Russia Denounces West’s "Hidden Goals" in Syria: Resignation of Annan Prelude to Military Operation

NEW YORK, (SANA)_ Vitaly Churkin, the Ambassador of Russia to the United Nations, asserted that western countries have hidden goals in Syria which aren’t based on objective information related to the events in Syria. Churkin, in press statements yesterday following the announced resignation of Kofi Annan, the UN envoy to Syria, blasted the stances of western states whose deeds contradict their statements, citing western verbal support to Annan and their strategy of obstructing Annan’s mission. Churkin pointed out that such a policy by western states would have ‘catastrophic’ consequences, asserting that the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) plays a ‘useful’ role in the current difficult circumstances. Ambassador Churkin outlined that Russia didn’t receive clarifications from the western states about their desire to end UNSMIS operations in Syria. On his part, Gennady Gatilov, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, said that Annan is a honest international mediator but there are those who want to put him aside as to set hands free for carrying out a military operation. Gatilov, in a comment on his twitter account, considered the resignation of Annan and non-extension of his mission as raising many questions regarding the future of settlement in Syria.

Senate cybersecurity bill mirrors Russian Internet agenda

FILE – This Sept. 30, 2011 file photo shows a reflection of the Department of Homeland Security logo in the eyeglasses of a cybersecurity analyst at the watch and warning center of the Department of Homeland Security’s secretive cyber defense facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The center is tasked with protecting the nation’s power, water and chemical plants, electrical grid and other facilities from cyber attacks. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill, File)

Language within the embattled Cybersecurity Act of 2012 parallels that of a proposal made by Russia and China to the U.N. in 2011, which argued for international regulation of the Internet to fight cybercrime.

In September 2011, Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan urged U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to lead discussion on the “International Code of Conduct for Information Security.”

The proposal called for international cooperation on defeating cybercrime and political dissension, as well as a truce in the use of cyberweapons.

States that agreed to the code would also agree to “bolster bilateral, regional and international cooperation, promote the United Nations’ important role in formulation of international norms, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and improvement of international cooperation in the field of information security, and enhance coordination among relevant international organizations.”

The proposal — hailed by the Chinese government as “the first relatively comprehensive and systematic document in the world … to formulate international rules to standardize information and cyberspace behavior” — was created in anticipation of an international telecommunications conference to be held in December 2012 in Dubai, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12).

It was heavily criticized by U.S. policymakers, however, as political cover for internal crackdown of political dissidents.

It also prompted a House committee to pass a resolution led by California Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack opposing the notion of international regulation of the Internet. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a similar measure in the Senate at the end of June.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/31/senate-cybersecurity-bill-mirrors-russian-internet-agenda/#ixzz22IowaHdK 

False Flag Alert: US Claims Syria "Moving Nerve Gas Out of Storage"

NATO-FSA False Flag Alert.
by Tony Cartalucci 

July 13, 2012 – Citing no evidence, and on the heels of  yet another baseless “activist” report claiming a massacre has taken place in Homs, nameless US officials claimed to the Wall Street Journal that the Syrian government is taking chemical weapons out of storage for possible use “against anti-regime rebels or civilians, possibly in an ethnic cleansing campaign.”

Despite claiming to possess this information, the US officials refused to disclose the location these weapons were being moved to, nor the actual nomenclature of the weapons, stating only “they are most worried about Syria’s stockpiles of sarin gas.”

Image: The symbols for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The West is the undisputed champion of deploying each of these weapons of mass destruction against their enemies – from nuclear bombs upon Japan, to depleted uranium and white phosphorus upon Iraq, to Agent Orange all across Vietnam – it stands to reason that these weapons would eventually end up in the hands of the their proxies as well. 

….

In mid-June, Russia Today had warned of a possible false-flag attack by NATO-backed militants operating under the cover of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” employing chemical weapons pilfered from devastated, militant-overrun Libya. The aim of the operation would be to create a justifiable impetus for overt Western military intervention, citing the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations as the most extreme attempt yet to manufacture otherwise nonexistent consensus for a repeat of NATO’s operations in Libya.

