Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta NATO. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta NATO. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012

Le chef de l’opposition syrienne, au secours d’al-Qaïda, en Syrie !, par Louis Denghien

Le chef de l’opposition syrienne, au secours d’al-Qaïda, en Syrie !, par Louis Denghien

IRIB- À Marrakech, rien de nouveau :

les mêmes qui soutenaient hier le Conseil national syrien, le déclarant «seul représentant légitime du peuple syrien«, viennent d’accorder le même label à la «Coalition nationale syrienne», nouvelle façade de l’opposition radicale à direction islamiste, et créée voici un mois et quelque sous les auspices et les dollars de l’émir du Qatar. Les mêmes, ce sont évidemment les soi-disant «Amis de la Syrie«, c’est-à-dire la coalition des États-Unis et de leurs alliés et clients européens et arabes, au premier rang desquels la France dont le chef de la diplomatie, Laurent Fabius, a exhorté les pays regroupés, à Marrakech, à reconnaître «individuellement» cette opposition, sous licence du Qatar et de l’OTAN.

Al-Khatib, au secours d’al-Nosra

C’est donc à nouveau, dans une large mesure, un de ces non-événements dont les Occidentaux alimentent régulièrement la chronique de l’actualité syrienne. La Coalition demeure un rassemblement d’exilés dans les mains de puissances étrangères et dominé par les Frères musulmans, rien de très attractif pour le peuple syrien qu’ils prétendent représenter. Mais cette «reconnaissance» étrangère permet aux robots ignares et sans mémoire de nos médias – en l’occurrence, ce matin, le deux potiches de BFMTV – de ressortir sans rire leur antienne un rien usée «Bachar al-Assad est de plus en plus isolé». On sait bien que la méthode Coué tient lieu d’analyse et les slogans d’informations à nombre de nos journalistes, mais on ne peut s’empêcher d’avoir encore un peu honte pour eux (on est trop sensibles, peut-être….)

En tous cas, et nos journalistes ont apparemment oublié de le souligner, cette déclaration de conformité de l’opposition radicale aux normes américaines et qatari coïncide avec une intervention lourde de sens du chef de la Coalition de Doha, cheikh Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, Frère musulman, dans le civil, qui a, carrément, critiqué l’administration américaine, pour avoir placé le Front al-Nosra, groupe djihadiste dominant, dans le Nord de la Syrie, sur leur liste des organisations terroristes.

Oui, le chef de cette coalition de stipendiés de l’Étranger – l’Arabie saoudite a annoncé, à Marrakech, une aide de… 100 millions de dollars à cette opposition dite syrienne -, que viennent d’adouber les Occidentaux, trouve que ce n’est pas bien de la part des Américains de désigner comme «terroriste» un groupe qui se revendique, ouvertement, d’al-Qaïda, et qui a commis, Washington le reconnaît, des dizaines d’attentats à la voiture piégée ayant fait des centaines de morts et blessés civils et militaires. De nouveaux attentats ont, d’ailleurs, frappé Damas, hier, faisant, au moins, 11 morts et des dizaines de blessés.

C’est à des «détails», comme celui-ci qu’on mesure la modération du chef de la Coalition de Doha, (reçu, avec componction, par François Hollande), qui estime que les égorgeurs et terroristes fondamentalistes d’al-Nosra sont un partenaire respectable, dans la lutte contre le gouvernement syrien. Et sa crédibilité : la Coalition avait claironné, voici peu, qu’elle allait donner à la rébellion un nouveau commandement militaire, chapeautant tous les groupes armés, à l’exception, précisément, des djihadistes d’al-Nosra ! Alors, quand est-ce que M. Al-Khatib a menti ?

Quand Le Monde ne veut pas qu’on «criminalise trop al-Nosra !

