Thursday, March 31, 2011

Zbigniew Brzezinski : How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujaheddin....

Zbigniew Brzezinski : How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujaheddin....

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea... It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire...

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today...

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.


The Deep State "is a parallel secret government, organized by the intelligence and security apparatus, financed by drugs, and engaging in illicit violence, to protect the status and interests of the military..."

The 'Deep State' is the hidden government.

At Global Research, on 7 April 2011, Kevin Zeese reported on the bad guys.

The Link Between War and Big Finance

According to Zeese:

1. Both the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs benefit from certain wars.

Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote of World War I: “the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”

2. The most decorated US Marine in history, Smedley Butler, said:

"I was a gangster for capitalism.

"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914.

"I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.

"I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street... In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

3. In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how World Bank and IMF loans are used to make profits for US business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the USA to control them.

If a country refuse to "honor" its debts, the CIA topples its leader.

4. Tarak Kauff, US Veteran For Peace activist, stated, "The wealth of this country is disappearing down the tubes into the stuffed pockets of the financial/military/industrial oligarchs. Americans are being bled dry while people of the world are literally bleeding and dying from U.S.-made weapons and warfare."

On 6 April 2011, Professor Peter Dale Scott, at Voltaire Network, tells us about:

The "Deep State" behind U.S. democracy

According to Peter Dale Scott:

1. The term 'Deep state' comes from Turkey.

In 1996, in Turkey, a Mercedes crashed.

In the Mercedes were a top drug trafficker, a senior police officer, a Member of Parliament and a beauty queen.

The drug trafficker was head of NATO's paramilitary organization, the Grey Wolves (Operation Gladio terrorism).

The Deep State "is a parallel secret government, organized by the intelligence and security apparatus, financed by drugs, and engaging in illicit violence, to protect the status and interests of the military against threats from intellectuals, religious groups, and occasionally the constitutional government."

2. The influence of the deep state, the American war machine, has continued to increase.

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski sent Islamist agents to Afghanistan, destabilizing the country.

Afghanistan became a centre for poppy culture, heroin trafficking, and jihadist Islamism.

The CIA under William Casey worked with the drug-dealing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in creating a huge Afghan narco-economy.

The BCCI was a big global drug-laundering bank.

It was corrupting US politicians, and politicians, presidents and prime ministers all over the world.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was probably the leading heroin trafficker in the world during the 1980’s. He also became the leading recipient of CIA largesses supplemented by an equal amount of Saudi Arabian money.

3. The media presented Carter as a populist candidate, a peanut farmer from the South.

Carter had been prepared for the presidency by Wall Street, and particularly by the Trilateral Commission, funded by David Rockefeller, and directed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski became Carter’s national security adviser.

9 11 was carried out by people within the governments and institutions of many countries, including the USA, UK, other countries in Europe, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.

We call the bad guys Mafia-Fascists.

Porter Goss, former boss of the CIA

From an article entitled
Robert Gates, Lockerbie, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, we learn that Mohamed Atta was 'flying Lebanese heroin into Florida for Porter Goss's 911 operation'.

Reportedly, tied to Porter Goss' 911 training operation in Florida were the Muslim Brotherhood, and agents of the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia, Germany, Syria and Pakistan.

Reportedly, Sam Giancana rigged the US presidential election for President Kennedy. Reportedly, Giancana had links to 7 US Presidents. According to Giancana, both presidents Roosevelt and Truman were 'bought'. (
Sam 'Momo' Giancana: Live and Die by the Sword)

Licio Gelli of Italy's P2 masonic lodge

In Italy, the P2 masonic lodge was a link between the mafia and the government. (

In March 1981, the Italian police found a list of the 962 members of P2, which contained the names of: 3 government ministers, 43 members of parliament, 43 generals, 8 admirals, secret service chiefs, top bureaucrats and diplomats, police commanders, industrialists, financiers, journalists and TV personalities.

Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky wrote that Licio Gelli, P-2's Grand Master, was the ally of Mossad in Italy and that Gelli also had a close relationship with the Gladio group. (
down with murder inc / Israel, Mossad, Iran and a Nuclear False Flag Attack )

Top people who allegedly had contact with P-2 include Henry Kissinger, Edmond de Rothschild, and David Rockefeller.

Khashoggi reportedly has links to the Bush family and Osama bin Laden. (Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists)

In 1999, according to Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat, (The Global Drug Meta-Group.) a meeting took place at Adnan Khashoggi's villa in Beaulieu, near Monaco.

Those at the meeting included a member of the Yeltsin cabal and four people with passports from Venezuela, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Germany.

Between them they allegedly enjoyed excellent relations with: 1) Ayman al-Zawahiri, the 'mastermind of 9/11'. 2) Soviet military intelligence. 3) the FARC Colombian revolutionary group. 4) the Kosovo Liberation Army. 5) (according to a well-informed Russian source) the CIA.

Bush and Kissinger have links to BCCI

Think of the criminal bank known as BCCI.

It involved leaders from 73 countries.

And at the top was the CIA.

"Investigations by the US Senate, NY Attorney General Robert Morgenthau and several award-winning journalists revealed that BCCI was run by the CIA and top US officials." (
Inside the Global Banking Intelligence Complex, BCCI Operations)

Key players were: Former CIA directors George Bush Sr., William Casey and Richard Helms, former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

At Global research, on 12 October 2010, David DeGraw (Inside the Global Banking Intelligence Complex, BCCI Operations) pointed out that BCCI consisted of an alliance of certain:

1. Intelligence agencies

2. Corporations

3. Weapons dealers

4. Drug traffickers

5. Terrorists

6. Bankers

7. Government officials.

David DeGraw, whose new book is “The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III,” points out:

1. BCCI links many scandals, including Iran-Contra, October Surprise, the funding of Saddam, the sale of nuclear technology to North Korea, the funding of Osama and al Qaeda, the drugs trade, the trade in people.