In, “WARNING: Possible NATO-FSA False Flag Attack in Syria,” it was explained how NATO’s militant proxies possessed not only the means and capabilities of carrying out such an attack, but the motivation and precedents of doing so – with the FSA already admittedly carrying out a deadly, nationwide terrorist bombing campaign killing scores of civilians per attack.  The dissemination of Libyan weapons into the hands of militants operating in Syria has also been confirmed by governments and international media on numerous occasions, as has the factthat Libyan militants themselves (and here) have joined NATO’s covert operations to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Syrian government has withstood over a year of withering, brutal attacks, economically, politically, diplomatically, throughout the Western controlled corporate media, and militarily by the West. One might then be troubled to fathom why the government would then use chemical weapons sure to provide the impetus needed to leap over the obstructions placed in the West’s way throughout the UN Security Council by Russia and China. The answer is simple, the Syrian government is not pondering the use of chemical weapons, NATO and its terrorist proxies are.

This, along with a recent roll-out of preplanned, over-hyped “defections” seeks to psychologically stampede the Syrian government from power, and if necessary, create a pretext to do so militarily.

First China, Then The World: UN Uses China As Launchpad For Global One-Child Policy

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
July 23, 2012

Contrary to popular belief the original architect of China’s brutal one-child policy, instituted as official state policy in 1978, was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim, nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome and its UN affiliates in the early 1970s.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

In 1978, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades. Robert Zubrin, senior fellow with the center for security policy,published an op-ed in the Washington Times, reaffirming that Greenhalgh’s study is correct. Zubrin wrote:

“In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control-system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of “The Limits to Growthand: Blueprint for Survival”- publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda – and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the report’s method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.”

In fact, the “missile scientists” dr. Song Jian and company, visited several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.

The Club of Rome, a think-tank emerging in the late 1960s out of the back alleys of the post-WW2 eugenics movement, was meant from its very conception to be a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships were supposed to navigate. Its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was specifically designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, the Club argued, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.”

The fact that the Club of Rome and other UN entities stand at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming, once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In the 1991 publication The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that up until a few years ago few dared question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s “regions” and all nation-states falling under its jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs were to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of 2010, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO– social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO specifically entails, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference in 2009:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference was far from an isolated happening. It is just one piece out of many in the overall global architecture the elite is constructing incrementally and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.

In 2010, Business Insider featured a post by geography professor Gary L. Peters under the header Population Growth Is Still The Biggest Problem Facing Humanity.

After channeling armchair-eugenicist Alan Weisman, who stated: “The intelligent solution (to the problem of population growth) would require the courage and the wisdom to put our knowledge to the test. It would henceforth limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one”, the professor added:

“Started now, such a policy would reduce Earth’s population down to around 1.6 billion by 2100, about the same as the world population in 1900. Had we kept Earth’s population at that level we would not be having this conversation.”

Who is the “we” Peters mentions that would be assigned to keep the earth’s population at any level? As John P. Holdren, Obama’s science czar, wrote in his monstrosity Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment:

“(…) a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. (…). The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Such an agency exists. It is called the United Nations. After all, only a global government with a system-wide, coordinated eugenics-agenda would have the power necessary to impose such laws upon all the peoples of the world. There’s no other way to make it so.

“We can no longer wait for increasing wealth to bring down fertility in remaining high fertility nations; we need policies and incentives to stop growth now”, Peters stated in his little declaration of death.

“Population growth on earth must cease”, Peters argues again. Citing eugenics-front-man Paul Ehrlich and his equation of death (I = PAT), he attempts to disarm critics of the overpopulation mantra with this spell:

“(…) I represents our impact on the Earth, P equals population, A equals affluence (hence consumption), and T stands for technology.”

The professor may argue that the biggest problem is people, I would argue it’s people like Peters that are the problem, advocating for dehumanizing policies, global in scope, imposing restrictions upon people regarding how many children to put on the world. But it is not just the professor that advocates for a global one child policy.

CNN founder Ted Turner, who has openly stated the earth would be better off when 95% of the human population would vanish, has also professed his admiration for the Chinese (read: UN) policies. In 2010 the Globe and Mail quoted Turner as saying:

“the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.”

This echoes the views of Jeffrey Sachs, Ban Ki-moon’s “sustainability” advisor. In June of 2011, US congressman Chris Smith rightly announced that the UN and China are working hand-in-hand to export China’s one-child policy to Africa. Sachs told AFP newswire in May of that year he “worries” about Africa’s “ballooning population”. Sachs:

“I am really scared about population explosion in Nigeria. It is not healthy. Nigeria should work towards attaining a maximum of three children per family.”

