Watch Russia, the King of the North!!
Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:14 PM
On the eve of his trip to the United States, where he will meet with President Barack Obama and the G8 nations at Camp David, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has delivered an unequivocal message to the Western nations threatening to intervene with regime change operations in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere: such actions can lead to “nuclear war”. The headline on the Russia Today wire on Prime Minister Medvedev’s speech, which was given at the plenary session of the Russia-sponsored International Legal Forum in St. Petersburg today, was: “Infringing national sovereignty could lead to nuclear apocalypse.” The picture with the article showed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sitting right behind Medvedev. Medvedev’s warning comes in the midst of visible Russian concerns about the escalating Western intervention to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad, in particular, which they see as an escalation of the illegal Libyan operation of 2011, and aimed directly at the sovereignty of every nation state. The relevant section of the speech, as translated on the official Russian Federation website, reads as follows:
“I would like to emphasise that we need to act in unison against such modern global challenges as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, organised transnational crime, drug trafficking, and the threat of natural and man-made disasters. We can achieve this only through the collective efforts of states based on undeviating respect for the supremacy of law.
“Many say that the international legal system has become obsolete. I have heard this said many times during my political practice. They say that its norms do not always ensure an effective response to new challenges. This is partly true, because everything eventually becomes obsolete, and the legal system is no exception. But the acute need for modernising international law does not mean that we should abandon its founding principles, which I believe is an obvious truth.
“Particularly dangerous, in my view, are unilateral actions made in violation of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which is the main venue where the international community brings its problems. In fact, this is the only venue we have, even though some may not like it. But it truly is the only venue. And we understand that the UN Charter calls for respecting the supreme power of law and the sovereignty of states.
“One more thing that I believe is important, considering my experience in politics, is the concept of state sovereignty. It should not be undermined even if for the sake of achieving some immediate political gain, including an election to a particular post. Such attempts threaten global order. There have been many recent examples of the concept of state sovereignty being undermined. Military operations against foreign states bypassing the United Nations, declarations of illegitimacy of certain political regimes on behalf of foreign states rather than the people of the country involved and imposing various collective sanctions, again bypassing international institutions, are some of them. This does not improve the situation in the world while rash military interference in the affairs of another state usually results in radicals coming to power. Such actions, which undermine state sovereignty, can easily lead to full-scale regional wars even—I am not trying to scare anyone here—with the use of nuclear weapons. Everybody should remember this especially when we analyse the concept of state sovereignty.” (emphasis added)
Medvedev’s warning comes in the wake of the May 3 Moscow conference on Ballistic Missile Defense, in which Chairman of the Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Nikolai Makarov warned that if NATO and the U.S. go ahead with the deployment currently planned, given the “destabilising nature of the missile defense system ... the decision on the preemptive use of available weapons will be made during the period of an escalating situation.”
Medvedev’s warning follows the clear message China delivered to Australia this week, on Foreign Minister Bob Carr’s first visit, that China is alarmed by Australia’s participation in Obama’s military escalation in the Asia-Pacific targeting China, which the Chinese characterised as a “cold war relationship”. The seriousness of the communications from Russia and China makes a fool of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who denied the gravity of the situation when she responded to a question at this week’s Berwick Community Cabinet meeting from CEC organiser Doug Mitchell about China’s alarm at Australia’s behaviour.
Posted 27 July 2012 - 12:30 PM
by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, July 23, 2012
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another “world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.” It involves intense diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.
Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards, especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv and certainly not in either Russia or China.1
According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all, 20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2
That would be some 4 million Syrians. That ought to be food for thought for those in the West cheering on a murky dubious opposition “Syrian National Council” that is dominated by the ominous Muslim Brotherhood, and an armed opposition “Free Syrian Army” that has been reported even by the New York Times as rife with factional armed splits. Moreover the conflict were it to descend into a Libya-like internal bloodbath, would spill over across the Syrian border into Turkey. Syrian coastal area has a significant Alawite population and a large number of Alawites live in the adjoining Turkish provinces of Hatay and Antakya.
To sort out fact from fiction inside Syria is daunting as media are limited and opposition spokesmen have been repeatedly caught lying about events. In one recent instance, a UK journalist claimed he was deliberately led into a potential death trap by rebel opposition forces to score propaganda against the Damascus regime. The UK Channel 4 News's chief correspondent, Alex Thomson, told AP that Syrian rebels set him up to die in no man's land near the Lebanese border, saying they wanted to use his death at the hands of government forces to score propaganda points.3 And in one brazen example of political manipulation, BBC was recently caught publishing a photograph it claimed was of a massacre at Al-Houla on 25 May 2012, in which 108 persons are known to have died including 49 children. It turned out the picture had been taken by Italian photo journalist, Marco Di Lauro in Iraq in 2003.4
The stakes in this geopolitical chess game are nothing less than survival first of Syria as a sovereign nation, whatever its flaws and defects. More, it ultimately involves the survival of Iran, Russia and China as sovereign nations together with the other BRIC states Brazil, India and South Africa. Longer term, it involves the matter of survival of civilization as we know it and avoidance of a world war that would decimate the world population not by tens of millions as seventy years ago but likely this time by billions.
The Syria stakes for Moscow
Russia’s Putin has drawn a deep hard line in the sand around the survival of Al-Assad and Syria as a stable state. Few ask why Russia is warning of possible world war if Washington persists to demand immediate regime change in Syria as Hillary Clinton is doing. It is not because Russia is intent on advancing its own imperialist agenda in the Middle East. It’s in little shape militarily and economically to do so even if it had wanted. Rather, it is about preserving port rights to Russia’s only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus, the only remaining Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot. In event of a showdown with NATO the base becomes strategic to Russia.