2. BCCI was modeled on top intelligence agencies and corporations.

The richest fifth of the World's population receive 82% of the World's income.

3. BCCI involved people such as Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein and the Colombian drug barons.

Time magazine reported:

"This is the story of how the wealthy and corrupt in Latin America managed to steal virtually every dollar lent to their countries by Western banks, creating the debt crisis of the 1980s;

"how heads of state… skimmed billions from their national treasuries and hid them in Swiss and Cayman accounts forever free from snooping regulators;

"how Pakistan and Iraq got materials for nuclear weaponry and how Libya built poison-gas plants.”

4. The CIA was in charge.

CIA covert operations were run through BCCI’s “black network.”

BCCI frontmen Kamal Adham and A.R. Khalil were 'primary CIA liaisons for the entire Middle East'.

Among the others involved with the bank were high-ranking Republicans and Democrats, top executives at First American Bank, Bank of America, PR firm Hill & Knowlton, cable company TCI, and auditing firms Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young.

5. Investigative reporter Chris Floyd wrote, “Instead of stopping the drug-runners and terrorists, the CIA decided to join them, using BCCI’s secret channels to finance ‘black ops’ all over the world.”

The black network, 'which is still functioning', operates an arms-trade business and transports drugs and gold.

6. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel’s spy agencies and other Western intelligence agencies.

BCCI 'maintained cozy relationships' with terrorists, say investigators who discovered suspected terrorist accounts for Libya, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization in B.C.C.I.’s London offices.

7. Bin Laden had accounts in BCCI and ran a CIA/BCCI-funded camp.

8. BCCI also funded Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program when they set up the Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology.

9. George Bush Sr. and Robert Gates were key players in the BCCI financed Iran-Contra Affair.

10. George Bush Sr. and Henry Kissinger were also involved in funnelling billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein.

Kissinger and his firm Kissinger Associates played a key role in BCCI.

11. BCCI secretly owned Washington’s largest bank, First American.

Five of Bank of America’s senior officers were either on BCCI’s board of directors or helped to manage the bank.

Bank of America transferred more than $1 billion a day for BCCI.

BCCI was linked to market manipulation and money laundering.

12. The Savings and Loan scandal was part of the BCCI Affair.

Many of the failed S&L thrifts were secret intelligence shell companies and were traced back to BCCI and the CIA.

George Bush Sr., Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Robert Mueller, Robert Gates and Alan Greenspan were all heavily involved in BCCI activities. Former President Bill Clinton even played a crucial role in continuing the cover-up by killing follow-up investigations upon taking office.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world, "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies....

Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world, "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies....

The world that Konrad Adenauer grew up in no longer exists, and as a result the Germans are now looking eastward .... not westward. Fed up with bailing under performing (and corrupt) European governments who cannot balance their budgets, and faced with a U.S. foreign policy establishement whose focus is .... at best .... ambivalent towards Europe, and sometimes openely or covertly hostile .... the Germans are now responding to an environment that they realize is not in their best interests. My prediction .... expect the Germans to look towards countries like Russia, China, and the other emerging BRIC countries in developing diplomatic and trade relations....

China's continued growth and influence in Asia and what it would mean to U.S. influence , but it is a good summary that should be read to refresh one's memory on how we have gotten to where we are today.

With its abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya, Germany has abandoned its strict alignment with the West, a basic tenet of German foreign policy for decades. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's new doctrine is a dangerous one. It would be disastrous for Germany's Western partners began doubting Berlin's committment.

"My God, what will become of Germany when I'm gone?" Konrad Adenauer, West Germany's first chancellor, said 50 years ago. His overriding goal was to keep Germany firmly anchored in the West. He believed that integrating Germany in Europe and keeping it closely allied with the United States was necessary to protect the Germans from themselves. Adenauer was afraid that his compatriots might once again be tempted to veer out and forge their own path. Until a few weeks ago, this fear seemed absurd. But the situation has changed.

By abstaining in the United Nations Security Council vote on the resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, the government has given up what had been a cross-party consensus on German security policy. Until now, Germany was committed to siding with America and France. That wasn't always easy. Sometimes, for example before the 2003 Iraq war, it was impossible. On Iraq, Germany had to choose between one of its two most important partners. But it remained convinced that on no account should it oppose both nations at the same time.

The government has now given up this basic tenet of German policy.

The official explanation is an excuse: Germany doesn't want to take part in a war against Libya, said Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. If Germany had voted in favor of a no-fly zone, joining the military mission would have been unavoidable, he claims. But such an automatic link between voting yes and taking part doesn't exist. Germany could have voiced its quite justified misgivings and still sided with the other Western nations. That would not have forced it to commit German forces to the military operation.

Central Principles of German Foreign Policy in Doubt

In fact, much more is at stake than the question of a German military contribution. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Westerwelle have called central principles of German foreign policy into question. This will have consequences. Germany's westward integration wasn't just the obsession of Adenauer, a Rhinelander. It was a response to the fundamental problem of Europe's balance of power.

What was to become of this restless nation in the center of Europe that had spent its history shifting between east and west, that for so long entertained a special awareness of its historical role and that started two world wars?

The Germans have come up with three different answers to this question over the last 150 years. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck pursued an equilibrium, trying to preserve peace by preventing other nations from allying themselves against Germany. But even a diplomat as skilled as Bismarck wasn't able to maintain the precarious balance of power. The collapse of his system resulted in World War I. Adolf Hitler tried to solve the problem by trying to dominate Europe by force. That resulted in total defeat. Only with Adenauer's policy of firmly aligning West Germany with the West was the republic able to find its place in Europe and the world.

