Archive for the ‘Africa’ Category
Hopes that Opec would bring relief to motorists and wider western economies from soaring energy prices were today dashed when a crunch meeting of the oil cartel broke up in disarray without the expected agreement to increase crude output.
Political turbulence in North Africa and the Middle East undermined the usual consensus at the meeting in Vienna and led to speculation that new internal rivalries could split the group, leading to even more market chaos.
Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer and influential Opec dove, was outmanoeuvred by Iran, Venezuela, Libya and others, later describing the summit as “one of the worst meetings we have ever had”.
The price of Brent crude soared a further $1.65 to $118.43 a barrel as an expected Opec agreement to raise its production quotas by about 1.5 million barrels a day failed to materialise.
Petrol in Britain averages 136p a litre – 18p more than a year ago – and Edmund King, president of the AA, said the prospect of a new rise on the back of the failed Opec meeting was a “slap in the face” for the consumer.
“With so many indicators pointing to the pain of high oil prices and the detrimental effect they are having on family budgets and economic recovery, Opec’s decision simply deepens the gloom,” he added.
The four west-leaning Gulf Arab states had proposed increasing daily output to more than 30m barrels but they were out-voted by seven countries including Venezuela and Algeria who wanted them left unchanged.
Saudi Arabia made clear it was not happy. Ali al-Naimi, oil minister for a country which has close ties with America and Britain, said: “We were unable to reach an agreement – this is one of the worst meetings we have ever had.”
Market analysts said there were genuine differences inside Opec about whether the bout of very high oil prices could last and undermine the global economy or naturally fall back.
“One factor is a diverging market view. Another is politics,” said analyst Samuel Ciszuk at IHS global Insight. “At times of heated politics and ideological debate, Saudi struggled to dominate as much as it could have given its size vis-a-vis others in Opec.”
The atmosphere had been poisoned by Qatar backing Libyan rebels fighting the government of Muammar Gaddafi, while Saudi Arabia has angered Shi’ite Iran by using force to help the Sunni-led Bahrain suppress a Shi’ite rebellion.
But, this time, those in Opec politically opposed to the United States – led by Iran and Venezuela – found enough support to block Saudi Arabia whose views normally hold sway.
Katherine Spector at CIBC World Markets said: “Saudi is the cartel member most interested in earning political ‘points’ with consuming countries, and maintaining its image as a reliable supplier of last resort.”
But several Opec members also argued they needed to keep tax revenues high to protect their citizens against the rocketing cost of other commodities such as food, and could not let the oil price decline. Opec is not due to meet again for another three months and some analysts said the angry divergence of views could mark the beginning of the end for the cartel.
“A new world order beckons, doubtless preceded by disorder,” said Marc Ostwald, strategist at Monument Securities. He predicted that non-Opec members such as Russia and Kazakhstan could be the main beneficiaries if the cartel’s power waned.
Production quotas have now remained unchanged since 2009. The International Energy Agency, the global watchdog, expressed its “disappointment” at Opec’s decision and urged producers to increase output anyway.
“A further tightening in the market and potential increases in prices risk undermining economic recovery, which is in the interests neither of producers nor consumers.”
However, Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics, said the weakening outlook for the global economy should bring oil prices down later this year . “We continue to expect the price of Brent crude to drop back below $90 per barrel by the end of the year, as global demand continues to disappoint, the Middle East risk premium fades, and the dollar rebounds.”
OPEC Fails To Reach Agreement On Oil Supply
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Do you think Bilderberger’s had anything to do with this disarray? - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
June 9, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Posted in Africa, Big Brother, Big Oil, Bilderberg Group, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Economy, Education, Europe, Fascism, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, Iran, Media, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Propaganda, Psyops, Saudi Arabia, Science / Technology, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, U.S. News, Venezuela, Video, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
May 27, 2011: Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com - May 27, 2011
Sacrifice your children to the king! - SJH
Given the fact that the Obama administration is now involved in more conflicts and has more troops deployed than at any time during the Bush administration, how confident should we be that a government promise to veto the alarming worldwide war provision contained in the National Defense Authorization Act will be kept.
Yesterday the House passed the act, “including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization.
The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.”
Earlier this week, the White House indicated that it would veto the worldwide war provision, not because it is a flagrant violation of the War Powers Resolution and the basic tenet of not investing dictator powers in a president, but because it could cause “confusion”.
“The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 [the worldwide war provision] which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion…” the White House wrote to Congress.
The administration’s problem with the provision has nothing to do with the fact that it would make Obama above the law and completely unconstrained by Congress, their only concern is that it would hinder alleged terrorists from being tried in federal courts.
“Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute detainees,” wrote the White House, indicating that a compromise could be made that would ensure the bill’s passage.
According to the ACLU, “President Obama and his administration have to be commended for taking such a tough stance on issues of fundamental importance to the rule of law and our democracy.”
Well, there’s a first time for everything, but the ACLU has completely dropped the ball on this one. The Obama administration is opposed to the worldwide war provision not because it is an egregious expansion of the executive branch, but because it doesn’t give them enough power.
Once the administration is given the choice to try suspected terrorists in federal courts or merely assassinate them at will as we were told happened in the case of the Bin Laden raid, the bill will be passed and the ugliest aspects of the worldwide war provision will remain.
Indeed, one could argue that the Obama administration has already bestowed upon itself the powers enshrined in the worldwide war provision with its constant drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and other areas in the region, assaults ten times the amount of innocent people than they do so-called “militants”.
The ACLU’s praise for the Obama administration’s upholding of the “rule of law” didn’t seem to apply when Obama joined a NATO-led “no fly zone” over Libya, which quickly turned into a ceaseless bombardment and another undeclared war prosecuted with total disregard for Congressional oversight.
Indeed, when Senator Rand Paul blasted Obama for failing to get Congressional approval for the war on Libya following the expiration of the 60 days clause in the War Powers act, the president merely turned his nose up and claimed all the authority he needed came from the United Nations and international law.
However, when it came to invading Pakistani airspace to conduct the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s alleged compound, another foreign incursion of which Congress was kept in the dark, Obama showed little regard for the international laws he supposedly cherishes in refusing to even alert Pakistan to the fact that the operation was imminent.