Again: these are not genuine worries by genuine scientists. They are calculated statements by compromised charlatans.

As I reported on a couple of weeks ago, UN strongman Maurice Strong told an audience of environmentalists at a side-event to the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that China is the model-state for the rest of the world to emulate in regards to environmental matters.

“What China does matters to the world”, Strong said, “and what China is doing is actually a tremendous source of encouragement.”

Strong went on to say that “sustainable development” has become a “people’s movement guided by the people’s government.”

Strong is a long-time advocate of the sort of draconian population policis that China has forced upon its people. As far back as the early 1970s, Strong hesitatingly admitted to the BBC that such a thing as a license to have a child is the kind of system he would see implemented globally:

That the Obama administration has resumed funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is another sad, undeniable fact. But we may not be surprised by it, as none other than John P. Holdren occupies the chief science position in the White House.

The more one researches this union between the UN and Club of Rome, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realizes that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics. All indicators point to an unsettling conclusion: the UN and its global affiliates are using China as their model-state, hoping to then export its population policies to the rest of the world.

Jurriaan Maessen’s post first appeared on his blog, Explosive Reports.

CFR: Don’t Worry About Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 22, 2012

The Council on Foreign Relations says you shouldn’t worry about the United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which is currently being hammered out at the United Nations in New York.

Opposition to the treaty and defense of the Second Amendment “are not only inflammatory, they are completely unfounded,” the premier globalist organization asserts. Stewart M. Patrick, writing for “The Internationalist,” a blog on the CFR website, argues that the treaty does not endanger the Second Amendment and the sovereignty of the United States.

“The treaty is limited to theinternational trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders,” Patrick writes. Instead of endangering the Second Amendment and the right to own firearms, “the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide.”

The CFR steers our attention to a March, 2012, document produced by the United Nations General Assembly stating that the treaty will “Prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit transfer, illicit production and illicit brokering of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism” and does not impose restrictions on firearm ownership in the United States.

In fact, the treaty would have a significant impact not only on the ownership of firearms, but also national sovereignty.

Earlier this month, Larry Bell of Forbes spelled out the dangers of the ATT, specifically: the globalist treaty will force strict licensing requirements for firearms ownership; create an international gun registry; and mandate that all “unauthorized” firearms (including semi-automatic “assault” rifles) be confiscated and destroyed.

“In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights,” Bell warns.

Since its inception, the United Nations has worked with gun control groups and NGOs. For instance, the UN teamed up with the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) in 1998. IANSA is as an umbrella network to which virtually all national and regional gun control groups belong. It is estimated to represent over 800 gun control organizations in 120 countries. IANSA opposes the use of firearms for self-defense and has worked to make the possession of handguns and semi-automatic weapons illegal. Not surprisingly, in addition to support from the United Nations, IANSA receives funding from the Ford Foundation (in other words, the CIA) and the Rockefeller Foundation.

In 2001, the UN held a conference on eliminating firearms in New York. “At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on ‘small arms,’ where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide,” NewsMax reported.

“The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun – every single gun worldwide – to be under U.N. and government control,” warns LaPierre. “And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation,” said the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre.

“The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it,” Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI, explained shortly after the globalist organization was created in 1921. In order to do this and eliminate opposition, the CFR and the United Nations are working in tandem to establish a gun grabbing regime under the guise of stopping violence by terrorists and organized crime.

The CFR and others will naturally try to derail criticism of the ATT, but thanks to the alternative media the effort is meeting stiff resistance. Even factions of the corporate media are resisting the effort, as Fox News demonstrated on July 18 when it wrote:

The most likely regulations to be pushed by the UN treaty are those that have been the favorites of American gun control advocates for years — registration and licensing, micro-stamping ammunition, and restrictions on the private transfers of guns. Unfortunately, these measures have a long history of failure and primarily just inconvenience and disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Syrian forces battle rebels in Aleppo, families flee

(Reuters) – Syrian troops and armored vehicles pushed into a rebel-held district of Aleppo on Saturday and struck back in Damascus against fighters emboldened by a bomb attack against President Bashar al-Assad’s inner circle.