Yet there is more at stake for Russia. Putin and Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have made clear were NATO and the USA to launch military action against Assad’s Syria, the consequences would be staggering. Reliable sources in Damascus have reported the presence of at least 100,000 Russian “technical advisers” in the country. That’s a lot, and a Russian freighter carrying rebuilt Russian Mi-25 attack helicopters is reportedly bound for Syria, while several days earlier a Russian naval flotilla sailed for Tartus led by the Russian destroyer, Admiral Chabanenko.
An earlier attempt to send the rebuilt helicopters back to Syria which had earlier purchased them, was blocked in June off Scotland’s coast when it sailed under a non-Russian freighter flag. Now Moscow has made clear it will tolerate no interference in its traffic with Damascus. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, announced that “The fleet will be sent on task to guarantee the safety of our ships, to prevent anyone interfering with them in the event of a blockade. I remind you there are no limits,” he soberly added.5 In so many words, what Moscow is announcing is that it is willing to face a 21st Century version of the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis if NATO foolishly persists in pressing regime change in Damascus.
As it has openly emerged that the so-called democratic opposition in Syria is being dominated by the shadowy Muslim Brotherhood, hardly an organization renowned for multi-ethnic democratic tendencies, a victory for a US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, Moscow also believes, would unleash a wave of Muslim-led destabilizations across Central Asia into republics of the former Soviet Union. China is also extremely sensitive about such a danger, only recently confronted with bloody riots of Muslim organization in its oil-rich Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Province, quietly sponsored by the US Government.6
Russia has joined firmly with China since both nations fell into a catastrophic trap over abstaining in the UN Security Council from vetoing the US Resolution. That US resolution opened the door to NATO destruction of not only Mohammar Ghaddafi, but of Libya itself as a functioning country. This author has spoken personally in Moscow and in Beijing since the Libya debacle asking well-informed persons in both places how in effect they could have been so short-sighted on Libya. They both clearly have since concluded that further advance of Washington’s agenda for what George W. Bush called the Greater Middle East Project is diametrically opposed to the national interest of both China and Russia, hence the iron opposition to the NATO agenda in Syria for regime change. To date Russia and China, Permanent veto members of the UN Security Council, have three times exercised their veto over new US-sponsored sanctions against Syria, the latest on July 19.
Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insist on a strict adherence to the proposed peace plan of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Unlike what Washington prefers to generously read into it, the Six Point Annan Plan calls for no regime change, rather for a negotiated settlement and end to the fighting on both sides, a ceasefire.
Washington’s Janus-faced duplicity
Aligned on the side of violent regime change in Syria are a bizarre coalition that includes, in addition to Washington and its European “vassal states” (as Zbigniew Brzezinski called European NATO members),7 most prominently Saudi Arabia, hardly a regime anyone would accuse of being a paragon of democracy. Another lead role against Damascus is being played by Qatar, home to US military as well as the blatantly pro-NATO propaganda channel Al-Jazeera. In addition, the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is providing training and space to prepare armed mercenaries and others to flow over the border into neighboring Syria.
An attempt by the Erdogan government to send a Turkish Phantom air force fighter jet into Syrian airspace flying provocatively low, apparently in order to incite a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident to fan flames of NATO intervention a la Libya two weeks ago, fell flat when Turkey's general staff issued a statement saying: "No traces of explosives or flammable products were found on the debris recovered from the sea." Erdogan was forced to shift his line to cover face, no longer using the phrase, "shot down by Syria" and instead referring to "our plane that Syria claimed to have destroyed."8 NATO has established a command and control center in Iskenderun, in Turkey’s Hatay province, near the Syrian border months ago to organize, train and arm the “anything but” Free Syrian Army.9 The Obama Administration, not wanting a full Syria war before US elections in November, reportedly also told Erdogan to “cool it” for now.
Most westerners who take their knowledge of world affairs religiously from the pages of the Washington Post or CNN or BBC are convinced the Syrian mess is a clear cut case of “good guys” (the so-named Syrian National Council and its rag-tag makeshift “Free Syrian Army”) versus the “bad guys” (the Al-Assad dictatorship with its armed forces). For more than a year western media has run footage, some as noted, not even filmed in Syria, claiming that innocent, unarmed opposition civilian pro-democracy populations are being massacred ruthlessly in a one-sided butchery by the regime.
They never explain how it would serve Assad to alienate his strongest asset to survival, namely the support of a majority of Syrians against what he has accurately named foreign intervention into sovereign Syrian affairs.
Indeed numerous eyewitness journalist accounts from inside Turkey and Syria including RT have alleged that from the beginning the “peaceful democratic opposition” had secretly been provided with arms and training, often inside camps across on the Turkish side. Professor Ibrahim Alloush from Zaytouneh University in Jordan told RT,
“Weaponry is being smuggled into Syria in large quantities from all over the place. It is pretty clear that the rebels have been receiving arms from abroad and Syrian television has been showing almost daily shipments of arms being smuggled into Syria via Lebanon, Turkey and other border crossings. Since the rebels are being supported by the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] and by NATO it is safe to assume that they are getting their financing and weaponry from the same sources that are offering them political cover and financial backing.” 10
One veteran Turkish journalist whom this author interviewed in Ankara in April, just back from an extensive tour of Syria, gave his eyewitness account of the capture of a small band of “opposition” fighters. The journalist, fluent in Arabic, was astonished as he witnessed the head of the rebels demand to know why their military captors spoke Arabic. When told that was their native language, the rebel leader blurted out, “But you should speak Hebrew, you’re with the Israeli Army aren’t you?”