That makes it so alarming when Westerwelle proclaims Germany's UN abstention as the birth of a new foreign policy doctrine. In the future, Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world. That can be France, Britain and America, but it could also on occasion be Brazil or India. The principle of "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies.

Westerwelle's New Doctrine is Contradictory

This new doctrine ignores Germany's history. It is deeply contradictory. On the one hand Westerwelle is exaggerating Germany's international role -- even a superpower like the US can't keep up such a policy of shifting alliances in the long run. Germany would be hopelessly overreaching itself by doing so. If Bismarck didn't manage it, Westerwelle doesn't have a hope. It would be disastrous for Germany if its Western partners began to doubt its commitment to them.

At the same time, Westerwelle is making Germany more insignificant than it really is. He wants Germany to be a country that doesn't send any soldiers on foreign missions and instead serves as a role model for peace. This Germany wants its role in the Security Council to be about abolishing child soldiers and landmines, not about imposing no-fly zones. It wants to leave the unpleasant matters for others to sort out.

The Libyan controversy highlights this double standard. Westerwelle was at the forefront of Western politicians supporting the popular uprisings in Arab countries. But he left it to others to keep protesters from being massacred. That is simply hypocritical. One can't accuse the other European countries of being too slow in backing a weapons and oil embargo while at the same time withdrawing German ships that could enforce such an embargo.

Scoring Domestic Points at the Expense of Germany's Reputation

The pacifist cloak doesn't make the new unilateralism any more appealing. Our partners are as averse to an overbearing Germany as they are to a Germany that shirks its responsibilities. The government is currently doing both at the same time: shooting its mouth off and ducking away. This new German exceptionalism is distasteful -- just listen to how Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere or Development Minister Dirk Niebel are more or less directly accusing their allies of just bombing Libya for the sake of the country's oil.

This supposed new foreign policy doctrine smacks of domestic populism. Westerwelle has succumbed to such temptations before. He opposed the Iraq war, but then complained that Germany's "no" had damaged the trans-Atlantic alliance. He has been demanding the withdrawal of militarily redundant nuclear weapons from German soil although they are an important symbol of Germany's cooperation with the US. He's more worried about scoring political points at home than about the damage he's doing to Germany's standing in the world.

It has been the same pattern with Libya. Westerwelle's advisors in the Foreign Ministry recommended that Germany should vote "yes" in the Security Council. He ignored their advice because that would have diluted his domestic message: no involvement of German troops.

Angela Merkel didn't stop her foreign minister. She has often shown the right foreign policy instincts. But she probably wanted to avoid a public debate about German military involvement ahead of important regional elections. That kind of thinking would be in line with her character.

Perhaps she agrees with Westerwelle's view that the old certainties no longer apply. In that case a Christian Democrat chancellor would be jettisoning Germany's policy of Western loyalty -- a stance that was part of her party's creed for decades....

Both Vietnam and China have a recent history of war and conflict .... a history that has not been resolved. Add this history to the present territorial disputes and claims on the South China Sea .... it is then not a surprise to see countries like Vietnam looking at China with a sense of apprehension...

Back to Westphalia
The Westphalian principle that nation states could run their internal affairs as they pleased helped to reduce war for 300 years. That principle is now increasingly abandoned, not just in Libya but through the International Monetary Fund and other non-democratic international organizations. The consequences are hugely hazardous, while putting at risk the immense benefits the ancient treaty brought. - Martin Hutchinson (Mar 29, '11)

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Turkey has been compelled to rethink Libya hard and fast....

Turkey has been compelled to rethink Libya hard and fast....

Saud bin Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz, the tall, handsome, urbane Saudi foreign minister, has no peers. In a career spanning 36 years, he was a key player in so many high dramas that one loses count - the Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the Afghan jihad, the Gulf War, the Taliban and al-CIAda..., the September 11, 2001 False Flag attacks, the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, leaving out his profound contribution to the realignment of Saudi Arabia's post-Cold War foreign policy, especially with China....

But the unscheduled visit of a few hours late in the evening last Thursday to the Turkish capital of Ankara was a daunting mission to pin Turkey down to a favorable stance on the momentous developments in the region. Ankara, whose ties with Tehran dramatically improved in the recent past, had begun treading on the first circle of Saudi interests...

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had just characterized the Saudi intervention in Bahrain as "a new Karbala". The reference was to the battle that took place in 680 between the forces of the Prophet Mohammad's grandson Husain ibn Ali and Umayyad caliph Yazid II.

Erdogan demanded a withdrawal of the Saudi forces from Bahrain, whereas Riyadh visualized a prolonged military presence as the only guarantee against a Shi'ite takeover of power in Manama.

Faisal once lamented about his own legacy in a memorable interview with New York Times when he reportedly said:
We have not yet seen moments of joy in all that time [past 36 years] ... You see the amount of water, you think you can hold something in your hand, but it falls away. Sand is the same thing. So unless there is something to hold in your hand and to point to success and as an achievement, then you have done nothing.
Faisal might have wondered whether it was water or sand he was holding in his hand as his private jet took off Thursday night ferrying him back to his home in Jeddah. Actually, he was holding something more solid.

Erdogan has since back-tracked from his Karbala statement. Two days later, Turkey force-landed an Iranian aircraft en route to Syria and confiscated materials that breached United Nations sanctions on Tehran - rocket launchers, mortars, Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition. A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement said, "The plane was allowed to leave ... without the banned material." The point being stressed is an "incident" has occurred involving Tehran, and Turkish diplomatic practices are extremely sophisticated.