Opposition activists in Aleppo, Syria’s biggest city and a northern commercial hub, said hundreds of families were fleeing residential areas after the military swept into the Saladin district, which had been in rebel hands for two days.

Fighting was also reported in the densely-populated, poor neighborhood of al-Sakhour.

“The sound of bombardment has been non-stop since last night. For the first time we feel Aleppo has turned into a battle zone,” a housewife, who declined to be named, said by phone from the city.

The Syrian army’s push in Aleppo occurred after rebels assassinated four of his top security officials this week and mounted a six-day attack in the capital that they dubbed “Damascus Volcano”.

Rebels also captured three border crossings with Iraq and Turkey, and on Saturday an Iraqi security source said gunmen appeared to be taking over a fourth at Yarubiyah in Syria’s Kurdish northeast.

Assad, battling a 16-month uprising against his family’s four decades of autocratic rule, has not spoken in public since the assassinations, and failed to attend funeral ceremonies for his brother-in-law and two other slain officials on Friday.

A bloody crackdown on what began as a peaceful revolt has increasingly become an armed conflict between an establishment dominated by Assad’s Alawite minority, an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam, and rebels drawn largely from the Sunni majority.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was sending his peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous and top military adviser Gen. Babacar Gaye to Syria to assess the situation.

In Damascus, Assad’s forces hit back overnight. Using helicopters and tanks, they aimed rockets, machineguns and mortars at pockets of lightly armed rebels moving about on foot and attacking security installations and roadblocks.

Residents said the city was quiet on Saturday morning but that heavy mortar shelling in the northeastern neighborhood of Barzeh resumed at around 2.30 p.m. (1130 GMT). Explosions could also be heard near the southern district of Tadamon.

Most shops were closed and there was only light traffic – although more than in the past few days. Some police checkpoints, abandoned earlier in the week, were manned again.

Most petrol stations were closed, having run out of fuel, and the few that were open had huge lines of cars waiting to fill up. Residents also reported long queues at bakeries and said vegetable prices had doubled.

“EVERYONE IS DEPRESSED”

“I feel depressed and lonely because I have to stay indoors as there is nothing good outside. Everyone else is depressed as well,” said a woman in her 50s in west Damascus who supports Assad’s opponents. She declined to be identified.

An opposition activist said he had sneaked back into the Midan district, which Assad’s forces seized back from rebel control on Friday, only to find his house looted.

“The doors were broken and I walked into several houses which were in the same condition,” said Fadi al-Wahed. “Safes were broken into, drawers broken and furniture and television screens missing. Three army trucks were parked under the ring road flyover with loot.”

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group which monitors the violence in the country, said 240 people were killed across Syria on Friday, including 43 troops.

The Observatory’s combined death toll over the past 48 hours stood at 550, making it the bloodiest two days of the 16-month-old uprising against Assad.

On the Iraqi-Syrian border, a security source and a separate witness said they saw gunmen in a civilian car enter the Yarubiya crossing point on the Syrian side of the frontier.

“When we contacted the Syrians there, they told us the Syrian security elements are gradually withdrawing from the place,” said the security source, who works for the Iraqi customs department.

It was not immediately possible to verify the reports on the border post, but Syrian opposition activists said several towns in Syria’s Kurdish northeast had passed – without a fight – into local hands in recent days as central authority eroded.

A Turkish regional governor said on Saturday Syrian rebels and “independent groups” linked to smuggling were still holding the Bab al-Hawa commercial crossing point.

Mehmet Celalettin Lekesiz said nine Turkish trucks on the Syrian side had been set on fire by the Syrian groups, contradicting statements by the rebels that they were torched by the Syrian army because of Turkey’s support for the rebels.

FLEEING REFUGEES

The surge in violence has trapped millions of Syrians, turned sections of Damascus into ghost areas, and sent tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to neighboring Lebanon.

The U.N. Security Council has approved a 30-day extension for a ceasefire observer mission, but Ban has recommended changing its focus to pursuing prospects for a political solution – effectively accepting there was no truce to monitor.

Diplomats said only half of the 300 unarmed observers would be needed for Ban’s suggested plan, and several monitors were seen departing from Damascus on Saturday.