In short, the mercenaries had been blitz-trained across the border in Turkey, given Kalashnikovs and a fistful of dollars and told they were making a jihad against the Israeli Army. They did not even know who they were fighting. In other instances, mercenaries recruited from Afghanistan and elsewhere and financed by Saudi money, including alleged members of Al Qaeda, make up the “democratic opposition” to the established regime of Al-Assad.
Even the ultimate US establishment newspaper, The New York Times, has been forced to admit that the CIA has been pouring arms into the Syrian opposition. They reported, “C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”11
The International Committee for the Red Cross now classifies the conflict as a civil war.12 Peter Wallensteen, a leading peace researcher at the University of Uppsala and the director of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, stated that, "It's increasingly an internationalized civil war, and as we know from previous history, the more internationalized, the longer the conflict will be…there is a civil war, but now so many weapons are coming from the outside, that there is actually an internationalized civil war." 13
According to Mary Ellen O'Connell, a respected legal scholar and professor of law and international dispute resolution at the University of Notre Dame, "The International Committee of the Red Cross statement means that the Assad regime is facing an organized armed opposition engaging in military force, and it has the legal right to respond in kind. The Syrian military will have more authority to kill persons based on their being part of the armed opposition than when Assad was restricted to using force under peacetime rules."14 The rebel opposition groups claim it means just the opposite.
While the US State Department makes pious pronouncements of their supporting “democracy” and demanding Al-Assad step down and recognize the dubious and factionalized opposition of the Syrian National Council, an exile group dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Russia is working skillfully on the diplomatic front to weaken the Western march to war.
Putin’s shrewd diplomacy
Now, no sooner did Vladimir Putin again take the office as Russia’s President on May 7 than he embarked on a complex series of diplomatic missions to defuse or hopefully derail Washington’s Syrian game plan. On July 16 Putin hosted a Moscow visit of Kofi Annan where he repeated Moscow’s unflinching support for the Annan Peace Plan. 15
Because of the considerable media distortions it’s useful to read the actual text of the six-point Annan plan:
(1) commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;
(2) commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.
To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.
As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.
Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;
(3) ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level;
(4) intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;
(5) ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;
(6) respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.15
There is no demand in the Annan Plan for Bashar al-Assad to step down before any ceasefire, contrary to what Hillary Clinton repeats after insisting the US also backs the Annan Plan. The Annan Plan calls for a diplomatic solution. The US clearly does not want a diplomatic solution. It wants regime change and evidently widening war across the Shi’ite-Sunni divide of the Muslim world.
Moscow and Beijing just as clearly want to draw the line and prevent chaos spreading from Syria. On July 19, again Russia and China, both veto members at the UN Security Council blocked a new US-backed resolution on Syria they insisted was designed to open the door to a Libya-like military intervention into Syria. The resolution had been drafted by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and would have opened the door for a Chapter 7 resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria. Chapter 7 allows the 15-member council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.17 The Hague resolution demanded that the Syrian government in 10 days pull out all its heavy weapons from urban areas and return troops to barracks. Nothing was said about disarming the “Free Syrian Army.” Washington claimed it would only be interested in economic or diplomatic sanctions, not military. Of course. Hmmmm…
Putin has more than a little leverage to use with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. Erdogan was in Moscow just prior to the July 19 UN Security Council vote to discuss Syria with Putin.18 Turkey is the second-largest buyer of Russian natural gas, some 80% of its natural gas coming from Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom. 19 Turkey’s entire “energy hub” strategy of playing a key role in gas flows from Eurasia, the Middle east to Europe depends on gas from Russia and Iran. One year ago a $10 billion pipeline deal was signed between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s huge South Pars field to Iraq, Syria and on to Turkey, eventually connecting to Europe.20
Putin had also gone to Tel Aviv on June 21 to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.21 Russian influence inside Israel is not minor. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union some six million Russians, mostly Jews, have emigrated to Israel over the past two decades. Ultimately Israel cannot be overjoyed at the prospect of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Syrian opposition coming to power in neighboring Syria. While few details emerged of the content of the talks, it is clear that Putin delivered the message that a “destroyed, disoriented and broken up Syria would not help Israel. Syria has the second, most well-organized Muslim Brotherhood organization after Egypt,” according to former Indian Ambassador K. Gajendra Singh.22
Then on July 11, Putin and Lavrov invited Abdel Basset Sayda, the new head of the US-backed opposition organization, Syrian National Council, to Moscow for “talks.” Sayda, who is from the Kurdish Syrian minority and has lived twenty years in Swedish exile, is a curious figure as opposition spokesman, from the Kurd minority in Syria, a man with little or no active political experience, clearly chosen mainly to hide the dominant Muslim Brotherhood profile of the SNC. Russia reportedly made it clear to Sayda they would continue to block any attempts to oust Assad and that the opposition need seriously adhere to the Annan Plan and negotiate a settlement. Sayda for his part made clear no negotiations until Assad is gone, a stance that is feeding the bloodshed.23
There are signs in all the bloodshed and escalation of violence that Putin reached some quiet deal as well with Obama to keep war off the table until Obama is past the November elections. Russia recently agreed to reopen supply lines for US military supplies in Afghanistan at the same time Washington orchestrated an “apology” for the recent killings of civilians in Pakistan with its drones.24
Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality:
“Turkey will keep offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from "liberated" Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponize them. And Washington, London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus. Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly weaponized by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless. Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will remain in place - if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon.”24: click inside this box to load the editor
Posted 02 August 2012 - 08:39 PM
Russian, Western and Arab forces were piling up on Syrian borders Wednesday, July 25, bringing closer a war confrontation which could spur the Assad regime into making good on its threat to use chemical weapons against “external aggression.”