What emerges is that there has been a steady shift in the past week in the way in which the Turkish leadership is viewing the regional situation. Thus far, Turkey has done well by placing itself on the right side of history in the New Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood's tacit equations with the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces, the Brotherhood's co-option of Salafis and its surge as the only organized force in the society and the resounding victory of the constitutional referendum (which the Brotherhood robustly backed) - these are positive trends as far as Erdogan and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is concerned as they provide a new Islamic ideological basis for closer Turkish-Egyptian relations.

The Arab awakening seems to hold the potential to advance Erdogan's ambitious drive to secure for Turkey what his detractors call a "neo-Ottoman" leadership role in the region.

Libya, therefore, poses a challenge for Erdogan. First, the international community's intervention in Libya sets a precedent. It is not lost on Ankara that there are stirrings of mass protest in next-door Syria. Besides, Ankara realizes that international intervention in Libya is creating a fait accompli that Turkey has no say in. Ankara began rationalizing that it is in Turkey's all-round interests to cut a role for itself in political terms in the international intervention in Libya rather than to stay aloof. Faisal's advice would have helped.

However, Turkey has to work for gaining such a role. Ankara was upset that it wasn't invited to the summit meeting in Paris on Monday to choreograph the political approach to the Western intervention in Libya. French President Nikolas Sarkozy was keen to highlight his lead role in the intervention in Libya and probably punctured Turkey's aspirations as a regional power in North Africa. Turkey reacted strongly by questioning the locus standi of the intervention and the ferocity of the French air strikes.

Following a crucial strategy session in Ankara on Monday night, Turkey concluded that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be the best antidote to Sarkozy's vanity fair; and if the alliance were to take a lead role in the operations, Turkey would also have its say. (All NATO decisions are taken by consensus and Turkey is a major member country.)

Turkey hopes to secure a role similar to what it has been playing in Afghanistan - participation in the International Security Assistance Force except in combat operations. Ankara also argues that like in Afghanistan, NATO operations ought to have a mandate from the UN Security Council. Finally, Turkey would want NATO operations to stay within the ambit of UN resolution 1973, which means enforcing a ceasefire, implementing a no-fly zone and rendering relief and humanitarian assistance.

Turkey has calibrated for developments on the ground creating a dynamic of their own. For example, the air strikes may fail to bring desired results in terms of Muammar Gaddafi losing control. Then what? A de facto division of Libya may ensue. This may turn out to be a long and difficult war and at some stage deployment of ground troops may become necessary. On the contrary, if Gaddafi gets ousted in the near term, who will assume power? To quote Sami Cohen, a veteran Turkish commentator wired to the establishment's thinking, "No one knows this. There is no prepared plan for it. It's just another indication of an open-ended period of uncertainty."

In sum, Turkish ambitions as a regional power - like Sarkozy's - are cruising without a compass. Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama spoke to Erdogan on Tuesday evening to ensure Turkish participation in any NATO operations. NATO officials have since revealed that Turkey will be one of the seven members of the alliance to participate in the naval operations to enforce the UN's arms embargo and that four Turkish frigates, one submarine and one reserve ship have been deployed. (Canada, Spain, UK, Greece, Italy and US contributed one frigate each so far.)

Thus, Turkey has moved into the tent, finally. Turkey has now been included in the "contact group" of NATO participating countries, which will meet in London on Tuesday to "take stock" of the implementation of resolution 1973 so far and to "take forward this work", according to a British foreign office statement.

Turkey may also have won a point by forcing France to concede that NATO be given a role in the planning and execution of the campaign. (But France has also dug in by insisting that the political leadership will lie with "contact group", which will also include representatives from the Arab League and African Union).

For all appearances, Turkey continues to ride a high horse. A columnist in the pro-government, Islamist-oriented daily Zaman, Abdulhamit Bilici wrote:
So, where does Turkey currently stand? Ankara is still behind the US resolution ... [But] Turkey is uneasy about the poor planning and one-sided nature of the operation. It is also upset with NATO secretary general Anders Fogh-Rasmussen's "we-decided-you-can-join-us" attitude ... It's unthinkable for a Turkish soldier to attack a Muslim country. But if it is included in the planning process properly, the Turkish military is ready to offer support in every platform, including NATO regarding non-combat issues. Let's see if the West will choose to help itself and the region by cooperating with Turkey or do the complete opposite by excluding Turkey.
However, in reality, Turkey has been compelled to rethink hard and fast. The "red line" was fast approaching and Turkey was punching beyond its weight. Faisal helped Ankara view matters from a realistic perspective. Erdogan visited Saudi Arabia over the weekend where the first signs began appearing in the Turkish rhetoric that a relentless process of rethink was commencing.

This seems to have been one mission at least where Faisal probably went wrong in his harsh self-appraisal during the New York Times interview an year ago that his legacy might be defined by "profound disappointment than by success"....? Time will tell....LOL