The raid violated the same international laws that Obama claims give him the authority to attack Libya. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Attorney General Holder said the murder did not violate the Geneva Conventions because Bin Laden was an “enemy combatant” after he “admitted” to carrying out 9/11. And yet in Bin Laden’s only confirmed media interview following 9/11, he explicitly denied being behind the attack.
As Ron Paul warns in the video below, the worldwide war resolution is another one of the final nails in the coffin of the American republic. If this provision is allowed to pass, it will provide presidents with de facto immunity from war crimes and free them from the constraints of any national or international rules or laws on the conduct of war.
History is littered with examples of odious tyrants who shredded the rule of law to bestow upon themselves dictatorial powers that they claimed provided a justification for unprovoked foreign invasions and bloody global conquest. If this ‘worldwide war’ legislation passes the Senate, Obama can be added to that list.
Ron Paul: The Last Nail – Floor Speech May 25, 2011
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Where the hell is the anti-war movement in this pathetic country?! - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
May 27, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Africa, al-Qaeda, Big Brother, Bush Regime, CIA, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Economy, Education, Eugenics, False Flag, Fascism, FBI, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom, Genocide, Global Banking, Government, History, Indefinite Detentions, Iran, Iraq, Law and Justice, Libya, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Renditions, Socialism, Sovereignty, Syria, Taleban, Terrorism, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, Wall Street, War, War Crimes, White House, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News
May 22, 2011: Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D. / TARPLEY.net - May 20, 2011
It is imperative that Americans and people around the world fully understand who and why these wars are being fomented in order to usher in WWIII… - SJH
China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing.
This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.
“Any Attack On Pakistan Would Be Construed As An Attack On China”
Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.”
This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo. Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.
Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.
The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost. Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times…When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.” These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.
The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief.
This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.
As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.
Gilani: Full Force Retaliation To Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets
The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.” A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.
The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.”
This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.
Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack On Pakistan’s Nukes
According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”
Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting an immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”
The Shooting Has Already Started
The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.
Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.
US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations
US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan. In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.
In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”
The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang
One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.”
The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.” Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?
According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.
CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives In Waziristan
If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda. It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.
In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.
Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.
Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue. Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.
US Wants To Use Taliban Boss Omar Mullah Against Pakistan
The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.” By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.
If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.”
In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.
Are We In July 1914?
The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War.
Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.
US Seeks To Divide Pakistan & Deter Chinas Oil Pipeline
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: People need to really start getting a grasp on the geo-politics of this increasingly dangerous world in order to understand exactly why this is all occurring… – SJH
Link to original article with references below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
May 22, 2011 at 10:33 am
Posted in Afghanistan, Africa, al-Qaeda, Asia, Big Brother, Big Oil, China, CIA, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Economy, Education, Eugenics, Fascism, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Media, Middle East, Military, Mossad, NATO, New World Order, Nuclear Warfare, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Syria, Taleban, Terrorism, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, War Crimes, White House, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
May 20, 2011: Tony Cartalucci / Prison Planet.com - May 20, 2011
Excellent article exposing the “Arab Spring.” – SJH
Bangkok, Thailand May 20, 2011 – As Adolf Hitler noted, “all propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
Certainly the writers handing US President Barack Obama his “Middle East speech” had a particularly ignorant audience in mind.
Holding to the narrative that the “Arab Spring” uprising were spontaneous Obama would parrot, “It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo — it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome.”
However, the “Arab Spring” was entirely engineered, prepared for, activists trained, funded, and equipped by the United States, years in advance, based on successes and experience garnered from decades of extraterritorial meddling. In particular, a coalition between the US State Department, NGOs, corporations, and organizations entirely contrived for the sole purpose of fomenting unrest in foreign nations, began as early as 2008 preparing for what is now unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa.
Beyond a mere conspiracy theory, the New York Times itself conceded in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” that “a number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington…” Also implicated in the New York Times report was the National Endowment for Democracy, which provided these organizations the bulk of their funding.
Egypt & Tunisia
The Egyptian April 6 Movement was in New York City as early as 2008 receiving training and an opportunity to “network” at the US State Department sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit. In 2009, the April 6 Movement then attended training at the US-created CANVAS organization in Serbia before returning to Egypt to partake in the year-long run up to the revolution led by International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei and his “National Front for Change.” In fact, April 6 Movement members attempted to welcome ElBaradei when he first returned to Egypt back in February, 2010, almost a full year before the “Arab Spring” would begin.
Alliance for Youth Movements boasts major corporate support, as well as a partnership with the US State Department. The organization was contrived solely to foment unrest throughout target nations.
Thus President Obama is an absolute, degenerate liar, intentionally misleading the American people and the world abroad about what is unfolding throughout the Arab world. The level of duplicity is unprecedented as is the scale of the ambition of the corporate-financier interests driving this plot throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and outward toward Beijing and Moscow. Not only was Egypt’s unrest meticulously engineered and executed by the US, but so was the unrest in Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya.
In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” The ripple effect Posner is talking about is of course the unrest Obama claims was launched by “the people themselves.”
Perhaps the most absurd proposition of all is the attempt to portray the events in Libya as a spontaneous people’s revolution. In fact, for 30 years the US, UK, and the US-created Al-Qaeda, supported armed militants in Libya’s east in their bid to overthrow Qaddafi. Hopefully the following time-line will lay to rest the official narrative as the profane lie that it is.
1990′s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden’s assistance.
1994: LIFG kills 2 German anti-terrorism agents. Qaddafi seeks arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden in connection to the attack but is blocked by MI6 who was concurrently aiding the LIFG.
2003: Upon Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD programs, Libya’s collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group. Ironically this information would give Western nations an entire army to rebuild and turn against Qaddafi in 2011.
2005: NFSL’s Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan “Day of Rage,” beginning the “February 17th revolution.”
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO’s Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing “unarmed protesters” with warplanes.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya.
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from “protecting civilians” to “ousting Qaddafi.” Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington’s full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda’s ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.
2011: Late April; Documented evidence is revealed that Libya’s rebels are conducting a barbaric campaign, employing extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate military force, child-soldiers, landmines, and torture. New York Times blames a lack of support.
2011: Late April, early May; Followed by calls to assassinate Qaddafi, ordnance crash into his son’s home killing him and 3 of Qaddafi’s grandchildren. NATO concurrently seeks a new UN resolution authorizing ground troops while aggressor states seek to release seized Libyan assets to the rebels.