Speaking two days after Russia and China vetoed a resolution to impose further sanctions on Assad’s government, Ban called on the Security Council to “redouble efforts to forge a united way forward and exercise its collective responsibility”.

“The Syrian government has manifestly failed to protect civilians and the international community has collective responsibility to live up to the U.N. Charter and act on its principles,” he said.

Regional and Western powers have voiced concern the conflict might become a full-blown sectarian war that could spill across borders. But Assad’s opponents remain outgunned and divided.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, speaking after contacts with the head of the Arab League and Qatar’s prime minister, said all three agreed that it was time for Syria’s fractured opposition to prepare to take charge of the country.

“We would like to see the rapid formation of a provisional government representing the diversity of Syrian society,” said Fabius. Syria’s main political opposition group, the Syrian National Council, operating in exile, has so far failed to unite Assad’s disparate foes on a united political platform.

On the military front, a senior Syrian defector said Assad could now rely only on an inner core of loyal army regiments, adding “the collapse of the regime is accelerating like a snowball”.

General Mustafa Sheikh said Assad’s forces were transporting chemical arms across Syria for possible use against the rebels.

“The regime has started moving its chemical stockpile and redistributing it to prepare for its use,” said Sheikh, citing rebel intelligence obtained in recent days.

The White House said on Saturday it was concerned about what might happen to chemical weapons in Syria but believed Damascus’s stockpile “remains under government control”.

(Additional reporting by Igor Ilic in Brijuni, Croatia; Suleiman al-Khalidi in Hacipasa, Turkey; Leigh Thomas in Paris; Jamal al-Badrani in Mosul, Ira; and Jonathan Burch in Cilvegozu, Turkey; Editing by Ralph Gowling)

On the Verge of An All Out War? Massive Military Build-Up in the Persian Gulf

by Ben Schreiner

The familiar menace of U.S. war drums have resumed at a fevered pitch, as Iran finds itself once again firmly within the Pentagon’s cross hairs. 

According to multiple reports, the U.S. is currently in the midst of a massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf on a scale not seen in the region since prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.  The military surge reportedly includes an influx of air and naval forces, ground troops, and even sea drones.  Lest one forgets, the U.S. already has two aircraft carriers and their accompanying striker groups in the region. 

A growing sense of Iran war fever can also be seen mounting in Washington.  For instance, in an effort to foil ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany), a bipartisan group of 44 U.S. Senators recently sent a letter to President Obama urging the administration to “focus on significantly increasing the pressure on the Iranian government through sanctions and making clear that a credible military option exists.”

Such hawkish posturing occurs despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community (as well as the Israeli intelligence community, for that matter) finds no evidence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon–the ostensible reason behind Western sanctions and threats of attack.  Moreover, as an April Pentagon report states, Iran’s military doctrine remains one of self-defense, committed to “slow an invasion” and “force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.”  (Compare this to the U.S. military doctrine rife with notions of global “power projection” and one sees where the credible threat lies.)  

The nuclear issue, though, is but a pretext used to veil U.S. imperial designs in the region.  As a senior U.S. Defense Department official recently let slip to the New York Times:  “This is not only about Iranian nuclear ambitions, but about Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions.”  In other words, it is about removing one of the last irritants to U.S. power projection in the resource-rich Middle East.

Of course, Iran already finds itself under siege from a lethal trifecta comprised of U.S.-led cyber attacks, Israeli-led assassinations, and oppressive Western economic sanctions.  The latter of which has left ordinary Iranians to confront a toxic mix of ballooning inflation and rampant unemployment.  In short, as Conn Hallinan writes at CounterPunch, the West is “already at war with Iran.”

The question, then, is just how far this “war by other means” shall ultimately escalate?

Towards a Dangerous Escalation

Although punitive economic sanctions are frequently sold as an alternative to war, history is replete with evidence to the contrary.  In the end, sanctions are often but a prelude to military hostilities.  (One only needs to cross over to Iraq and look at the history of Western sanctions and eventual U.S. invasion.) 

In fact, a recent report in the New York Times warned of much the same.  The current round of Western economic penalties imposed on Iran, the paper wrote, “represent one of the boldest uses of oil sanctions as a tool of coercion since the United States cut off oil exports to Japan in 1940. That experiment did not end well: The Japanese decided to strike before they were weakened.”