STATE Dept. Official: "What the Saudis fear is a Shia' Bahrain 'friendly & dependent' on the US not them!"
"... Veteran US officials, already concerned about the unpredictable course of events throughout the Middle East, have become increasingly uneasy about the way the Administration is course, Libya. While acknowledging the rapidly changing situation on the ground can make for hurried change of plans, these officials, nonetheless argue that a combination of inexperience and ideology has characterized White House decision making from the beginning. "The President should never have called upon Qaddafy to go before knowing whether his urging or forces on the ground would do the trick," said one US Middle East expert. Moreover, this official says that the Administration has little idea of who makes up the opposition. They know it is based in the always recalcitrant eastern part of Libya but its claim to having adherents in other parts of the country, even the leadership in Benghazi admits, cannot be named, due to fear that they will be targeted by forces loyal to the Libyan dictator.
Much of the criticism is directed at National Security Council ["NSC"] staffers, including National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, his Deputy Denis McDonough and especially staffers Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power. Donilon and McDonough are seen as having little hands-on foreign policy experience, while Rhodes and Power are considered ideologically driven. Power [Who achieved some notoriety and a demotion during the Presidential primary season for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster"] is widely regarded as advocating armed intervention in humanitarian crisis situations. With NSC meetings scheduled with little or no advance notice, officials in various Departments find themselves struggling to create a coherent strategy. "Everything seems to be geared to a 24 hour news cycle," complained one State Department official.
Somewhat ironically, the one person State Department officials see as potentially providing what one calls "adult supervision" is Dennis Ross, ...... Yet, today it appears that Ross has been somewhat marginalized by other NSC staffers, much to the chagrin of others in the Administration who argue that current policy lacks coherence.
While Libya is the "front burner" issue in the words of one US official, most US Middle East experts are more concerned about events in the Persian Gulf, specifically the uprising in Bahrain..... While US officials discount an Iranian role in the current troubles there, Saudi Arabia, by far the most important GCC member, does not. More important, the Saudis see their archrival, Iran, now two hundred miles away across the Gulf, with the Fifth fleet in between. Should a Shia led government emerge in Bahrain, in their view, the Saudis would be looking at a Iran only 12 miles away with no US fleet as a buffer [One senior State Department officials demurs, noting slyly "What the Saudis fear is a Shia Bahrain friendly to and dependent on the US, not them"].
While the situation in Bahrain is the most "delicate" to quote one Administration insider, ongoing events in Egypt remain the most important. The referendum overwhelmingly approved this week, which provides for constitutional changes and the election of a new President, has proved to be a disappointment to many reformers, both here and in Egypt. "This outcome almost precisely mirrors the one offered by [ousted President] Mubarak, says one State Department official. In the view of many, the young secular rebels who led the non-violent overthrow of Mubarak were outmaneuvered by the more savvy (Saudi influenced) Moslem Brotherhood and especially the Egyptian military. "The `Goodniks' never had a chance," says one veteran US analyst. "Their strength was mobilization not negotiations, especially with the army." In the meantime, the army has moved to consolidate its power. Among those now on trial for corruption are some businessmen who stand in the way of the military expanding its role in the Egyptian economy, say US experts. The leading military figure, Defense Minister Muhammed Tantawi, is no advocate of free market democracy, say US officials. "Tantawi is a Soviet trained general who makes Mubarak look like George Washington," cracks one veteran State Department official.
The latest and perhaps the most unexpected uprising is taking place in the Syrian town of Dara'a.... But US officials note that this massacre (Hamah) was orchestrated by the current Syrian leader's father Hafez al-Assad and his son, Bashar, has shown none of his father's ruthlessness nor, for that matter, political skills.
Meanwhile, US officials also look anxiously at the results of a similar scale of bloodletting in Yemen, which has led its previously durable leader Ali Abdullah Saleh to the brink of resignation. Until last Friday's shootings which are estimated to have taken the lives of upwards of 50 protestors, most analysts were predicting that Saleh would be able to ride out the political storm. As one veteran non-governmental observer put it several weeks ago, "Saleh has too many levers at his disposal to be ousted anytime soon." US officials who agreed with that assessment began to change their calculations.
Even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took an uptick this week as shelling on Israeli towns and cities from Gaza dramatically increased.... However, US officials believe that considering the volatility of events in the region, especially in Egypt, the Israeli response will be "measured". As one key US official put it, "The Israelis are already nervous about who will replace Mubarak. And as distasteful as someone like Amr Mousa might be, at least he `buys into' the Camp David process." The same cannotbe said for his likely opponents."
US Officials: "Washington does not see Iran's hand behind the protests in Bahrain!"
"The United States and Saudi Arabia — whose conflicted relationship has survived oil shocks, the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq — are drifting apart faster than at any time in recent history, according to diplomats, analysts and former U.S. officials. The breach, punctuated by a series of tense diplomatic incidents in the past two weeks, could have profound implications for the U.S. role in the Middle East, even as President Barack Obama juggles major Arab upheavals from Libya to Yemen. The Saudi monarchy, which itself has been loathe to introduce democratic reforms, .... "We're not going to budge. We're not going to accept a Shiite government in Bahrain," said an Arab diplomat, who spoke frankly on condition he not be further identified.Saudi Arabia has registered its displeasure bluntly. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were rebuffed when they sought to visit the kingdom this month. The official cover story was that aging King Abdullah was too ill to receive them....... In a speech Sunday in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to Washington, said the Gulf countries now must look after their own security — a role played exclusively by the United States since the 1979 fall of the Shah of Iran. "Why not seek to turn the GCC into a grouping like the European Union? Why not have one unified Gulf army? Why not have a nuclear deterrent with which to face Iran — should international efforts fail to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons — or Israeli nuclear capabilities?" Turki said, according to a translation of his remarks by the UAE's state-controlled Emirates News Agency. U.S. relations with the Saudis and other Gulf monarchies "are as bad as they were after the fall of the Shah," said Gregory Gause, an expert on the region and political science professor at the University of Vermont. "The whole idea that Saudi Arabia still needs U.S. protection for anything ... we've already moved beyond that," the Arab diplomat said. He termed it "not necessarily a divorce, (but) a recalibration." ..... Despite the falling out, experts say there are limits to the U.S.-Saudi disaffection, if only because both countries share a common interest in oil flows, confronting Iran and countering al Qaida and other violent Islamic extremist groups....... Saudi Arabia is moving on its own to secure its interests in neighboring Yemen, where Saudi-and-U.S.-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh is barely clinging to power after weeks of protests..... U.S. officials acknowledge stark differences with the Saudis over Egypt and Bahrain. Washington does not see Iran's hand behind the protests in Bahrain, they said, nor does it view the entire region through the sectarian lens that the Gulf monarchies do...."