With the US-educated Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, interim prime minister of the contrived rebel “Libyan Transitional National Council,” standing before the Brookings Institution for a May 12, 2011 talk saying “what’s taking place is a natural product of the globalizational process that started in the mid-80′s,” any lingering doubts as to who these rebels are fighting for and what their final goal is, is laid to rest.
Mahmoud Elwarfally, the rebel “prime minister” speaks before the Brookings Institution declaring the Libyan rebellion was a natural product of “the globalizational process.”
Elwarfally would go on to talk about a “new global cultural paradigm,” and “new global values,” common values, shared by many “young people.” These young people, he says, are calling for human dignity, democracy, and inclusion at all levels of national government, repeating verbatim statements coming from geopolitical meddler Zbigniew Brzezinski and the myriad of US-funded NGOs that promote these “new global values.” Elwarfally would go on to reveal that Libya’s future is to serve as a “a lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of the European Union.
Again we see a globalist trained stooge, not “the people” determining the fate of a nation mired in carefully crafted chaos. Whatever the people on the ground think they are truly fighting for, it most likely diverges entirely from what Elwarfally articulated before his corporate-financier admirers amongst the Brookings Institution.
Syria has been slated for regime change since at least 1991. In 2002, under the Bush administration, Syria would be added to the growing “Axis of Evil.” It would be later revealed that this escalation was accompanied by covert funding for opposition groups inside of Syria.
In an April 2011 CNN article, State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted as saying, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s remarks came after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. Coupled with Posner’s remarks regarding the training of Syrian activists who were sent back to their homeland to confront their government, it is clear that it was not “the people themselves who launched these movements.” We will also see that it is most certainly not “the people” who determine their outcome either.
Order Out of Chaos
Mark Toner’s comments regarding US support for “civil society” that is attempting to build “democratic institutions” around the globe is in fact quite telling when one understands that “civil society” and “democratic institutions” are euphemisms for imperial networks. Such euphemisms are similar to the guise of spreading “civilization” the Romans and the British used as they conquered and subjugated populations globally.
In the aftermath of US-funded unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, billions are being pledged to rebuild the nations via IMF and World Bank loans. Anticipating Hosni Mubarak’s departure from power, the US had already begun preparing an aid package to assist in “constitutional reform, democratic development and election organizing” before the embattled dictator even stepped down. It would be later revealed that Soros-funded NGOs were already cobbling together draft constitutions as part of this US-led effort to reorder Egypt.
After initially playing ignorant as to the nature of the unrest they themselves engineered, the US is now openly pledging billions to both Tunisia and Egypt via private investment companies as well as IMF and World Bank loans to “stabilize” their economies. Included in this “aid” is a “$2 billion facility to support private investments in the region.” In other words, economic liberalization is the goal, and as pointed out before, such “liberalization” is nothing more than imperialism, economic and military hegemony poorly redressed as something more palpable for the ignorant masses.
Perhaps the best example of what the globalists’ designs are for any given nation, is an article written by the Economist titled, “Let’s all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist’s dream,” regarding the military conquest and economic despoiling of the Mesopotamian nation. In their article they gleefully enumerate an ideal scenario for foreign investors including:
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.
Students of history may recognize these conditions as similar to the results of British treaties made under the duress of their notorious “gunboat diplomacy.” It is the elimination entirely of national and economic sovereignty, subjugating the inferior nation indefinitely to the imperialists who imposed such “liberalization” upon them. This is the ultimate goal, and while Libya’s stooges-in-waiting openly confess they will be integrating their newly despoiled nation into the globalist combine, in other regions, such as Egypt and Tunisia, the transition will be more subtle as we wait for details of the proposed “private investment” schemes to emerge.
The geopolitical reordering and the subtle economic subjugation of North Africa and the Middle East is but the first step in a campaign meant to seize dominion of the world. As did all the empires before it, the global elite intend to spread their “democracy” just as the Romans and the British spread their “civilized society.” While Obama speaks of self-determination, the cornerstone of true freedom, the facts prove definitively that events throughout this “Arab Spring” have been engineered, prodded, manipulated, and exploited years in advance, for the specific goal of expanding the global elite’s economic and military hegemony throughout the world.
The key to confounding this deception is to understand that degenerate liars like Obama are but paid actors upon the stage of public office, while corporations and bankers steer nations and regions through their think-tanks propelled forward with their ill-gotten wealth and their unwarranted influence. They use propaganda, such as the speech given by Obama regarding the current US-fueled conflagration in the Middle East to divide and distract us, mobilizing us in one of two predictable directions to either promote or oppose their agenda. This strategy of tension fails entirely when we see through it, see who is really behind it, and decide for ourselves to pursue our own agenda, locally, self-sufficiently, independently and within the confines of true freedom.
Obama Speech – May 19, 2011
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: “…one million frequent flyer miles”? Since when has the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flown commercial and been groped and scanned by TSA? This is how dumb they think we all are as they flaunt their narcissistic arrogance right in our face. This entire speech is a propaganda charade! - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
May 20, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Posted in Africa, Big Brother, CIA, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Economy, Education, Eugenics, European Union, False Flag, Fascism, Federal Reserve, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, Health, History, IMF, Israel, Law and Justice, Libya, Martial Law, Media, MI6, Middle East, Military, Mossad, NATO, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Revolution, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Terrorism, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, Wall Street, War, War Crimes, White House, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
May 1, 2011: Kristin Chick / The Christian Science Monitor – May 1, 2011
A NATO airstrike on Tripoli killed the youngest son and three grandchildren of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan government announced Sunday.
The airstrike and resulting deaths are likely to increase the accusations that NATO has overstepped the bounds of a United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized it to protect civilians. It comes after Libyan rebels rejected Colonel Qaddafi’s offer Saturday of a conditional cease-fire and negotiations.
The Libyan government said Qaddafi’s youngest son, the relatively unknown Saif al-Arab Qaddafi, was killed in an airstrike on a Tripoli house Saturday evening. (A similarly-named son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, who has played a sometimes prominent role addressing foreign media, was not reported hurt.) It said the three grandchildren killed were pre-teens.
