda inside the Congress to be an unacceptable answer to the very real abuses taking place in that country.

Additionally, while I was in prison in Israel, the point of the mostly African female prisoners on my Ramle Prison cell block was that they were adherents of "the wrong religion." The purging of Christians inside Israel is a fact. The scribblings on the wall of my Israeli holding room in another prison complex before my release made it clear that those Christians being deported were not wanted in Israel and they felt that it was because of their religion. Israel's recent push, despite its non-Jewish residents, to identify itself as a "Jewish state" is telling.

While in Libya, I met many Africans who said that they chose to live there because of the pan-Africanism of the policies of the Libyan Jamahirya. In fact, while at an "Africans in the Diaspora Conference" there in January/February of 2011, I personally witnessed, along with a delegation of others from the United States, Muammar Qaddafi pledge $90 billion to a "United States of Africa" that would work together to build the Continent and counter the efforts to penetrate and recolonize it. Blacks in the United States who struggled for dignity, self-determination, and against U.S. oppression and imperialism during the 1960s and 1970s have a relationship with Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government that goes back decades. At the 29-stops of my Libya Truth Tour, I met many U.S. citizens who reminded the audiences of the contributions of Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government against British imperialism in Northern Ireland. Continental Africans attending these Tour-stops reminded audiences of Muammar Qaddafi's support for Nelson Mandela and Africans struggling to rid the Continent of Apartheid at a time when Israel shared an alliance with that government. They also noted the Jamahirya government's current support for many development projects throughout the Continent and for the budget of the African Union, itself. Therefore, many alarmed observers have pointed out that the U.S./NATO attack on Libya is actually an attack on all of Africa. Nazemroaya eloquently makes this point while revealing the underlying motives for the "uber-violence" that we see in Libya and that is opposed by large majorities of voters in NATO member states, if reported polling results can be trusted.  What comes to my mind is how anyone who identifies with the peace community could support such an attack on Libya, especially while the people of Libya valiantly resist NATO domination.

Nazemroaya makes the essential point: "An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway." The Voice of America has exposed the psychological aspects of its brutal intervention and hints at the mindset of the U.S./NATO Libyan pawns; several stories suggest that the "new" Libya will turn more toward its Arab identity than its African identity. And U.S./NATO successful imposition of the psychological chains of identity denial are the most longlasting of chains. While in Tunisia, I actually came face to face with the fruits of this project when a taxi driver born in Tunisia told me that he was not African! Muammar Qaddafi drove home to all Libyans that Libya, as its geography dictates, is an African country. It seems ludicrous on its face to have to reiterate such a fact except for the racism, brainwashing, and psychological underpinnings of current U.S./NATO policy and its colonial antecedents that Nazemroaya exposes.

Finally, Walter H. Kansteiner has moved in and out of various positions within the foreign policy apparatus of the United States government and has been the voice for exactly the policies described by Nazemroaya. Among Kansteiner's positions are stints as Africa Director at the State Department and National Security Council Director for African Affairs during the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Presidency of George W. Bush. During these stints, Mr. Kansteiner was in a position to initiate the balkanization of Africa that we now see reaching fruition on the Continent. I was forced to write a letter to President Bush in 2001 expressing my alarm at his suggestions for Democratic Republic of Congo. In my opinion, Laurent Kabila was murdered because he refused to balkanize Congo. (He personally related his last conversation with a certain U.S. representative who encouraged him to betray Congo. In his last words to me, "I will never betray Congo.")

Cynthia McKinney, 10 October 2011.

Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal districts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served on the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served on the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions to Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition regarding the NATO bombing campaign on Libya.
America's Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Julien Teil - 2011-10-06
Terrorists not only fight for Washington on the ground, they also act as frontmen for regime change through so-called human rights organizations that promote democracy. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney

Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-09-29
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims that Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi...

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the "long war" into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called "Son of Africa" has actually become one of Africa's worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.

The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.

As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.

Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of "divide and conquer" being used to bring nations to their knees.

The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a "New Middle East"

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continuously divided the region.

For years, there have been advocates calling for a "New Middle East" with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.

The Manipulation of the First "Arab Spring" during World War I

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the "Great Arab Revolt" against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the "Great Arab Revolt" the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called "repression" of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the "Arab Spring" is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008.
Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008.

Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters.
It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy.
Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world's oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding  with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran's Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi's position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work...

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:

(1) ethno-linguistics;
(2) skin-colour;
(3) religion.

It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called "Black Africa" and a supposedly "non-Black" North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be "Arabs" and so-called "Blacks."