Libyan Militants Leader, Another Graduate from Guantanamo Brainwashing Academy....

In typical lawyerly fashion, Obama offers a "defense" of his mission that explains nothing, but merely deflects the blame to someone else. He never once explains how training Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian intellectuals and activists in the United States, to foment rebellion in their homelands and supporting terrorist groups who have killed American soldiers in both Iraq and in Afghanistan is "humanitarian." Every lying word he utters to the press is intended to mislead the American people and to promote a global war of aggression. The intellectual/activist from Chicago is a dictator who has not yet taken off the gloves....

The fact that EVERY militant "Islamist" group involved in the US terror war is being led by local terrorists, who have spent several years being broken and then reconditioned at either Guantanamo or Bagram, should not be taken lightly. Like I have been saying for a long time, the established pattern of American-supported terrorism in the Middle East/AfPak regional war front is proof of far greater crimes than the CIA bombing of the American homeland on 911. (I say "CIA bombing," because EVERY murderous act by CIA created "Al-Qaeda" terrorist groups, is an act committed on behalf of the agency.)

Every anti-Imperialist patriot, who currently devotes his or her efforts towards prosecuting the 911 conspirators, is spinning his wheels, looking for proof of crimes years after the fact, from evidence which has all been turned to dust, or melted-down for scrap. The real criminal conspiracy preceded that attack by several decades, extending all over the world, leaving bits and pieces of real evidence wherever the tentacles of the secret overlords has reached. The history of each reconditioned leader, like this al-Hasidi fellow, is part of our international tapestry of terror. Unraveling each thread is the path to exposing the grand design. This is our proof of exactly who, or what we are dealing with, sitting in the seats of power in Washington and London.

This Libyan Manchurian candidate, al-Hasidi has a well-known history that is spread-out too far for the Internet sweepers to eliminate...This is where we find the real evidence of fascist crimes against humanity. Obama's plan to take America's secret guerrilla armies out into the open and to embrace them publicly (more or less) proves to the world who he really is and exactly the type of "change" that he had in mind. It also exposes the secret network that connects the CIA/US military to "al-CIAda" and the sordid history of military efforts to assist the "al-Qaeda" penetration of multiple countries, moving huge quantities of men and materiel into each terror zone, usually under the cover of darkness. More and more often, the military operations take place under the cover of "private security" companies, composed mostly of both "retired" and active Special Forces and Delta Force soldiers.

The military is accustomed to lying to the public about everything that they are doing, under cover of "the greater good." The key to deniability has been solved by "contracting out" the work that is criminal or too dirty for the real military to be associated with to a network of secret private armies, composed of hardened military experts who are eager to kill, earning ten times the military's salary for the same murder. Working far beyond the scope of these private security companies, you find the terrorist outfits, like the ones now destroying Libya and Pakistan and a dozen other countries, run by brainwashed former "Islamists," who also earn enormous amounts of money, far beyond their wildest dreams, killing the Libyans, Pakistanis, Afghans, or whoever stands in the Empire's way.

The Bosnian rescue mission, to save the "Islamist" army (some elements of future "Al Qaida" among them) that had been thrown together by Bill Clinton and his cohorts to advance American foreign policy as he saw fit, in spite of Congressional opinion or U.N. resolutions (Resolution 713). The organization created for this purpose, Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI), was a new variation of a previous subversive organization also constructed for the purpose of subverting the will of Congress in a war zone (Boland Amendment), which media personality Oliver North referred to mischievously as "The Enterprise."

Then, as now, American entities, composed of thousands of former and active intelligence and military services, supervised an international network (pipeline) of transportation and communication which facilitated the movement of "Islamic" militant armies and their arsenals, in a massive illegal operation, which operated beyond American and international law. This is "al-Qaida," ladies and gentlemen. Those crazy Arabs and Muslim terrorists behind the 911 attacks were trained by us and acted under American direction; they all do.

There would be no international "Islamist" terrorism if not for its American state sponsor....


March , 2011 -- More WikiLeaks selective releases of cables endanger other governments

We are following up on our March 24-25 report on how the selective release of US State Department cables from the US embassy in Jakarta was being used to damage President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of majority Muslim Indonesia and even incite a revolution against him....

Assange said to be working for Mossad and CIA interests....

In what appears to be a concerted effort to create more political havoc in Muslim nations, we have now learned that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange passed cables sent by the then U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman, a notorious neocon and Israel supporter, to the Turkish newspaper Taraf in order to damage the election chances of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party. The leaked cables were then translated into Turkish and published by the newspaper. The cables mainly consisted of criticisms of the AK Party and Erdogan by Edelman, particularly of the AK Party's more independent foreign policy on the Middle East...

We have learned from knowledgeable Turkish sources that Turkish intelligence suspects that Assange has been working for some time for Israel's Mossad and the CIA in using selectively-leaked classified State Department cables, most of which contain information gleaned from diplomatic cocktail receptions and translations of local newspapers, to bring about rebellions against leaders of Muslim and Arab nations...

The WikiLeaks cable release operation, from the outset, targeted the government of a number of countries, but not Israel...

Interference in Turkish domestic politics by the United States and Israel has prompted severe criticism from a number of Turkish leaders. At a Turkish-American Friendship dinner held in midtown Manhattan on March 24, Mehmet Ali Sahin, speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, said that a year ago, in March 2010, "groups in the U.S. were working against Turkey." Sahin was referring to the Israeli attack on the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, which was transporting aid to Gaza and was attacked by Israeli military forces in international waters. A Turkish-American citizen, Furkan Dogan, was killed in the attack. Neither President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ever called Dogan's family and offered condolences... The Israel Lobby, among the "groups" to whom Sahin was obviously referring, launched a vicious propaganda campaign against the organizers of the Gaza aid fleet -- largely through the auspices of the Israeli-influenced corporate media...