But much like the attempted torpedoing of Japan’s economy prior to the Second World War, the current attempt to bring Iran to its knees via economic sanctions may very well be designed to draw an attack from Iran–thus creating a justification for a full-fledged U.S. military campaign to impose “regime change.” 

And much the same as in the 1940s, a global crisis of capitalism greases our current path to war.  After all, war enables the forcible opening of new markets, along with bounties galore to be wrought via “creative destruction”; both of which are desperately needed for the sustenance of an imperiled economic system predicated on limitless growth and expansion.  Indeed, this enduring allure of war has already reared its ugly head amidst the current crisis.

The colonial smash-and-grab that was the 2011 N.A.T.O. intervention into Libya, as Alexander Cockburn has deemed it, was our first evidence that Western elites have settled on war as a means to resolve the current intractable capitalist crisis.  But the spoils from Libya have proven to be insufficient to revive growth stymied since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. 

A heavily sanctioned Iran, on the other hand, boasts a G.D.P. over five times larger than pre-“liberated” Libya, while also sitting atop the world’s third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves.  A defeated and placated Iran able to be enveloped more fully into the U.S.-dominated capitalist system thus holds great potential for global capitalism’s needed regeneration.  Of course, in seizing control over Iran’s energy resources, the U.S. and its allies would also come to possess a monopoly over the Middle East’s energy resources–a strategic key in any future conflict with rivals Russia and China.

And so it is that under the imperative of renewing global capitalism that the U.S. swiftly amasses its military hardware to the Persian Gulf under to cloak of combating nuclear proliferation.  The accompanying talk of military hostilities and of using “all options” against Tehran by elites in Washington thus ought not to be taken as idle threats. 

Clearly, we stand at the very precipice of outright war.

Civil War Declared in Syria, Globalist’s Formula for WW III Begins

Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 16, 2012

The Syrian opposition is doing a fine job asdirected by the CIA . The connection between these “rebels” and the US government is uncanny. Mainstream media has downplayed the Western intervention into the Syrian conflict, referring to them as “pro-democracy campaigners” without admitting their political agendas or ties.

The same champions of former President G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq are cheering on the sidelines, waiting for Obama’s unconstitutional declaration of war in Syria.

Speaking for the Syrian National Council (SNC) is Bassma Kodmani, who was an attendee at the Bilderberg Meeting this year in Chantilly, Virginia. The SNC have had the closest contact to Obama’s administration and called specifically for US forces to militarily strike Syria early on in the conflict.

Kodmani has declared : “No dialogue with the ruling regime is possible. We can only discuss how to move on to a different political system.” She also has stated : “The next step needs to be a resolution under Chapter VII, which allows for the use of all legitimate means, coercive means, embargo on arms, as well as the use of force to oblige the regime to comply.”

The NATO forces or “armed peacekeepers” have been waiting in the wings for their direction to attack.

Over 10,000 men armed with “highly-sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank missiles” entered into Syria to assist in the conflict and bloodshed. These trained terrorists took up positions in the suburban areas while other armed groups attacked Assad’s military.

In Turkey, while the CIA trains oppositional forces against Assad, there has developed an element of instability within the Kurds against Erdogan, who supports the CIA operatives.

Through Palestinian Intelligence sources, Turkey provided evidencethat Erdogan had direct involvement in the Gaza Flotilla killings. These murders aided the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood who was opposed to military action against Syria.

Could the same forces who have orchestrated uprisings in the Middle East as so-called “Arab Springs” be planning another in Turkey?

The Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) has admitted involvement with the “ Arab Reform Initiative ” (ARI) and the US/Middle East Project that is a consortium of senior diplomats, intelligence officers and financiers that are directed to control regional “policy analysis” to ensure conflict while purporting stability.

To finance the forced regime change in Syria, the CFR have employed the Centre for European Reform (CER), while using advise from Peter Sutherland from Goldman Sachs.

Advisers to the project include:

• Brent Scowcroft, former US National Security adviser
• Zbigniew Brzezinski, influential to Obama’s rise to presidency
• George Soros, providing monies from his Open Society Foundation
• Charles Grant, former defense editor of the Economist

Now the Red Cross has declared that civil war is officially sited as Homs and Hama are noted as war zones. This means that combatants are subject to the Geneva Conventions and possibly be tried as war criminals in international court.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is beginning talks with Russia and China in an attempt to coerce them into supporting the pending military strike against Syria. The US, the UN and Israel are gathering up forces and making ready for the war they have been planning on for quite some time.