Reuters reports that Libyan officials took journalists to the house, which appeared to have been hit by at least three missiles that had caved in the roof in places and left mangled steel rods and chunks of concrete. The home was in a wealthy residential area and Reuters reports that what appeared to be an unexploded missile lay among the debris.
At a press conference Sunday morning, a Qaddafi government spokesman said that Qaddafi and his wife had been at the house but were not harmed. “This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country,” said the spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, reports The New York Times. “This is not permitted by international law. It is not permitted by any moral code or principle.”
The NATO mission’s commander, Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, said in a statement that the airstrike had not targeted the Libyan leader and called the four deaths unconfirmed.
“All NATO’s targets are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the Qaddafi regime’s systematic attacks on the Libyan population and populated areas. We do not target individuals,” he said. A NATO source told The New York Times that NATO officials were not aware that Qaddafi or his family members were in the house when they ordered the airstrike.
British Prime Minister David Cameron defended NATO’s actions on Sunday, saying that the UN resolution to protect civilians also means targeting command and control, as well as military hardware, reports Voice of America.
But the criticism of NATO has already begun. The Guardian reports that Russian and Venezuelan officials were quick to react to the bombing. “More and more facts indicate that the purpose of the anti-Libyan coalition is to physically destroy Qaddafi,” said Russian MP Konstantin Kosachev Sunday.
The Libyan regime will use the apparent death of close members of Qaddafi’s family to reinforce its claims that NATO is acting illegitimately and that Libya is a victim of a western plot to topple Qaddafi.
UN resolution 1973 permits military action to protect Libyan civilians, which has been interpreted as covering Libyan military facilities, such as command and control centers, as well as military equipment in the field. It does not permit the specific targeting of individuals.
The airstrike on the capital came after opposition leaders in the eastern city of Benghazi rejected Qaddafi’s offer early Saturday to engage in negotiations if the NATO attacks stopped, reports Al Jazeera.
“Qaddafi’s regime has lost all credibility. The people of Libya cannot possibly envisage or accept a future Libya in which Qaddafi’s regime plays any role,” Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, vice president of the opposition Transitional National Council, said in a statement, according to Al Jazeera. NATO had also rejected the offer, saying it wanted to see “not words, but actions” from Qaddafi, whose forces have attacked civilian areas.
In the televised speech, Qaddafi said he would not leave Libya, and appeared “tired and subdued,” reports The Wall Street Journal. That is a contrast to earlier fiery speeches, in which he has called the opposition “rats.” Still, his words were defiant. “”I’m not leaving my country,” he said. “No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country.”
NATO Kills Gaddafi’s Son And Grandchildren
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Amerika has lost all honor and moral integrity… WAR CRIME! - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
May 1, 2011 at 10:42 am
Posted in Africa, Assassination Teams, Big Brother, Big Oil, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Education, Fascism, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Government, History, Law and Justice, Libya, Media, Middle East, Military, NATO, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolution, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, War, War Crimes, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
April 30, 2011: Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer / Activist Post - April 30, 2011
Bangkok, Thailand April 30, 2011 -
Regime change in Syria was a foregone conclusion as early as 1991.
General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech in California relayed a 1991 conversation between himself and then Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz indicated that America had 5-10 years to clean up old Soviet “client regimes,” namely Syria, Iran, and Iraq, before the next super power rose up to challenge western hegemony.
The “next super power” includes ironically Russia, recovering from the treasonous attempted sellout by oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and of course a rising China.
Setting The Stage
The entire “Arab Spring” was a preplanned, meticulously engineered foreign-funded operation that began as early as 2008, with the West’s imperial network of “civil society” and NGOs in place for decades. The New York Times has recently admitted as much in their article, “US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprising,” implicating the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, Movements.org, and Freedom House for their roles in recruiting, training, and supporting the unrest.
As this plot unfolds, we see in hindsight that each destabilization was triggered and nurtured with a specific order in mind. Tunisia and Egypt were collapsed on either side of Libya while the tremors of destabilization shook the entire region in general, including in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
The newly “reordered” Middle East would be extorted into backing Western military intervention in Libya, which was targeted next. The vulnerable governments of Tunisia and Egypt began serving as conduits for weapons and supplies to reach US-backed rebels in their bid to oust Qaddafi. Likewise, the grand prize in the Middle East being Iran, Syria is being systematically picked apart first to further weaken and isolate Tehran.
Iran itself has been under siege for years by covert operations including US special forces and intelligence operating inside Iran, training, arming and supporting terrorist organizations in activity against the government of Iran, as well as assassinations and sabotage of Iranian infrastructure. All of this has been meticulously documented, planned, and prepared amongst the pages of Brookings Institute’s “Which Path to Persia?” report.
The corporate-financier funded think-tanks have reached the general consensus that their unipolar world order of “international law,” and “international institutions” have primacy over national sovereignty and the time has come to assert such primacy or lose it. This was stated quite clearly within the corporate lined Brookings Institute report titled, ” “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” back in February 2011. In it they overtly state that intervening in Libya “is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people’s region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law.”
The globalist International Crisis Group, whose trustee Mohamed ElBaradei played a direct, hands-on role in overthrowing the government of Egypt on behalf of foreign interests, recently reiterated Brookings’ sentiments in an article titled, “The Rise and Fall of International Human Rights,” where once again “international law” and “international citizenship” is held above national sovereignty.
The “responsibility to protect (R2P)” is cited as the impetus to assert such “international law.” Considering that R2P is called on after foreign-funded sedition and violence is created within a target nation, we can see “international law” as the poorly dressed euphemism for imperial invasion that it is. The term “international” in fact describes the evolution of the Anglo-American empire as it absorbs and dismantles nation-states across the globe.
The Build-Up Against Syria
Syria is not only a defiant nation unwilling to participate in “globalization,” it is also an integral part of both Iran’s and Russia’s growing counterbalance throughout the region, in direct contrast to Western hegemony. The Syrian port city of Tartus is being renovated and is set to host heavy Russian warships in a bid to establish a significant presence in the Mediterranean. This would counteract NATO’s expansion along Russia’s borders as well as keep in check Western fleets north of the Suez.