Sahin stated that "no country has the right to impose its policies on other countries," a remark that may also echo Turkey's thoughts on the current Western military attacks on Libya....

SURPRISE...Nameless American Officials Claim No “Al-CIAda” Fighters On Our Side....

SURPRISE! Nameless American Officials Claim No “Al-CIAda” Fighters On Our Side....

Don't you folks know that 9/11 was a false flag orchestrated by criminal elements of the U.S. government and the Israeli Mossad with great assistance from ALL of the main stream media in the deception and cover-up, including CNN? Why can't you understand that it wasn't Muslims that attacked USA, that it was an 'inside job wall to wall....?' Doesn't that make your Islamophobia and mosque opposition a moot point?

The fact that a Deep State guy has spoken publicly about the possibility that the American-organized Libyan rebels might be "Al-Qaeda," is another indicator of how much effect we are having here in the Resistance Camp.... They are feeling the heat of our Truth, and they are starting to run scared. The Al-Qaeda/US Symbiosis has been revealed in Libya for all the discerning people of the world to see. Al-Qaeda is America's secret paramilitary army--always have been. Pretending that American support for bin Laden's gang is a thing of the past, will no longer wash. Too many people now realize just exactly what AQ really is--the CIA with beards...

There was never any chance that Obama would back the end of nuclear power generation, no matter how many bones he might toss to the anti-nuclear movement. There is even less chance that Obama would ever try to turn the nation from the path of perpetual "persistent war." Throwing out this teaser now in the British press is another sign of growing desperation. Obama, like Clinton before him, is a good example of what the Democratic Party in the United States really wants--To kick the shit out of every smaller or weaker country that dares to say "No" to our demands to turn their backs on their Russian and Chinese friends, while finishing-off the American industrial base, in order to create their "globalist" nightmare.

Like in all American Hegelian politics, the public images projected by both the national Democrats, as well as the Republicans, is the exact opposite of the true nature of the party leaders. Democrats have always been warmongers just like the Republicans, the only difference is that the Republicans are proud militarists who revel in their warmongering, unlike the Democrats, who always hide behind a curtain of "humanitarianism," while pretending to be "peacemakers," whose only concern is the extending of the American/British Empire.

Consider this: The worst warmongers in the entire "war of terror" scheme have always been "neocons," most of whom were former Democrats or Marxists. Obama and Clinton were every bit neocons, just as much as Dick Cheney.

If enough international heat builds-up against the American/NATO aggression in Libya, then look for Obama to offer an olive branch to the Earth-first people, most of whom think that getting rid of nukes should take priority over putting an end to wars of aggression. Nuclear power has to be put way in the back of the vault, until we really understand nuclear science, but until that day finally arrives, we must first survive the nuclear disarmament process. There is no real disarmament process at this time, only more political theater. The real disarmament process will begin, when there is unity among nations for the purpose of eliminating the threats and international tensions which motivate nations to consider nuclear deterrence. Until there is a common desire to escape the nuclear nightmare, there should be no unity of purpose. Uniting behind the world aggression is the worst possible mistake real humanitarians could make.

There are two facts we are certain about: Politicians never tell the truth, unless the truth would work better than the lie. Obama would have never backslid on the nuclear power issue, unless he feared an avalanche of hostile reaction to his wars.

This trepidation shows that we are making our voices heard on some level. We must keep doing what we have been doing, working even harder to amplify the sound of our unified voices. In addition to this task, we must work on the weak arm of our growing resistance, the environmentalists, who will very likely bolt to Obama's side, if he plays the "anti-nuclear" card.

Beyond all of that, someone, perhaps the last moral leader, must force a vote at the UN on the anti-Libyan aggression.....

Germany has pulled out of NATO operations due to disagreements over the mission in Libya. To add to that, Germany did the unthinkable: it voted in favor of a UN Security Council resolution calling the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory illegal and demanding the immediate halt of all settlement activity. Whoa.

Then, Ms Merkel did something very strange: she ordered the shutdown of Germany’s nuclear reactors.

Curiously, the Japanese, too, have now openly sided with the Palestinians — and they have now have serious problems with runaway nukes. Coincidence? Perhaps. But consider this: The same Israeli company providing ‘security’ to Japan’s reactors is the one that’s also responsible for the nukes in Germany. Reckon that had something to do with why Merkel hurriedly ordered the shut down of German reactors? What does she know? Was Israel’s Stuxnet virus responsible — intentionally or not — for the Japanese meltdown? Was it unleashed on the Japanese as a warning (albeit one that got out of control) not to mess with God’s chosen people? Is this what Merkel fears could happen in Germany?

Think that’s farfetched? Not when you consider that just yesterday, BOTH engines of Merkel’s immaculately maintained Puma chopper suffered simultaneous flameouts. Is Ms Merkel now suddenly waking up to the fact that the Israelis are stark raving mad and will stop at nothing to get what they want?