Based on this reading, Moscow added its voice Tuesday to that of US President Obama and warned Bashar Assad against using chemical weapons in view of “its commitments under the international convention it ratified prohibiting the use of poisonous gases as a method of warfare.”
debkafile’s military sources: With operational intelligence deployment and electronic stations positioned inside Syria, the Russians are better placed than any other outsiders to know what is happening on Syria’s battlefields.
Their warning must therefore be tied to solid information confirming Washington’s assessment that Assad is dangerously close to deciding to use his chemical and biological weapons in a way that would precipitate a regional conflict.
Israel, Turkey and Jordan would be the first targets on his list.
The immediacy of the peril, debkafile’s military sources report, has speeded the arrival of Russian warships to Syria to counter a potential Western, Arab or Israeli assault on the embattled country.
The Russian Ministry of Defense, which rarely discloses Russian military movements outside its borders, announced early Wednesday morning, July 25 that a fleet of Russian warships had passed through the Strait of Gibraltar and entered the Mediterranean.
The fleet is headed by the anti-submarine and anti-aircraft Admiral Chabanenko warship and consists of another three vessels carrying a large number of Russian marines.
This fleet will rendezvous with a Russian flotilla standing by in the Mediterranean since July 21, detached from Russian Black Fleet and composed of the Smetlivy figate and two large landing craft loaded with Russian marines. This group awaited the main force before approaching Syria.
The fact that Russia is massing large numbers of marines off the Syrian coast looks as though a landing on Syrian soil is on Moscow’s cards.
The Russian marine contingent, debkafile’s sources say, will stand ready - either to come to the aid of the Assad regime or to serve as a bargaining chip for a last-minute deal between Moscow and Washington for ending the war by establishing a transitional military regime in Damascus whose makeup would be agreed between them and Assad.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted at this possibility on Tuesday, July 24, when she said: “We do believe that it is not too late for the Assad regime to commence with planning for a transition.”
But Clinton also hinted, in a more threatening tone, that a situation is developing for the creation of safe zones in rebel-controlled areas of Syria. “More and more territory is being taken and it will, eventually, result in a safe haven inside Syria which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition,” she said.
Clinton didn’t name the potential protectors of those havens. However, since the Syrian rebels are short of manpower, Western, Muslim or Arab defenders would have to be called in.
Wednesday, British military sources in London said the moment is rushing forward for British forces to get involved in what is happening in Syria. Iran and Turkey are not indifferent either.
Deputy Iranian Revolutionary Guard chief, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, warned on Tuesday, July 24, that Tehran would not permit regime change in Damascus and if Syria’s enemies intervened, Iran would hit them hard.
The Iranian commander pointed a finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar, adding that the US and Israel are at the forefront of the comprehensive campaign against Syria but are being beaten back.
This was the first time Tehran had explicitly threatened military intervention in Syria.
Wednesday, Turkey shut its border crossings to Syria. Military sources in Ankara confirmed that massive Turkish military strength had been on the move toward the Syrian border.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 02:45 PM
The Truth About Imperial Russia
By Stephen Goodson
In early 1815, Nathan Rothschild approached Czar Alexander I (1801-25) at the Congress of Vienna with a proposal that he set up a central bank in Russia. Whether it was because he distrusted this shady banker or was aware of the perils of central banking is not known, but he prudently declined.
In 1860 The State Bank of the Russian Empire was founded with the aim of boosting trade turnovers and the strengthening of the monetary system. Up to 1894 it was an auxiliary institution under the direct control of the Ministry of Finance. In that year it was transformed into being the banker of the bankers and operated as an instrument of the government’s economic policy. It minted and printed the nation’s coins and notes, regulated the money supply and through commercial banks provided industry and commerce with very low interest rate loans. Its vast gold reserves, the largest in the world, except for the year 1906 exceeded the bank note issue by more than 100%.
Not unexpectedly Russia had the smallest national debt in the world. The following table reflects the number of rubles per inhabitant in 1908.
By 1914 83% of the interest and amortization of the national debt was funded by the profits of the Russian State Railways. In 1916 the total length of the main lines was 100 817 verst or kilometers.
In 1861 Czar Alexander II (1855-81) abolished serfdom, which at that time affected 30% of the population. By 1914 80% of the arable land was in the hands of the peasants. The Peasants’ State Bank, described at that time as the “greatest and most socially beneficent institution of land credit in the world” granted loans at a very low rate of interest, which was in effect a handling charge. Between 1901 and 1912 these loans increased from 222 million rubles to 1.168 billion rubles.
Agricultural production soared so that by 1913, Russia had become the world’s bread basket as the following table reveals.
Russian agricultural production of cereals exceeded the combined production of Argentina, Canada and the United States by 25%.