D’ailleurs al-Khatib n’est pas le seul à vouloir sauver la mise à al-Nosra. Le Monde a tendu le micro, le 12 décembre, à un spécialiste suédois, Aron Lund, qui tout en étant bien obligé de reconnaître que cette organisation est bien « djihadiste salafiste » et que son but est, au-delà de la Syrie, de «lutter contre l’Occident et les gouvernements chiites« , estime qu’al-Nosra n’est perçu «par la plupart» des Syriens, non comme un groupe de terroristes, mais justes comme des rebelles «peut-être extrémistes», mais qui ont le mérite, donc, de combattre le gouvernement.

 Et Lund d’ajouter que de «nombreux Syriens opposés au régime» sont «agacés par cette décision américaine qui criminalise une partie de l’opposition« . Oui, vous avez bien lu, selon ce fou, on ne doit pas criminaliser al-Nosra, qui, pourtant, s’en est très bien chargé tout seul ! Il est vrai, c’est incontestable, que le djihadisme est devenu, ces derniers mois, «une partie de l’opposition» syrienne, et même une partie essentielle.

On se demande quel est le panel de Syriens sélectionné par Lund pour arriver à des affirmations aussi délirantes. Quant au Monde, il est dans son rôle d’artisan sournois de la destruction de la Syrie, en laissant accroire que les al-Nosra, suprêmement intolérants, massacreurs, décapiteurs et poseurs de bombes sont peut-être utiles et légitimes dans la lutte sacrée – et de plus en plus irrationnelle d’ailleurs – de l’Occident libéral contre Bachar al-Assad. Après tout, c’est le même journal qui, en 1975, avait salué l’entrée des Khmers rouges, à Pnom Penh : les années et les tendances idéologiques passent, l’irresponsabilité demeure.

Au fond, si cette évolution diplomatique et médiatique est révoltante, elle n’est pas étonnante : au terme de 21 mois de crise, la «révolution syrienne» est devenue une vaste offensive terroriste islamiste contre un pays souverain, ses infrastructures et sa population, offensive soutenue à bout de bras par ceux-là même qui ont déjà détruit l’Irak, la Serbie ou la Libye, et aimeraient bien continuer avec l’Iran.

Un Al-Khatib ne peut, en effet, se permettre de «snober» les barbus à bandeau noir d’al-Nosra, parce qu’ils sont, désormais, la force la mieux organisée, en tout cas, la plus agressive, sur le terrain. Sauf que les djihadistes se moquent bien de sauver les vagues apparences démocratiques et pluralistes dont s’entoure la «Coalition nationale syrienne«. Al-Khatib et les siens pratiquent la fuite en avant militaire, parce que c’est leur seule perspective.

On pourrait, d’ailleurs, en dire autant de leurs protecteurs occidentaux, qui se préparent des lendemains difficiles avec le monstre islamo-terroriste qu’ils n’ont cessé d’engraisser et de conforter, en Syrie.

On sait que la diplomatie est une affaire de cynisme et d’égoïsme (national ou de bloc), mais là cynisme et égoïsme sont suicidaires, à terme, du point de vue de Washington, Londres ou Paris. Après tout, c’est leur problème, et ça va le demeurer un bout de temps.

domingo, 9 de diciembre de 2012

Military voyeurism or invasion of Syria?





As part of the sinister plan for Syria at work, French military agents have recently held face-to-face meetings with the foreign-backed militants inside the country in a bid to “assess the situation on the ground.

A report carried by French paper Le Figaro on Friday indicates that “Their main task was to know who controls the battlegrounds around Damascus.”

It seems that a West-orchestrated plan to invade the country is under way and that they are teaming up and gearing up for united military action against the country.

The report adds that the meetings were held last month with the full knowledge of the French government and that the French government wants to know the “operational capacity of each group” and their “political colors.”

To make matters worse, NATO has agreed to deploy Patriot missiles on the Syria-Turkey border under the pretense of defending Turkey as Britain has warned Syria of ‘serious consequences’ if the regime used chemical weapons. All the pieces of the puzzle are being meticulously put together by the ‘foes of Syria’ to lend a cloak of legitimacy to an imminent invasion of the country: that Syria mulls using chemical weapons against its own people and the militants, that the war may spill over into Turkey and that Turkey should be able to defend herself against any potential attacks.