I’m inclined to believe Ms Merkel now takes very seriously the words of noted Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld when he openly boasted in an interview last year about Israel’s military capabilities, “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

And van Creveld isn’t exactly chopped liver — he’s lectured at the American Army War College. Replying to a question whether Israel does not have fears of being classified as a criminal state if it expelled Palestinians, van Creveld said, “Israel is a state that does not care about what others say about it and you must remember the saying of former defense minister Moshe Dayan when he said that ‘Israel must always act as a wild dog because it should be dangerous in the eyes of others, rather than be harmed.’” …


Bandar to Zardari: "We need your help to meet the challenges in Bahrain....!"
"... Prince Bandar, who is the former secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council and a former envoy of his country to Washington, is on a short visit to Pakistan.
Terming the visit significant, sources said: “He has come as a special emissary of King Abdullah.” The prince is scheduled to meet Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani today before returning home in the afternoon.
The sources said the visit by the son of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz is of great importance in the backdrop of the political disturbance in Bahrain. The possibility of the prince asking Pakistan for “meaningful help to meet challenges in its neighborhood cannot be ruled out,” the sources said. According to data obtained by The Express Tribune, there are 60,000 Pakistanis, mainly ex-servicemen, serving in that country’s defense and other security establishments..."

Thursday, March 17, 2011

The Utterly corrupt and Dysfunctional Arab League should be disbanded

The Utterly corrupt and Dysfunctional Arab League should be disbanded immediately...

I believe that the Arab League increased its budget by $61 million during its last meeting at Sirte/Libya last year... This means that the Arab league has an annual budget of around 3/4 of a billion US dollars.

I hereby humbly suggest that we dissolve the Arab League that has never disappointed in failing the masses and their aspirations. This league has been nothing short of an instrument of oppression, and a platform for dictators to speak to the world. These funds will be so much more effective if they were to be allocated to alleviate poverty , illiteracy and disease among the Arab masses.

In my view the Arab league has never accomplished anything meaningful but in light of its disastrous performance to stop the massacres in Libya and the daily use of force against peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain the League has lost all credibility.

What does anyone make of its latest position in Libya. After 42 bloody days of bombing, strafing and killing the protesters by the Qaddafi forces the Arab League decided to give a green light to the UN to establish a no fly zone but not to have any foreign interference. Can anyone explain this position? Of course not....

The US has already missed the boat on redeeming itself with the Arab Peoples.... and on many of these revolutions and is simply playing catch-up (Clinton and Gates before the ME right now). The reality is their timidity or Israeli complicity to keep Gaddafi in power....on Libya stems from the fact that they really do not know what to do: “Gaddafi is a son-of-a-b*tch but we know him and he is cooperating fully since the 1970s...., who will come in his place if we help take him out?” That kind of despicable thinking.... Right now they are simply following the Europeans on this one and trying to salvage some credibility that is utterly non-existent....

Everyone is counting out the butchering clown Qaddafi way too early though.... No one really knows what the end game is, and I don’t think that Western powers are so quick to get rid of Qaddafi and simply hand Libya to an unknown entity yet called the “rebels,” the humanitarian issue notwithstanding. The Arab League’s blessings in this regard is also more of a hint that they were brought in spite of themselves. Does anyone believe that Saudi Arabia, or the UAE for instance, who frothed about the mouth against the Egyptian protesters up until the last second until Mubarak’s fate was sealed, and who now invade and suppresses the peaceful uprising of another Arab country, cares to have another blooming Arab democracy to contend with? This game, unfortunately, is not over....

The number of current US military involvements?

1) Iraq (full scale - one point)
2) Afghanistan (full scale - one point)
3) Pakistan (full scale - one point)
4) Libya (full scale - one point)
4) Yemen (covert & via KSA - half a point)
5) Iran (covert & via Israel - half a point)
6) Bahrain (covert - via KSA - half a point)
7) Kosovo (occupation - half a point)
8) Somalia (covert & via Ethiopia - half a point)
9) Palestine (covert & via Israel - half a point)

Total "war points": 1+1+1+1+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5+.5 = 7.0 wars


No empire, no matter how rich, can sustain such a military effort, much less so an already bankrupt empire like the USA and the 2 Jerks of Europe, the UK and France, both Bankrupt with a decrepit military....

Third, it is highly likely that the conflict with Qaddafi will be a long one. Either no side will prevail, or one will and the other will respond with a protracted guerrilla war. Can you guess what this will do to Libya's oil export capabilities? And then, can you guess what a further increase in the price of oil will do to the Russian (and Venezuelan!) economy?

So let us assume that the Kremlin decided that a UN military intervention would be a major mistake for the US Empire. Then, one of two things could have happened: Medvedev has capitulated to the Empire....

Variant #1: Medvedev and Putin have agreed to let Putin run in the next presidential elections. In that case, Medvedev has nothing to loose and a lot to gain ($$$) to let the UNSC resolution pass and then let Putin look noble, patriotic, principled and righteous.

Variant #2: (I like this one even more!) Putin quietly nudges Medvedev into approving the UNSC resolution thereby making him look like a spineless weakling and, as soon as the outrages takes-off in the Russian public opinion, Putin makes a widely reported statement making him look, well, noble, patriotic, principled and righteous (again).

In variant #2 Putin would kill to birds with one stone: damage the USA and damage his likely challenger Medvedev.

Please do not mistake any of the above as an expression of support or admiration for Putin. I believe that it is impossible to do something good by immoral means and Russia's abstention at the UNSC was definitely deeply immoral. But I also know that Putin is not exactly somebody over-burdened with issues of morality, ethics, or honor. In fact, I have always suspected that Putin and the folks backing him had left Eltsin bring Russia to the edge of total collapse only to make themselves appear like "patriotic saviors" once in power (just remember how long Russia had a "pretend war" in Chechnya before getting serious in 2000!).

The West bombs, the Arab League ducks

The Arab dictatorships - which once again have sanctioned an attack on a Muslim country - are scared to death of the backlash from their populations if civilian deaths in Libya from Odyssey Dawn balloon. Their astonishing dithering, and the African Union's outright hostility to the "coalition", explodes the myth that the "international community" is united.
- Pepe Escobar (Mar 23, '11)

Copyright 2009 echkelon-Boston-Globe. Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress by Wpthemescreator