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an "African South Sudan" and an "Arab North Sudan" have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to "colour cleanse" Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of "black-skinned Arabs" so that there is a clear delineation between "Black Africa" and a new "non-Black" North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining "non-Black" Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Israel and the African Continent

The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

Israel's two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think-tank, is one example.

Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just "inside" Africa, but "over" Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran's ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa. [1] Sudan is Africa's third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. [2]

Israel and Libya

Libya had been considered as "a spoiler" which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.

The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO's military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene. [3] U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.

Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy's special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders [4]. A similar pattern (to that of Israel's links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.

Despite the Transitional Council's position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.

In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.

Preparing the Chessboard for the "Clash of Civilizations"

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a "Clash of Civilizations" and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively "Muslim Middle East" area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a "non-Black North Africa" area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the "Clash of Civilizations" model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called "West" and "Black Africa."

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [5]

Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the "Clash of Civilizations" which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: "[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the 'Global War on Terror']." [6]

Brzezinski's next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: "[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms." [7]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called "Western World" and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today's "Just Wars"

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as "sub-human," inferior, or soulless. Finally, the "White Man's burden" of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called "uncivilized peoples of the world" was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a "just cause." The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of "just wars" as a means to conquering and "civilizing" foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today's "just wars" and "just causes" are now being conducted under the banners of women's rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.


[1] The Economist, "Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world," February 4, 2011.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tova Lazaroff, "70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli," Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.

[4] Radio France Internationale, "Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu," June 2, 2011.

[5] Robert Marquand,"Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism," Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211

[7] Ibid.


* These civilizational divisions and categories are incorrect. There are no clearcutting divisions between many of these so-called and supposedly "distinct civilizations."


Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Posted: Oct 20 2011, 08:44 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

~ 12 am (midnight) EDT Thu 20 Oct 2011

WASHINGTON – Attacks with homemade bombs are growing worldwide and pose an increasing threat to the United States, said the head of the Pentagon agency charged with combating makeshift bombs.

Attacks with improvised explosive devices outside Afghanistan and Iraq have more than doubled in the last three years, according to Pentagon data. From January to September, there were an average of 608 attacks per month in 99 countries. During that time, there were 367 homemade bomb attacks in the United States.

"It's cheap, effective and readily available," said Army Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

"If we think it's going to go away after Iraq and Afghanistan, we're dreaming," he said. "It's going to confront us operationally for decades and domestically. We need to come to grips with that. It's an enduring threat."

Their popularity among criminals, narcotics traffickers and terrorists continues to grow, aided by the spread of online of bomb-making technology, Barbero said.

Tactics used against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated to places such as Somalia, he said. African peacekeepers recently have been targeted with sophisticated armor-piercing IEDs.

Another growing concern is the use of readily available fertilizer as the key component for homemade explosives.

Barbero estimated that 80% of improvised explosvies in Afghanistan are made with fertilizer produced in neighboring Pakistan. Those bombs cause 90% of U.S. casualties there.

Even as their popularity grows elsewhere, improvised explosive attacks have been at record-high levels in Afghanistan. In September, the bombs killed 18 U.S. troops and wounded 420 others, according to the Pentagon data.

"We're playing defense unless we get something to reduce the free flow" of fertilizer from Pakistan, Barbero said.

Fielding counter-IED equipment faster, collecting intelligence on bomb-making groups and enlisting other government agencies to combat the threat will be necessary to limit attacks, Barbero said.

Already, the military has spent $45 billion on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored trucks to protect troops from IEDs.

The vehicles have been credited with saving thousands of lives, according to the Pentagon. Since 2006, the anti-IED task force has spent an additional $17 billion.

IED attacks likely will increase as they are copied by groups other than al-Qaeda or insurgents in Afghanistan, said Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution.

In the future the bombs will probably be encountered in urban areas, not the dirt roads and paths of Afghanistan where billions have been spent to counter them, Singer said.

"We have to figure out a way to alter the investment ratio," he said. "It's unsustainable to keep throwing billions of dollars to fight a technology that costs the other side tens of dollars."
Posted: Oct 21 2011, 11:56 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 101,763
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Friday 21 October 2011

Associated Press

In this photo taken Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011, a Libyan former rebel fighter kicks a graffiti depicting Moammar Gadhafi with the words in Arabic reading, "God is Great", on the Libyan-Tunisian border checkpoint of Ras Ajdir. The death Thursday of Gadhafi, two months after he was driven from power and into hiding, decisively buries the nearly 42-year regime that had turned the oil-rich country into an international pariah and his own personal fiefdom. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

WASHINGTON — Moammar Gadhafi now joins the ranks of powerful foreign figures who have battled the United States only to come to a bad end.