While in Brussels for a NATO foreign ministers' meeting, William Hague, British foreign secretary, said that Britain had delivered a stark message to President Bashar al-Assad, echoing the words of the Obama administration on Monday. 

"We are worried about chemical weapons," said Mr. Hague. "We have become more concerned about them in recent days for the same reasons the US has. We have already sent our own, clear, private message directly to the Syrians about the serious consequences that would follow from the use of those weapons."

Syria has blasted NATO’S decision to deploy Patriot missiles as “psychological warfare,” saying the new deployment would not deter it from seeking victory over the militants it views as terrorists.

Despite some Western countries claiming that NATO’s decision to deploy the missiles shows a low appetite on their part for military intervention, it is to be seen as a strong naked message that the West is indeed gearing up for military intervention.

Syria said the NATO deployment shall not make Assad change course, calling the talk of chemical weapons part of a conspiracy to justify future intervention.

“The Turkish step and NATO’s support for it are provocative moves that constitute psychological warfare,” Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said in an interview with Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV. “But if they think this will affect our determination and work for a decisive victory in this fight against terrorism, they are very wrong.”

He added, "In the event that [foreign powers] actually considered an aggression, they should consider the consequences. I believe the cost will be high.... They need to understand that they are putting the entire region and its environs to danger, if they tried to commit such a folly."

That Assad will use chemical weapons against his own population or even the militants is a threadbare claim and a feeble excuse concocted by the West to embark on their initial militaristic voyeurism and eventual military expedition. In fact, it is very much reminiscent of Washington’s claim that Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction before it launched a military invasion of the country and brought about a human loss of inconceivable degree. Sadly some realities are soon forgotten. An opinion conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) on August 12-19, 2007, indicated a human loss of 1,033,000 in Iraq War. Although the range varies between 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths, the sheer idea of such colossally disastrous human loss is beyond imagination. According to ORB, “48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.”

Russia’s new ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, has de plano perceived some pernicious amount of threat in the move and said, “This is not a threat to us, but this is an indication that NATO is moving towards engagement and that's it. We see a danger of further involvement of NATO into the situation in Syria as a result of provocation or some border incidents.”

It is cruel but highly likely that West may provide the militants with chemical weapons so they may use them against the Syrians and shift the blame on the Syrian government so that they can carry on with their long-thought-out plan of invading the country. This idea is further consolidated when we focus on the attention recently accorded to this issue by the US and some Western countries. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have for their parts vowed to take action if Syria uses chemical weapons in the country. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned on Tuesday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria against gunmen would prompt an immediate military response.

The sad truth is that they have already formed their coalition against Syria with even Israel being part of this coalition. According to Hebrew-language Maariv newspaper, Tel Aviv is preparing for such a scenario amid increasing speculation that the US military will intervene in Syria “within days” if chemical weapons are used.

The ‘chemical weapons’ scenario seems to be the best cue for Washington and their Western allies in order to gorge the international community on a tacit consent to another military adventurism in the Middle East.

IS/HGH

AKA Ali Salami, Dr. Ismail Salami is an internationally published author of several books and hundreds of articles. In his articles, Salami examines the historical developments that impact national relations today, and the way western people view Iran. He holds a PhD in Shakespeare Studies and is the author of Human Rights in Islam and Iran, Cradle of Civilization. His writings have been translated into dozens of languages.More Press TV articles by Ismail Salami

NATO intervention in Syria imminent



Patriot missile batteries (file photo)

On December 7, Voice of Russia (VoR) headlined: "Iraq 2.0, another false-flag invasion rated XXX," saying:
"The US and NATO are set to invade Syria, something many of us have been warning about for a while now. It has been obvious that they have been looking for a pretext and that pretext has already been injected into the public debate."