Mining and industrial output also expanded by huge margins. Between 1870 and 1914 industrial output grew by 1% per annum in Great Britain, 2.75% per annum in the United States and 3.5% per annum in Russia. During the period 1890 to 1913 industrial production quadrupled and Russian industries were able to satisfy 80% of internal demand for manufactured goods a perfect example of autarky.
With the Russian State bank creating the people’s money out of nothing at almost zero interest; as opposed to the rest of the world where central banks allowed parasitic private banks to create their nations’ money supply at usurious rates of interest, it comes as no surprise that in 1912 Russia had the lowest levels of taxation in the world. Furthermore there was hardly any inflation.
An independent study by British lawyers concluded that the Russian Code of Laws and judiciary were “the most advanced and impartial in the world.” Elementary education was obligatory and free right up to university level.
In labor relations the Russians were pioneers. Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867. Strikes, which were forbidden in the Soviet Union, were minimal in Czarist times. Labor laws were so advanced and humane that President William Taft was moved to say that “the Emperor of Russia has passed workers’ legislation which was nearer to perfection than that of any democratic country.” The Czar and his state bank had created a workers’ paradise that was unrivalled in the history of mankind.
On November 7, 1917, the Rothschilds, fearful that replication of this extraordinary example of freedom and prosperity would destroy their evil banking empire, instigated a Judeo-Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which wrecked and ruined a wonderful country and resulted in the deaths by murder and starvation, according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, of 66 million innocent people.
Posted 20 August 2012 - 08:18 PM
The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. So far, this is not about plans for a military presence, but rather the restoration of the crew resources. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.
The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out," Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi. Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles, James Michel made an unequivocal statement.
"We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of Russian Federation.
Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear, however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press.
"In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.
The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.
It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov. Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.
The Americans talk about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.
As for the influence, judging by the words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela. An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.
However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example, agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.
Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:16 AM
THE AGE OF DESPOTISM
By Chuck Baldwin
September 13, 2012
On August 7, 2012, The Washington Times ran an editorial entitled, "The Civil War of 2016." It begins, "Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
"At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled 'Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A "Vision" of the Future.' It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an 'extremist militia motivated by the goals of the "tea party" movement' seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, 'occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.' The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It's a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
"The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army's Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that 'once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.' They claim that 'the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,' not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy."
The Times editorial goes on to say, "The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn't a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, 'Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.' This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying."
I well remember when my friend LT CDR Ernest "Guy" Cunningham conducted his "Combat Arms Survey" to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC's Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, back on May 10, 1994. A couple of questions in this survey were especially revealing (and startling). John McManus picks up the story at this point: "One of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a 'national emergency police force' within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion."
Commenting on these results, Cunningham said, "Do you realize that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?" Remember, these were active duty Marines back in 1994.
Responses to another question were even more startling. Cunningham's question: "Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." The result: "42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion." This equates to approximately 61% of Marines saying they would defy orders to turn their weapons on US citizens in order to disarm them; 26% saying they would not disobey such orders; and 12% refusing to say one way or the other, which means you could probably add them to the 26% who would not disobey orders to turn their weapons on American citizens.
See McManus' report here.
Speaking of Commander Cunningham, back in 2009, he told me that America was entering "The Age of Despotism." Cunningham is no slouch. He was a Green Beret (who served in the same Special Forces Company alongside his father and two brothers), an infantryman with the 101st Airborne Division, Navy pilot, mission commander and analyst. He is also the author of the previously mentioned Twentynine Palms Survey. His military credentials are unassailable. When Commander Cunningham speaks, people should listen.
Commander Cunningham shared his insight with me into the stranglehold that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) holds over the U.S. military by estimating that "75% of military admirals and generals with two stars or more have been trained by the CFR."
In supporting his ominous conclusion that America was entering "The Age of Despotism," Cunningham noted former President Bill Clinton's introduction of PDD 25 (a Presidential Directive that is still in place), which reportedly authorizes the President to use and declare martial law at any time, for any reason. He reminded me of how the US military has been used several times for action on US soil.
The US military was used directly in the government attack against the Branch Davidians at the private residence of Mount Carmel outside Waco, Texas. The military was stationed outside Los Angeles, California, during the LA riots. The military was used in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The military even patrolled the streets of the tiny town of Geneva, Alabama, after a man went on a short, albeit bloody, shooting spree.
Commander Cunningham also reminded me of how President George W. Bush virtually expunged Posse Comitatus and set the table for despotism and martial law by signing the USA Patriot Act into existence. As a result, we now have an entire Army division (NorthCom) assigned to the American homeland, a first in US history. He noted that even FEMA has the authority to declare martial law.
Add the advent of NDAA 2012 and 2013, which authorizes the federal government to seize and incarcerate American citizens on American soil without court order, legal representation, or any other constitutionally-protected right--and now Col. Benson's treatise that military officers should be prepared to turn their weapons on American citizens--and Cunningham's prognostication seems even more accurate.
All over America, NorthCom is currently engaging in urban military training exercises, including right here in my backyard in Northwest Montana. Given Col. Benson's treatise, people are justifiably concerned as to what the actual purpose of these exercises might be. Plus, if you are paying attention to what both President Obama and President Wannabe Mitt Romney are saying, both of these gentlemen seem all-too-content to continue to swell the scope of military interventionism into domestic law enforcement duties.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Enter Your E-Mail Address:
Of course, the problem is the military do not operate under the same rules of engagement as do domestic law enforcement agencies. There are no constitutional rights and protections at play when military personnel target an enemy, which is why America's founders were absolutely adamant that military personnel never be used against the American citizenry. And with the way the above-mentioned recently enacted laws read, an "enemy" is anyone the President (or any subordinate he authorizes) says is the enemy. And remember, this is the same federal government that has recently categorized people who voted for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or yours truly, people who are pro-life, people who believe in the Second Coming of Christ, veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars, people who oppose the New World Order, etc., as "extremists," "dangerous," etc. Does all this mean when the President (any President) adds the word "enemy" to the lexicon that NorthCom plans to order military troops to turn their weapons against us? It would appear that Col. Benson believes this is true.