Syria has long served this purpose, with the Tartus facility having originally been opened in 1971 through an agreement with the Soviets. When Paul Wolfowitz was referring to Soviet “client regimes” in his 1991 conversation with Wesley Clark, this sort of challenge to Western hegemony was what he was referring to.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clark was again passed plans drawn to implement regime change throughout the Middle East, specifically to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.”
In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”
Toner’s remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.
In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.”
The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.”
The ripple effect of course are the uprisings themselves, facilitated by yet more aid, equipment, and the complicity of the corporate owned media, disingenuously portraying the events as “spontaneous,” “genuine,” and “indigenous.” Recent calls have been made by US Senators Mark Kirk and Richard Blumenthal for a “non-military intervention” in Syria, while warmongering puppets Nicolas Sarkozy of France and US Senator Joe Lieberman used Libya’s bombardment as a warning aimed specifically at Assad of Syria.
The Intervention Is Beginning
Now, in calls that echo the build-up to Libya’s bombardment, US Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have made a joint statement that Assad has “lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria.” They continued by stating, “Rather than hedging our bets or making excuses for the Assad regime, it is time for the United States, together with our allies in Europe and around the world, to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government.”
The level of deception behind these comments is almost unimaginable, after the US State Department openly admitted to funding, training, organizing, and supporting this unrest to begin with. Compounding the intellectual dishonesty from which these three senators have made their treasonous comments from is the fact that each of them, in addition to their role as “elected representatives,” are members of unelected, shadowy organizations that receive funding directly from US tax payers as well as corporate-financier interests to undermine and destroy foreign governments.
Senator Lieberman: US Should Intervene In Syria Next
McCain and Graham are both members of the International Republican Institute, openly implicated by the New York Times for their role in funding the “Arab Spring.” Lieberman is a member of the Neo-Conservative war profiteering lobbying firm deceptively named, the “Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).”
FDD features many Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatories including William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Paula Dobriansky, as well as CFR members Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer, along with the disingenuous “War on Terror” paid propagandist Bill Roggio of the “Long War Journal.”
Shockingly, this cabal of warmongering liars, many of whom are responsible for reckless and disingenuous war propaganda films such as “Iranium” openly admits to being funded in part by the US State Department. It is amongst unelected, unaccountable organizations like the IRI and FDD that US foreign policy reaches foregone conclusions, with propaganda like “Iranium” left to sell these conclusions to an unwitting, immensely ignorant public.
The chatter amongst the corporate funded think-tanks such as the Brookings Institute has reached a crescendo in their calls for Assad to step down. As in Libya, the calls are based on unverified, purposefully ambiguous reports of violence squarely blamed on the ruling regime. Regardless of reports of armed groups working amongst the protesters, the corporate owned media and the think-tanks that hand them their talking points maintain that the protests are peaceful and that crackdowns are “repressive.”
In Brookings’ latest piece, “In Syria, Assad Must Exit the Stage” the cycle of violence initiated by “mysterious gunmen” targeting funerals is cited as the line Assad had crossed which now requires his departure from power. The article states, “With the cycle of ever-increasing protests met by regime violence and then more funerals intensifying in all areas of the country, it is time for Assad, the “Hamlet” of the Arab world, to consider his future. It is time for him and those who influence him abroad to search for a swift and orderly exit.”
As evidence begins to trickle out confirming Assad’s accusations of armed elements amongst the protesters, as well as possible foreign gunmen being employed to create broader unrest, just as in Libya, the West rushes forward to initiate irreversible intervention.
The Greater World War
With the broad level of openly engineered destabilization aimed not only at the Middle East but at Moscow, Beijing and their peripheries as well, there is little chance the West will call off their gambit now. There is no retreat or return to normalcy for a world now locked in increasingly aggressive confrontation between the Anglo-American empire and the remaining nation-states.
It is an all or nothing gambit being executed by a financially and strategically precarious West rushing to complete an agenda at least 2 decades in the making. Syria and ultimately Iran will not escape this campaign without confronting and confounding the real force behind the destabilization.
George Bush: “New World Order”
This is not an isolated, regional conflict, this is the first step toward greater world war. The destabilization extends from Tunisia to Thailand, from Belarus to Beijing. There are rumblings of confrontation and the positioning of strategic pieces well beyond the current “Arab Spring.”
The rest of the world, including the people of the West who will bear the brunt of the West’s failure or success with equal destitution, must recognize and reject this megalomania-fueled self-serving campaign. We must begin generating a new consensus based on individual and national sovereignty, reclaim the responsibilities we have pawned off to these mega-corporate-financier interests along with the terrible power they now wield because of our continued complicity, apathy, and ignorance.
After Syria and Iran, comes Moscow and Beijing. It is unlikely such conflicts will remain confined to far off regions of the world pictured on our TV screens – just as unlikely those that initiated this confrontation will pay with their own blood and treasure before we the people are all thrown into the crucible of war and consumed entirely.
The New American Century (2009) - FULL LENGTH
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The outstanding documentary above is a must see for all people… - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Africa, al-Qaeda, Asia, Big Brother, Bush Regime, China, CIA, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Documentary, Education, Egypt, Eugenics, Fascism, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, NATO, New World Order, Nuclear Warfare, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolution, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Syria, Terrorism, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, Wall Street, War, War Crimes, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII, Yemen
April 28, 2011: Steven John Hibbs / The Tonka Report (TTR) – April 28, 2011
What a media circus concerning this obviously fake document. It took me less than half an hour tonight to find glaring discrepencies with the authenticity of Barack Hussein Obama’s so-called long form birth certificate from Hawaii that was suddenly released on April 27.
In the photograph of the computer generated document, Obama’s father’s race/color is listed as “African”. There was no such term as “African” used in 1961. It should and would have been entered in as either “Kenyan” or “Negro” (black).
This in turn opens up another can of worms, first of which, is that it lists Obama’s father’s origin of birth as “Kenya”, which means his father, as a Kenyan national was a British citizen.
If the father listed on the document is indeed Obama’s father, Obama is a dual citizen, thus according to The Natural Born Citizen Clause of the US Constitution, he is ineligible to become president, as both parents must be US citizens at the time of birth.