VoR cited fabricated claims about threatening chemical weapons. Media scoundrels hype them. Sarin nerve gas was mentioned. Reports claimed Assad readied it in bombs. No evidence whatever was cited.

They're ready to go but haven't been loaded on planes, said an unnamed US official. Pentagon spokesman George Little said "any consideration of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be unacceptable."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:

"I think there is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons. The intelligence that we have causes serious concerns that this is being considered."

"The president of the United States has made very clear there will be consequences, there will be consequences if the Assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their own people."

On December 7, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad was unequivocal, saying:

"Syria stresses again, for the 10th, the 100th time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against our people. We would not commit suicide."

The alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat replicates bogus allegations about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs. It's similar to falsified claims about Gaddafi, the Taliban, and numerous other invented US enemies.

Big Lies launch wars. In "The Art of War," Sun Tzu said "All war is based on deception." It's true now like in ancient times. Instant global communications, super-weapons, and scoundrel media complicity make today's threat especially ominous.

Washington's rage for war threatens humanity. Peace doesn't have a chance. Media scoundrels hype false threats. Repeated ad nauseam, people believe them.

No matter how many previous times they were fooled, they buy the Big Lie again. It happens every time. They're being set up again now.

Administration, congressional, and Pentagon officials are preparing the public for more war. Falsified headlines hype nonexistent threats. Humanity hangs in the balance. Where this ends, who knows.

In early December, UN officials said they're recalling all non-essential Syrian staff. Growing conflict dangers were cited. Perhaps advance word of imminent NATO intervention was gotten.

On December 6, CNN cited a Pentagon spokesman Little saying Washington updated its military options for potentially striking Syria. "We are prepared for a full range of contingencies," said Little.

He added that US forces have all the firepower needed in the region for full-scale war if ordered. A previous article said Washington positioned considerable military strength off Syria's coast.

It includes 10,000 combat troops, 70 fighter-bombers, 17 or more warships (including the USS Eisenhower and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group), heavy armaments, offensive Patriot missiles, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System readiness, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) capability.

It suggests US-led NATO intervention could happen any time. More than ever it looks imminent.

On December 7, Syria Deeply headlined "EXCLUSIVE: US Trains Rebel Brigades to Secure Chemical Weapons," saying:

Washington and NATO allies "hired contractors" to train opposition Syrian mercenaries. Four unnamed diplomats, including a US official, said exercises are ongoing in Turkey and Jordan.

At issue is whether Washington plans a false flag chemical attack as pretext for full-scale US-led NATO intervention. Syria Deeply stopped short of suggesting it.

Obama and Clinton said using them crosses a "red line." Washington would respond.

On December 7, Hillary Clinton urged all parties involved to make a "concerted push" to resolve the Syrian conflict. Perhaps imminent intervention was hinted.

France's Le Figero said French military advisers met with opposition fighters inside Syria. So have US and UK elements. At issue is assessing operational capabilities of different groups and choosing which ones get weapons.

On December 4, NATO foreign ministers met in Brussels. They expressed solidarity with Turkey. They agreed to deter any potential threat Ankara faces. There's none, but they suggested otherwise.

On December 6, Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) headlined:

"Nato-Fuhrung erwagt militarische Intervention in Syrien (NATO leadership is considering military intervention in Syria)."

Multiple sources told SZ that NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance can't "stick its head in the sand." NATO is prepared to intervene in Syria if ordered.

Earlier Rasmussen said NATO had no intention of doing so. He lied. Perhaps it's been planned all along.

SZ said Rasmussen is supported by Washington, Britain and Turkey. The Pentagon will suggest ways to implement a no-fly zone.

Rasmussen asked what would NATO do if Syria uses chemical weapons? What if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz? Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland discount a chemical weapons threat.

Russia told NATO members to take inflammatory threats with a grain of salt. Previous ones proved false. This time isn't different.

SZ said NATO foreign ministers failed to reach common ground. It's unlikely to matter. Washington, Britain, Turkey, Rasmussen, and apparently France favor intervention. No combination of other countries can stop them.