Think of it: in the name of the 9-11 attacks, the United States is being transformed into the kind of despotic countries that we are told we are being protected from!
I would be very interested to know what the answers would be among our nation's military personnel if CDR Cunningham were to give his Twentynine Palms survey today!
• If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
And please visit my web site for past columns and much more.
© 2012 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:32 PM
Albert Pike also of Newbury Port moved to Arkansas where he became a prominent member of the secessionist movement. He was chosen by Mazzini to head the Illuminati operations in America and moved to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1852. During the war he was made a brigadier general and placed in charge of raising an army of Indians. Pike's reign of terror was so despicable that foreign governments intervened to put an end to his savagery. Mazzini was not only the head of the Illuminati, he was the leading revolutionist in Europe. He was determined to establish a New World Order on the rubble of the old order and created a plan to accomplish his goal. He detailed his plan for world domination in a letter to Pike on January 22, 1870: "We must allow all the federations to continue just as they are, with their systems, their central authorities and their diverse modes of correspondence between high grades of the same rite, organized as they are at the present, but we must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown. Lady Queensborough, Occult Theocracy, pp. 208-209.
This secret rite is called "The New and Reformed Palladian Rite." It has headquarters in Charleston, S.C., Rome Italy, and Berlin Germany. Pike headed this rite in the Western Hemisphere while Mazzini headed it in the East. Pike wrote about his beliefs and goals in 1871 in "Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry." In this massive volume he explained that the "blind Force of the people is a Force that must be economized, and also managed. . . it must be regulated by intellect. "To attack the citadels (Institutions) built up on all sides against the human race by superstitions (religion), despotisms, and prejudices, the force must have a brain and a law (the Illuminati's). Then its (Force) deeds of daring produce permanent results, and there is real progress. Then there are sublime conquests. . . When all forces combined, and guided by the Intellect (Illuminati), and regulated by the Rule of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for the ages will begin to march. . . It is because Force is ill regulated that revolutions prove failures" Albert Pike,Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, 1-2 (Rev. Ed. 1950).
Even though Pike was a confederate general who committed the most heinous atrocities of the war his tomb is located just 13 blocks from the Capitol Building. He was a high ranking member of the Illuminati who is still revered by the New World Order Gang. The god of the Illuminati and the New World Order Gang is Lucifer. "The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. . . Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (Jesus) is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. . ."The doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay (Jesus); but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of darkness and evil." A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l'enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, p. 588; Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocracy pp. 220-221.
Pike designed a plan for world conquest and wrote of it in a letter to Mazzini dated August 15, 1871. He said three future world wars would prepare the world for the New World Order.
Albert Pike's plan for the Illuminati was as simple as it has proved effective. He required that Communism, Naziism, Political Zionism, and other International movements be organized and used to foment the three global wars and three major revolutions. The First World War was to be fought so as to enable the Illuminati to overthrow the powers of the Tzars in Russia and turn that country into the stronghold of Atheistic-Communism. The differences stirred up by agentur of the Illuminati between the British and German Empires were to be used to foment this war. After the war ended, Communism was to be built up and used to destroy other governments and weaken religions.
World War Two, was to be fomented by using the differences between Fascists and Political Zionists. This war was to be fought so that Naziism would be destroyed and the power of Political Zionism increased so that the sovereign state of Israel could be established in Palestine. During World War Two International Communism was to be built up until it equalled in strength that of united Christendom. At this point it was to be contained and kept in check until required for the final social cataclysm. Can any informed person deny Roosevelt and Churchill did put this policy into effect?
World War Three is to be fomented by using the differences the agentur of the Illuminati stir up between Political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world. The war is to be directed in such a manner that Islam (the Arab World including Mohammedanism) and Political Zionism (including the State of Israel) will destroy themselves while at the same time the remaining nations, once more divided against each other on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion physically, mentally, spiritually and economically. Can any unbiased and reasoning person deny that the intrigue now going on in the Near, Middle, and Far East is designed to accomplish this devilish purpose?
After World War Three is ended, those who aspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. We quote his own written words taken from the letter catalogued in the British Museum Library, London, England.
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass (direction), anxious for an ideal, but with out knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time" (William Guy Carr, Pawns in the Game, p. xv-xvi).
Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:33 PM
In 10 years, there will be no more Israel: Kissinger
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu uses a cartoon diagram of a bomb while delivering his address to the 67th United Nations General Assembly session, September 27, 2012.
Tue Oct 2, 2012 2:44PM GMT
It will become ever-easier for American policymakers, following in the footsteps of Kissinger and the sixteen intelligence agencies, to recognize the obvious: Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life.”
Political columnist Kevin Barrett
The idea of Israel’s inexorable collapse is no longer a taboo as more top brass US officials are explicitly attesting to the fact, with prominent US diplomat Henry Kissinger saying, “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.”