The UN has been frustrated with Russia’s continued blockade of resolutions with the ultimate intervention of UN NATO forces against Assad. An anonymous diplomat admits: “the problem here is Russia.”

By declaring civil war in Syria, Assad could, and most likely will, be charged and tried for war crimes. Mohamad Bazzi, adjunct for the CFR, remarked: “Most of the scenarios are really frightening and just lead to more brutality by the regime and more of a counterattack by the opposition. The regime still hasn’t been weakened to the degree where they can be overrun.”

Bazzi claims the declaration of civil war will do little to change the situation. “The regime already opened themselves up to that months ago, and they’ve been rather disdainful of any kind of international accountability for what they’ve done. On the whole, the observer mission has not been particularly successful. It’s something for the UN to focus on but it’s sort of a sideshow.”

As the UN Security Council voices concerns that Russia will come to Assad’s defense if and when military strike occurs, the UN has stated that “we really need to decide if we are prepared to take action . . . We should be supporting the opposition, with weapons, ammunition, training and intelligence – now.”

———————
This article first appeared on Susanne Posel’s site Occupy Corporatism.

As Syrian crisis deepens, Obama cites ‘Captive Nations’ week

As critics accuse President Obama of a weak response to the political and humanitarian crisis in Syria, the president quietly signed an order Monday proclaiming “Captive Nations Week.”

“As individuals rise to demand their universal rights, the United States stands with them in pursuit of equality, justice, and freedom,” the president declared in the order. “And as long as there are people who live in the darkness of oppression, America will remain their steadfast friend, linked by a common dream and our common ideals.”

The proclamation, which presidents have signed routinely since Dwight Eisenhower began the practice during the Cold War in 1959, makes no mention of Syria, where forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have killed nearly 15,000 civilians in 16 months of open revolt against the regime.

Douglas Feith, a former undersecretary of defense in the administration of President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama is behaving too timidly in the Syrian crisis.

“The Obama administration has neither promoted humanitarian ‘safe zones’ on Syria’s Turkish border, nor provided arms to the rebels,” Mr. Feith wrote Monday in the Wall Street Journal. “It has not helped establish a no-fly zone, nor has it supported NATO military strikes against Assad’s forces.”

Russia on Monday accused the West of essentially trying to use blackmail to secure a new U.N. Security Council resolution that could allow the use of force in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovtold reporters that the Kremlin has no intention of supporting the British proposal to enact U.N. sanctions to resolve the crisis.

The U.S. has consistently supported sanctions, which the Obama administration has stepped up as the crisis has deepened. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also worked with the U.N. Security Council and U.N.envoy Kofi Annan on a June 30 accord calling on Syrians to come up with a political transition.

A mandate for a U.N. observer force expires on July 20, and Mr. Lavrovaccused the West of using the deadline as a bargaining chip.

“To our great regret, there are elements of blackmail,” Mr. Lavrov said. “We are being told that if you do not agree to passing the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, then we shall refuse to extend the mandate of the monitoring mission.”

Mr. Feith said the president is ceding U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations in the debate.

“By refusing to act on Syria, the president is missing an opportunity to advance U.S. security interests in the Middle East, while benefiting Iran, the principal sponsor of the Assad regime,” Mr. Feith said. “And by suggesting that America lacks international legal authority to act, he is undermining U.S. sovereignty.”

In “Captive Nations” proclamation, Mr. Obama said America “renews our abiding ties to all peoples who struggle to claim their inalienable rights.”

“As strongly as my administration condemns tyranny, we embrace emerging democracies and welcome the chance to work with those who seek to restore their people’s liberty,” the president said. “With our partners in the international community, we will continue striving to advance human rights, grow prosperity, and meet mutual challenges with global solutions.”

Agenda 21 For Dummies: New World Order Depopulation Exposed

Infowars.com
July 15, 2012

Agenda 21 explained very well. Including implications it will have on humanity. Opinions within the video come in some cases from those that were in on the negotiations. Truly an interesting watch.