On December 7, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile headlined "Paris: NATO-Arab Syria intervention imminent," saying:

"Sources close to the French Defense Ministry" said intervention "is due to begin shortly with the participation of the US, France, Britain, Turkey, Jordan and other anti-Assad Arab nations."

France deployed the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle in the Mediterranean. Combat marines are on board. Britain has at least five warships nearby. They've joined Washington's battle group.

In November, British and French forces "performed landing-and-capture exercises against fortified locations on the coast and mountains of Albania as practice for potential operations against similar terrain in Syria, where the Alawite Mountains loom over the coastal towns of Latakia and Tartus."

"French sources told Le Point magazine that the NATO mission for Syria, including the UK and the US, would be modeled on the Western intervention in Libya in 2011."

"It would combine an aerial blitz with ground action by special forces for destroying Assad’s chemical weapons stocks, his air force and his air defense systems."

Apparently winds of war reached gale force. Expect full-scale intervention any time. It could come before or right after Christmas and New Year's.

A previous article called today perhaps the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone.

Possible regional or global war looms. Disastrous consequences could follow. Obama may head humanity into the abyss. Perhaps there's no way to stop him.

It's vital for anti-war activists to challenge what's too potentially catastrophic to tolerate. The risks are far too great to stay sidelined.

SL/JR

Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. Supporting progressive causes and organizations, he began writing in summer 2005 on a broad range of issues. Topics regularly addressed include war and peace; social, economic and political equity; and justice for long-suffering peoples globally - notably, victims of America's imperial wars, Occupied Palestinians and Haitians. In early 2007, he began hosting his own radio program. Currently he hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and Mexican Journalists Club 2011 international journalism award recipient. His books include: The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance, and How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. His forthcoming book is titled Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity. More articles by Stephen Lendman

lunes, 21 de febrero de 2011

قوات الناتو تقتل 64 مدنيا في افغانستان

أكد حلف شمال الاطلنطي (الناتو) أنه سيحقق في تقارير تتهمه بقتل عشرات المدنيين الافغان خلال الايام القليلة الماضية.

وكان فضل الله وحيدي حاكم اقليم كونار شرق افغانستان قال إن 64 مدنيا لقوا حتفهم في غارات جوية شنتها قوات الناتو مؤخرا على منطقة جبلية نائية.

وفي وقت لاحق، قال الرئيس الافغاني حامد كرزاي إن أكثر من 50 شخصا قتلوا في تلك المنطقة.

وكانت قوات الناتو أعلنت أنها قتلت أكثر من 30 مسلحا في غارة ليلية شنتها على المنطقة قبل يومين.

وقال متحدث باسم الناتو في افغانستان لبي بي سي إنه ليس لديهم دليل على وقوع ضحايا مدنيين، لكنهم يبحثون بشأن هذه المعلومات.

لكن وحيدي أكد سقوط قتلى مدنيين في منطقة غازياباد، موضحا أن من بينهم 20 امرأة وعدد من الأطفال.

يذكر أن الولايات المتحدة وحلف شمال الاطلسي يخوضان حربا ضد مقاتلي حركة طالبان في افغانستان، حيث تنشر واشنطن حوالي 78 الف جندي هناك.

وكانت وزيرة الخارجية الامريكية هيلاري كلينتون حذرت مقاتلي طالبان السبت بأنهم يواجهون خيارا واضحا بين الحرب والسلام بينما يتصاعد الضغط العسكري الامريكي عليهم.

وقالت كلينتون في كلمة القتها في نيويورك: "لن يتمكنوا من دحرنا، ولا يمكنهم تفادي هذا الخيار."

وتنوي الولايات المتحدة البدء في سحب قواتها من افغانستان في الصيف المقبل، على ان تكمل انسحابها قبل عام 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/worldnews/2011/02/110220_nato_afghanistan.shtml

Powered By Blogger