“Kissinger's statement is flat and unqualified. He is not saying that Israel is in danger, but could be saved if we just gave it additional trillions of dollars and smashed enough of its enemies with our military.… He is not offering a way out. He is simply stating a fact: In 2022, Israel will no longer exist,” political columnist Kevin Barrett wrote in an article published on Press TV website on Sunday.
He also pointed to a study commissioned by the US Intelligence Community (IC), comprised of 16 US intelligence agencies, earlier this year, titled “Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East,” and pointed out that the content of the IC’s report corroborates Kissinger's contention.
“The sixteen US intelligence agencies agree that Israel cannot withstand the coming pro-Palestinian juggernaut consisting of the Arab Spring, the Islamic Awakening, and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the analyst added.
The IC report contends that the US government no longer has the military and financial resources “to continue propping up Israel against the wishes of more than a billion of its neighbors” and suggests that “the US will have to follow its own national interests and pull the plug on Israel,” Barrett said.Considering the fact that the Jewish Kissinger has long been viewed as an ardent friend of Israel and that the majority of US officials, including the authors of the IC report, are influenced by pro-Israeli lobby, the emerging messages become more remarkable, the article added.
The article argues that the emerging “complacency” among the US officials about Israel’s fate can be traced in the following reasons:
· American politicians and political activists “are growing fed-up with Israeli intransigence and fanaticism.”
· Americans feel “festering resentment over the Israel lobby's imperious domination of public discourse.”
· “The American Jewish community is no longer united in support of Israel.”
· It is becoming a common knowledge that Israel and its supporters carried out the 9/11 false-flag attacks.
“In fact, the US is going broke and sacrificing thousands of lives in wars for Israel - wars that damage, rather than aid, US strategic interests,” the article said.
“It will become ever-easier for American policymakers, following in the footsteps of Kissinger and the sixteen intelligence agencies, to recognize the obvious: Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life,” Barrett concluded.
Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:35 PM
American Drones for Covert Underwater Warfare against Iran
By Julie Lévesque
Global Research, September 28, 2012
Obscuring the devastating effects of U.S. drones killing innocent civilians around the world, it is with a touch of rather inappropriate humor and enthusiasm that the military consulting company Strike Fighter Consulting speaks highly of the U.S. Navy’s new Unmanned Underwater Vehicles in its recently published article,Unmanned Drones Take to the Seas:
“It looks like drone pilots are going to need swimming lessons.
The US Navy is currently experimenting with a new breed of drone submarines in the waters next to Newport, Rhode Island. Their hope is that these drones will take the first steps (or the first doggy paddle, if you will) into a future of autonomous submarines.
These drones, which are technically known as Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (of course) could be a “game changer” for the Navy, said Christoper Egan, a program manager at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. Every single thing that makes aerial drones so effective can just as easily be applied to submarines. (Dabney B., Unmanned Drones Take to the Seas, Strike Fighter Consulting Inc, September 19, 2012, emphasis added.)
What kind of “efficiency” are we talking about here?
Drone warfare has been mostly “efficient” in killing innocent civilians, including children, according to a study by Stanford University and New York University:
According to the new study, just one in fifty victims of the CIA programme of “targeted” drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas are known militants, while between 2,562 and 3,325 people were killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. (The News International (Pakistan),Pakistan. CIA Annihilation From The Air: Drone Warfare’s Invisible Dead, September 26, 2012)
We are told that these new “cost-efficient” underwater drones “could be used to map the ocean floor, detect enemy mines, gather surveillance, or assist in anti-submarine warfare [...] The Navy hopes that the Razor would be virtually undetectable by enemy systems.” (Dabney B., op. cit.)
Earlier this year Aviation Week published an article on Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) which confirms that the underwater drone technology is well established. The new Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) is slated to be used no later than 2014:
The Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) will be large and highly autonomous, carrying out missions at long distances for months. It will act as a mothership, deploying and operating static and mobile sensors for persistent surveillance in coastal waters. Ultimately, it is likely to be armed. The program sounds ambitious, but much of the technology has already been proven.
The LDUUV will have a large payload bay, making it capable of releasing sensors, communication buoys, smaller UUS and weapons. The Navy’s current emphasis is on persistent surveillance “over the horizon.” However, its most significant impact could be in mine warfare, both offensive and defensive.
And the LDUUV could make offensive mine laying more controllable and clandestine. In the transformational mine concept, the LDUUV lays networked sensors across a wide area. These track and identify every vessel within range. Depending on the situation, any vessel can be engaged, by either an anchored weapon or a torpedo from the UUV itself.
The Navy plans to release a request for proposals for the LDUUV in 2014. Last October Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, the Navy’s undersea warfare director, indicated that up to 10 LDUUVs would be procured. The LDUUV is being pitched as a helper to complement manned submarines. However, if it achieves the technology goals for endurance and autonomy, it will pose serious questions of what exactly large unmanned craft could not ultimately do. (David Hambling, Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Steaming Ahead, Aviation Week, April 1, 2012, emphasis added. )
If this technology has been proven, it can be used for underwater warfare.
Will unmanned armed submarines be used for “clandestine mining” against Iran in the Persian Gulf?
Reports confirm, in this regard, that military exercises are currently (September 2012) being conducted near Iran’s territorial waters, and are “intended to simulate Iran’s response to a US-Israeli attack, namely what actions will be taken by allied forces in response to military retaliation by Iran”. (Michel Chossudovsky, “Warship Diplomacy”: A Prelude to All Out War against Iran?, Global Research, September 26, 2012.)