Also, Kenya was not called “Kenya” back in 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth… “It was the British East Africa Protectorate. It was not known as “Kenya” until 1963.” (courtesy: WRH)
The document also lists the hospital’s name as Kapiolaini Maternity and Gynecological Hospital… “It did not change its name to the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until it merged with the Kapiolani hospital system in 1978.” (courtesy: WRH)
It was the merger in 1978 of the Kapiolani Maternity Home established in 1890 and the Kauikeolani Childrens Hospital established in 1909. This in and by itself indicates that the document could not possibly have been generated in 1961, and thus it is not an original.
Look closely at (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama’s signature… Did she forget her full legal name? Have you? And note there is no signature from a doctor. Also, the mother didn’t sign the document until 3 days later, with the “attendant” signing it the day after that. My birth certificate in 1960 was signed by both my mother and the doctor on the actual day of birth.
Lastly, at the bottom of this computer generated document it is dated “April 25, 2011″. Notice that it states that it is a “COPY OR ABSTRACT”. This is from a registrar certifying that this document is nothing more than a copy of a copy. It is not the original birth certificate. If it were, it would have the raised seal of the state of Hawaii stamped on the document. This is a forgery, and a poorly conceived one at that… Why?
Proof Obama’s “Long Form Certificate of Birth” is Forged
Barack Obama On Birth Certificate – April 27, 2011
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: This document is a complete fraud in order to hide who Barack Obama’s real father is… Frank Marshall Davis, and to obfuscate the adoption issue by Soetoro in Indonesia… - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 28, 2011 at 12:05 am
Posted in Africa, Big Brother, Censorship, COINTELPRO, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Education, Geo-Politics, Government, History, Law and Justice, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Propaganda, Psyops, The Tonka Report, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, Video, World Government, World News
April 20, 2011: Anthony Gregory / Lew Rockwell.com – April 19, 2011
“The Davidian cult in Waco was dealt with by armored vehicles,” remarked Muammar Gaddafi in February, defending his own crackdowns in light of the U.S. government’s. April 19 marks eighteen years since the end of the Waco siege and exactly one month since Obama began bombing Libya. Now that the federal government is again shedding blood in the name of humanitarianism, we might reflect on how it obtains legitimacy for its most brazen acts of violence.
Long ago, when governments slaughtered the enemy merely for being different and thus subhuman or for occupying desired territory, such crude rationales satisfied the states’ agents and subjects. The modern democratic state, however, employs more sophisticated propaganda when it burns, gasses, shoots, and bombs people including civilians.
There is always the excuse of security: the targeted people pose a threat. When this argument seems tenuous, it is well complemented by that most insidious of pretenses: The killing is done for the good of others. It is an act of kindness. The American empire, like the Roman and British before it, inflicts violence to civilize and rescue those in need.
Along these lines even the unparalleled mass death of World War II has been vindicated. Since then most U.S. killing sprees have been directed against Hitler’s ghost. Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic were both compared to the Nazi ruler. So were David Koresh and Muammar Gaddafi.
Killing Children To Stop Child Abuse
In the case of Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidian church at Mount Carmel, Texas, the comparisons to Hitler were especially strained. Yet everything about the siege just outside Waco, aside from its humanitarian rationale, seems to have been forgotten.
Sure, the religious group was “stockpiling weapons.” One of them was a legal arms dealer. But why didn’t the cops just arrest Koresh while he was hanging out around town? He was an integrated member of the community. Local law enforcement befriended him. The feds were given intimate access to the Davidians’ home – even enjoying a stint on their firing range with Koresh – and he welcomed them to inspect the property.
The raid commenced on February 28, 1993, not out of anything approaching necessity, but because the ATF wanted to look good for the cameras. “Operation Showtime” was the name of the long-planned attack on the Davidian home. Its main purpose: to overcome the bad publicity the agency had suffered over allegations of sexual harrassment and racism.
The feds had constructed a model of the Davidian home where they rehearsed the raid, whose planning began late in the George H.W. Bush administration. But the raid went horribly wrong. The Davidians fought back – apparently in self-defense, which is why when the ATF ran out of bullets, the Davidians ceased fire, and let the agents leave their property in peace.
Soon enough the domestic siege looked militaristic even by modern American standards. It was full-out psychological warfare: The FBI took over and cut off the Davidians’ access to the press, to water, to phone calls with relatives or lawyers. They blasted recordings of loud, obnoxious music and the sounds of animals being slaughtered. They shone bright lights upon the home all night.
They called it a hostage situation, but people trying to leave the building were typically met with flash-bang grenades thrown at them by the feds.
The siege ended on April 19, 1993, after the FBI spent hours pumping flammable and poisonous CS gas into the area where women and children had gone for safety. Then the Bureau rammed a tank and launched incendiary devices into the home. The Davidians also had Coleman lanterns in nearly every room, which could have easily fallen over in the chaos, and various combustible chemicals stored in the gymnasium.
Although Clinton blamed the Davidians for starting the fire, the flames erupted in a manner consistent with the tank’s collision into the building. There is no credible evidence that the Davidians were planning a mass suicide by fire, and all the survivors have denied that they were. As researcher Carol Moore put it, “There is no doubt that Mount Carmel was systematically turned into a fire trap. The only question is, was it done through criminal negligence or with intention to commit mass murder?”
Some survivors convicted in the mockery of a trial have only been out of prison since 2007. Within government, however, no one even had his wrist slapped. Most Americans assume that the government was negligent at worst, and that even this can be forgiven, since the FBI, with military assistance, was attempting a rescue of the innocent. You see, as we’ve been reminded many times, David Koresh was molesting children.
The first argument behind this accusation concerns Koresh’s multiple young wives. Jack Harwell, the Sheriff of McLennan County, explained why we should not excuse the raid on this basis:
“To this day, we don’t have a case that we can make against Vernon Howell [David Koresh] or anyone else for child abuse even though the news media here and other people were saying this is what happened. A man from Australia said this is what happened. But we can never get them to give us anything more that just “we know that’s what happened.” You have to have proof to go into court…
“Keep in mind, too, that most of the girls who were involved were at least 14 years old and 14-year-olds get married with parental consent. So if their parents were there and letting things happen in the way of sexual activities and what have you with their 14-year-old kids, you have common law husbands and wives. Uh, I don’t say that I agree with that and that I approve of it. But at the same time, if parents are there and they’re giving parental consent, we have a problem with that in making a case.”