But even with the demise of the Libyan dictator, plus Osama bin Laden, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, there are still autocrats around the world hostile to the U.S., notably in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.

America's most determined foes have been bucking more than just the world's sole surviving superpower, which spends as much on its military as all other countries combined. All faced social and technological trends that made their work more difficult by opening more borders to trade and travel, promoting ethnic and religious tolerance and wiring the world for high-speed Internet.

But as long as the U.S. maintains its leadership role in world affairs, it will find itself a tempting target. Among the despots and autocratic regimes hostile to the U.S. are:

—Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who survived CIA assassination plots, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the U.S. economic embargo to excoriate and antagonize the United States for more than half a century. Castro, 85, formally resigned as president in February 2008 due to illness but handed the reins to his brother, Raul, and the revolutionary regime survives. Cuban-U.S. trade is minimal and there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries. The U.S. accuses the Cuban government of trampling on human rights and silencing dissent, while Havana portrays itself as a victim of U.S. bullying.

—Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a left-wing activist and former military officer who came to power in 1999 and instituted radical changes in economic and social policy, including expanding state control of the oil industry. Chavez has accused Washington of plotting to invade Venezuela, called for containment of the U.S., aligned himself with Cuba and signed major arms deals with Russia to build Venezuela into a regional power. The U.S. likes to portray Venezuela as more of an irritant than an adversary, but that could change if Chavez adopts more aggressive policies.

— Kim Jong Il of North Korea, a Stanlinist-style nation with a 1 million-strong army that has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. since the Korean War. In recent years the U.S. has sought to persuade Kim to give up his small nuclear weapons program, offering economic aid and diplomatic favors as bargaining chips. But the U.S. accuses Kim of repeatedly reneging on promises to disarm while selling weapons expertise abroad. The U.S. and other nations accused Pyongyang last year of torpedoing a South Korean navy ship and shelling a South Korean island. With the North Korean leader believed to be gravely ill, the key to Washington's future relations with Pyongyang may be Kim's son and heir apparent, Kim Jong Un.

—Iran clerical leadership. The theocratic regime in Tehran has demonstrated little tolerance for dissent and a deep and abiding hostility to Washington since the overthrow of the U.S.-backed regime of the shah of Iran in 1979. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's broadsides against the U.S. and Israel are a regular feature of U.N. General Assembly meetings, but his is just one voice among many in the Iranian government, which Western analysts say consists of a jigsaw puzzle of anti-Western factions. The present conflict with Washington grows out of concerns about Iran's support for terror groups in the Middle East and attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mainly focuses on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The U.S. says Iran is laying the groundwork for a nuclear weapons program that could threaten the Middle East, U.S. and Europe. Iran says it is interested only in peaceful nuclear technology.

Not all dictators are regarded as enemies of the U.S.; during the Cold War and beyond, many have been treated as stalwart allies. Today, a number of autocrats endure criticism from the U.S. but are thought to represent little threat to Washington's strategic interests, including President Aleksander Lukashenko of Belarus, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.

From the U.S. perspective, the survival of openly hostile despotic regimes may be less important than the rise of rival economic and political powerhouses like China, India, Brazil and Russia, a trend that some experts say could one day create a world where the United States becomes one major power among many competing for influence and markets.

The decline and fall of Gadhafi, Saddam and others doesn't mean the age of hostile dictatorships is ending. Just as enemies can become allies, allies can become adversaries.

The U.S. considered Saddam a check on the power of the clerical regime in Iran until his invasion of Kuwait led to a deadly U.S. war in 1991. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Saddam became the ace of spades in the U.S. military's deck of cards representing its most-wanted list. He ultimately was cornered by U.S. forces in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit and executed by the new Iraqi government in 2006.

Today the U.S. faces the challenge of helping prevent newly liberated countries from slipping back into authoritarianism. While Taliban leader Mullah Omar was driven from power in Afghanistan in 2001, his movement made an impressive comeback and could once again become a major force in Afghanistan politics as the U.S. withdraws.

Gadhafi's death Thursday is just the beginning of a critical new phase in Libya's history, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The leaders of the Libyan rebellion inherit a divided population, a ruined economy and a barely functioning state — all crippled by decades of Gadhafi's erratic rule.

"He left Libya with a unique set of problems," Cordesman said. "You'd have to go back to Nero or Caligula to find someone who was able to impose their own personal eccentricities on a state to the degree that Gadhafi did."
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | From Today's Headlines | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (31) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.5512 seconds | Archive