Underwater drones are part of the war games, Bloomberg reports:
“The BAE Systems Plc (BA/) 25mm guided ‘‘Mark 38 Mod 2,” and Kingfish unmanned underwater vehicle are among the programs the Pentagon this year accelerated under a “Fast Lane” initiative to counter Iranian naval weapons. One of the most serious threats, the Navy says, are Iranian speedboats that can employ “swarming” tactics.” (Bloomberg, September 19, 2012. emphasis added. )
A recent statement by the Director of Research of the Neocon think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy has suggested that the US should provoke Iran into “firing the first shot”.
“We are in the game of using covert means against Iranians. We can get nastier at that [...] The United States—along with as many international partners as it can mobilize—should move to more forceful action, be it covert or overt, publicly proclaimed or deniable.” (Patrick Clawson, cited in Michel Chossudovsky, Neocon Washington Think Tank: The US should Provoke Iran into “Firing the First Shot”, September 26, 2012.)
Underwater drones seem to constitute the perfect weapon to be used in acts of provocation.
Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:56 AM
German state TV reports: Syrian rebels claim responsibility for attack on Turkey
By Global Research News
Global Research, October 05, 2012
Region:Middle East & North Africa
by R. Teichmann
On Oct. 4th, the German state TV channel ZDF reported on the attack on Turkey several times.
In its “Mittagsmagazin” at 1300 hours it reports as follows:
02:06 – 02:32
„Raketen- und Granatfeuer. Die Türkei übt Vergeltung für einen Angriff von syrischer Seite. Gestern Nachmittag hatten syrische Rebellen einen türkischen Ort in Grenznähe beschossen. Seit Wochen schon warnt Ankara davor, die Türkei zu provozieren. Inzwischen haben sich die syrischen Rebellen ganz offiziell zu der Provokation bekannt.“
Translation: (emphasis added)
“Rocket and mortar fire. Turkey takes revenge after an attack from the Syrian side. Yesterday afternoon Syrian rebels fired on a Turkish village close to the border. For weeks Ankara had warned against provoking Turkey. Meanwhile Syrian rebels officially claimed responsibility for the provocation.”
Only 3 hours later in its “Heute in Europa” at 1600 hours it reports:
01:40 – 01:52
“Raketen und Granatfeuer. Vergangene Nacht übte die Türkei Vergeltung für einen Angriff von syrischer Seite. Gestern Nachmittag hatten Rebellen einen türkischen Ort in Grenznähe beschossen.“
“Rocket and mortar fire. Last night Turkey took revenge for an attack from the Syrian side. Yesterday afternoon rebels fired on a Turkish village close to the border.
0220 – 0227
Aussage eines Einheimischen (Türke): „Die syrischen Rebellen versuchen, uns in ihren Konflikt zu verwickeln. Wir müssen da sehr vorsichtig sein.“
Testimony of a local Turk: “The Syrian rebels try to draw us into their conflict. We have to be very careful here.”
In their main evening news “Heute” at 1900 hours they report:
01:40 – 01:53
„Raketen- und Granatfeuer. Vergangene Nacht übte die Türkei Vergeltung. Gestern Nachmittag hatten die Syrer einen Ort in Grenznähe beschossen. Die Spannungen zwischen den Nachbarn waren eskaliert – Ankara schlug zurück.“
“Rocket and mortar fire. Last night Turkey took revenge. Yesterday afternoon the Syrians fired on a Turkish village close to the border. The tensions between the neighbours had escalated – Ankara retaliated.”
In the late evening news “Heute Journal” at 2300 hours they reported:
0154 – 0205
“Raketen und Granatfeuer. Vergangene Nacht übte die Türkei Vergeltung. Gestern Nachmittag war von syrischer Seite ein Ort in Grenznähe beschossen worden. Die Spannung eskalierte. Ankara schlug zurück.”
“Rocket and mortar fire. Last night Turkey took revenge. Yesterday afternoon a village close to the border had been fired upon from the Syrian side. The tension escalated – Ankara retaliated.”
0235 – 0242
“Zerschossene Häuser und menschenleere Straßen. Noch ist nicht einmal klar, wer eigentlich geschossen hat, die syrische Armee oder die Rebellen.”
“Houses shot to pieces and streets devoid of people. It is not even clear yet who really fired, the Syrian army or the rebels.”
The first victim of war is the truth
The first report clearly states that the rebels officially claimed responsibility for the attack on Turkey.
It is telling to see how the pressure on this TV station worked. They had to back-paddle:
At 1300 it was the Syrian Rebels officially claiming responsibility.
In the main evening news at 1900 it was the Syrians (suggesting the Syrian army). This is a prime example of how the first and probably most authentic and truthful report is turned and twisted by the spin doctors to come to the desired result. In these times of Orwellian double speak we have to give credit to the ZDF that they did not stick with “The Syrians did it” but at least ended with a question mark - in the late evening they leave it open who was responsible.
Supporting the original ZDF report that the rebels are responsible for the attack is another video (Source: Syria News) which shows that the rebels have the equipment to carry out such an attack.
These mortar shells are Russian-made, at least, the armed Western-backed fighters state this in this video on YouTube. It seems that they use ammunition that they got by attacks of arms depots of the Syrian Arab Army.
The author is a member of Awaken Ireland and a frequent contributor to this blog. He can be contacted via firstname.lastname@example.org
Hama dzangu, if you are not in Christ you better be. Ndiwo mavambo ekugedageda kwemeno aya!
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users