There are more serious allegations of abuse, but they too are questionable. On the first day of the 1995 Congressional hearings on Waco, Democrats attempting to whitewash the Clinton administration’s conduct brought out Kiri Jewell, who accused Koresh of having molested her when she was ten. No charges of this nature had been pressed against Koresh.
However, during the standoff, Jewell, who was not living at Mount Carmel at the time, had appeared on The Phil Donahue Show while her dad pitched their story to the television networks. On the show, she said she expected to be one of Koresh’s wives at age 13. In another public statement, she said that while living with the Davidians she never expected to live past 12.
Despite all this, Jewell’s testimony forever colored the mainstream perception of the Branch Davidian Church as a cult of child molestation, which somehow is supposed to make the federal killing less objectionable. The public assumes these allegations are true and no due process is necessary to conclude that the FBI, a heroic if flawed institution, swept in to stop a monster from abusing minors.
Presumably, had those children not been gassed, suffocated and burnt to death, they along with the surviving kids would have been exposed to Koresh’s torment. This narrative is hardly questioned now and it was hardly questioned then: Not only should we believe all of the government’s accusations about Koresh, but those charges somehow mitigate what happened in 1993 when more American civilians died at the hands of the federal government than in any confrontation since Wounded Knee.
Bombing Libyans To Save Libyans
Eighteen years after the flames of Waco, we again see the federal government killing in the name of human rights. Practically no one questions the utilitarian calculus of this altruistic butchery. Most critiques of the Libya war concern strategic prudence, legal issues, or the fiscal price tag.
Should we leave unchallenged the characterization of Obama and NATO as protectors of the innocent? In particular, we hear that Operation Odyssey Dawn prevented Gaddafi from massacring large numbers of civilians in Benghazi. Almost everyone takes it for granted.
To be sure, Gaddafi is a dictator and thug, who indeed killed hundreds of rebels before U.S. cruise missiles hit Tripoli. But would he have slaughtered tens or even hundreds of thousands, as was suggested and claimed, if not for Obama’s intervention? Stephen Walt shares his compelling doubts:
“Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would “[stain] the conscience of the world” (as Obama put it) was slight.”
Other scholars have questioned Obama’s propaganda. University of Texas associate professor Alan Kuperman notes that Gaddafi “did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured – Zawiya, Misrata, Ajdabiya – which together have a population equal to Benghazi.” Human Rights Watch has recently released casualty figures on Misrata that bolster his point. Kuperman writes:
“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people – including combatants – have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 – less than 3 percent – are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties…
“Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy” warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.”
Paul Miller, who served on Bush and Obama’s National Security Councils, intones that far from a genocidal clash, we are looking at a “Libyan civil war…between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other.” (Incidentally, these opponents of Gadhafi’s regime, like practically all other insurgent allies of the CIA, are far from the angelic freedom fighters that the U.S. implies.
Their leader outright admits connections between his group and al-Qaeda, which has offered his rebels aid. The U.S. went to war with Iraq boasting of Saddam’s fictitious ties to al-Qaeda, a connection that was “proven” on the tortured testimony of Libyan al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. But unlike Saddam, America’s allies in the struggle against Gaddafi are probably tied to these Islamist killers.)
In any event, let us concede for argument’s sake that Gaddafi is precisely as diabolical as is claimed, and the dictator indeed wishes to wipe out as many innocents as possible just for the sake of it. Or let’s assume this was a reasonable inference when the NATO bombing began. Time and again we have been reminded that Benghazi is home to over half a million people. But does a large population mean they’d all be vulnerable?
Let us recall that Gaddafi is not Harry Truman. He has no nukes. As Seumas Milne put it: “Given that [Gaddafi’s] ramshackle forces were unable to fully retake towns like Misurata or even Ajdabiya when the rebels were on the back foot, the idea that they would have been able to overrun an armed and hostile city of 700,000 people any time soon seems far-fetched.”
Whereas the citizens of Benghazi have arms, like the civilians at Waco, they far outnumber Gaddafi’s forces, unlike the Branch Davidians against the FBI. Even if he wished to commit a Waco-like massacre of a whole city, Gaddafi had more effective limits on his killing than does the U.S. government.
The notion that U.S. bombs stopped Gaddafi’s murder of many thousands is more than dubious, and it was at the time the bombings began. Even if we believed the questionable claims about his intention to commit such an act, it is not clear how he was supposed to have succeeded. Yet simply by starting a war and saying it was to protect the innocent, Obama shifted public support of intervention against Libya from about 25% to about 60%.
Putting aside the suspicious claims of Gaddafi’s impending civilian massacre, we might wonder how many civilians Obama and company have actually killed in Libya. The NATO governments shrug off any reports of such casualties or deny them outright. Like its predecessor the Obama administration doesn’t do body counts.
What’s more, the U.S. intervention most likely “magnifies the threat to civilians in Libya, and beyond,” Kuperman argues, citing the Balkans in the 1990s and showing that foreign bombs often exacerbate ethnic cleansing and civilian massacres.
Indeed, U.S. involvement appears to have prolonged the bloodshed in Libya. Although Obama denied the goal was regime change, he now says Gaddafi must step down to end the war. Gaddafi has offered a ceasefire to the rebels, who rejected it, probably knowing that the U.S. will support them so long as they resist until the regime is toppled.
People can freely argue that U.S. intervention has preempted Gaddafi’s impending genocide, but the burden should be on them to prove it, and as with Kosovo, they have not done so. To the contrary, Gaddafi has seemingly focused his violence on the rebels, whereas the U.S. central state is not always so discriminating.
At Waco, dozens of children were snuffed out. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of innocents have died in wars based on lies. In Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians die for every “militant” killed, even according to moderate estimates by very mainstream sources.
That these “militants” are a threat to the United States government is never demonstrated, but let’s assume they are. The ratio of unarmed, innocent bystanders to belligerents killed by the United States is higher than that of which Gaddafi is guilty in Misurata.
Why do people believe the U.S. government’s propaganda about Libya when every single major military intervention it has conducted has exacerbated the problems on the ground or at least added to the death toll directly? Why is the mere assertion that a massacre is being averted a license for the U.S. to drop at least hundreds of bombs?
18 Years Of Murderous Salvation
The American belief in benevolent mass murder is not a partisan disposition. Most liberals and conservatives alike take it for granted that, while the federal government’s armed agents sometimes act recklessly or carry out mistaken orders, their acts should never be seen as murder.
The assumption is nearly universal that Obama, Bush and Clinton, whatever their partisan opponents might think, are not mass murderers in the mold of Gaddafi, or cult leaders along the lines of Koresh, when in fact our presidents are far worse than either of these men in terms of cultish power as well as sheer body count.
All three of these chief executives, and many before them, have commanded the loyalty of far more subordinates willing to die on their orders than Koresh ever could, and have extinguished more innocent lives than Gaddafi ever did.
Waco and Libya are only the first and latest examples of U.S. humanitarian atrocities in the post-Cold War era. In both situations, we see the U.S. government leaving behind rubble and death, and the chattering classes agreeing that Washington has the innocents’ best interests at heart, even as it imposes sanctions on civilians or cuts them off from water, disregarding the very humanity of the victims of Uncle Sam’s explosions. When D.C. kills it is never seen as when others, whether private American citizens or foreign despots, do it.
When a private religious separatist allegedly molests children, it is an excuse for gassing children to death. But when the federal government molests children it is merely airport security. When a foreign dictator is allegedly about to kill tens of thousands of innocents, it is an excuse for another non-defensive U.S. presidential war. But when the U.S. government kills millions through sanctions, chemical warfare, conventional bombings and depleted uranium, it is simply the mainstream foreign policy consensus at work.
It is particularly hard to cut through these double standards when left-liberal presidents kill, as both sides of the spectrum benefit from pretending that these politicians are less trigger-happy than the conservatives. Yet Clinton and Obama have both revealed themselves to be as bloodthirsty as the Bushes before them.
Whether using the military to police the world or militarizing the police here at home, the federal government’s favorite activity appears to be killing. Thanks to the domestic precedent of Waco and the foreign-policy traditions of the last few presidents, there are now essentially no limits on the power of Washington to kill men, women and children, at home and abroad, and get away with it in the court of public opinion. Nothing gives the executive branch the free hand to snuff out human life like the promise of humanitarian salvation.
Waco Revelations (Part 1)
Waco Revelations (Part 2)
Waco Revelations (Part 3)
Waco Revelations (Part 4)
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Watch the rest of this horrifying Waco documentary on YouTube… - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Posted in Africa, al-Qaeda, Assassination Teams, Bible, Big Brother, Bush Regime, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Documentary, Education, Fascism, FBI, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Government, History, Law and Justice, Libya, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Religion, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Surveillance, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, Video, Waco, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
April 19, 2011: Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com - April 18, 2011
Another humanitarian hoax… Remember Iraq? - SJH
The United Nations is set to rubber stamp an EU invasion force of ground troops that would be sent into Libya under the cooked up pretense of “humanitarian aid” and empowered to fight if Gaddafi forces threatened to impede their mission to “secure sea and land corridors inside the country,” another blatant attempt to legitimize the aggressive war by goading Gaddafi into attacking western troops and justifying a wider military intervention.
“The EU has drawn up a “concept of operations” for the deployment of military forces in Libya, but needs UN approval for what would be the riskiest and most controversial mission undertaken by Brussels,” reports the Guardian.
“The armed forces, numbering no more than 1,000, would be deployed to secure the delivery of aid supplies, would not be engaged in a combat role but would be authorised to fight if they or their humanitarian wards were threatened. “It would be to secure sea and land corridors inside the country,” said an EU official.
The plan is being spearheaded by the EU’s anointed foreign and security policy chief Catherine Ashton, a woman who has never been democratically elected to public office in her life, yet is now about to commit EU troops to a new war that some have warned could last anything up to 30 years.
In addition, US Army Gen. Carter Ham has said that the US is considering sending in ground troops to aid rebels. As we reported at the time, before the Orwellian “no fly zone” was even enacted, hundreds of Special Forces from Britain, America and France landed in the country to train rebel forces.
Despite the fact that the initial UN resolution specifically forbade the use of ground troops as an occupying force, that’s exactly what NATO powers have been seeking to implement for the past month, with the mass media dutifully maintaining the hoax that the entire war of aggression is in fact a humanitarian outreach.
Deliberately obfuscating the fact that Gaddafi is fighting a civil war against an army trained by British and U.S. Special Forces, the likes of the BBC and the New York Times are still, over a month into the conflict, ludicrously reporting that rebel fighters killed and injured in battle are in fact innocent civilians being indiscriminately slaughtered by Gaddafi forces.
These are the same propaganda outlets that told us at the start of the air strikes that men in military uniforms driving tanks, flying fighter jets and walking around with rocket propelled grenade launchers were “protesters,” while concocting outright fabrications about Gaddafi using western journalists as human shields.
While Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have launched an illegal and aggressive invasion of a sovereign country and armed one side in a civil war, the media continues to flagrantly insult our intelligence by characterizing NATO bombs as virtuous tools of liberation, just as the 2003 attack on Iraq, which killed at least 1 million people, was billed at the time as an act of spreading freedom and democracy. While NATO air strikes continue to kill innocent civilians, NATO itself cites Gaddafi attacks on civilians as a reason for intensifying the bombardment.
Look at the images below of injured men arriving at a hospital in Ajdabiya. Do these men look like innocent civilians or do they look like soldiers involved in a war?
Are NATO forces really dropping bombs to protect “protesters” and “innocent civilians” or are they making the region safe for an imminent ground invasion aimed at capturing Africa’s richest oil country and turning it into another geopolitical outpost for the new world order?
As Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy have made clear, nothing less than the murder of Gaddafi is good enough. There will be no cease fire and there will be no “negotiated exit” for Gaddafi. This is about regime change – George W. Bush style.
“So this is where we’ve come to: from earnest, knitted-brow assurances of a “limited intervention” to outright declarations of open-ended war for regime change — and “accommodations” to bring in more boots, bullets and bombs “on the ground.” This is a crime, “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” and it’s being committed, openly, proudly, by the Democrat in the White House,” writes Chris Floyd.
“But precisely because this “accumulated evil” is being committed by a Democrat in the White House, the “progressive” movement is silent. They don’t care. Aggressive war? They don’t care. International law? They don’t care. A blanket refusal of cease fires and peace plans that could spare countless civilian lives? They don’t care. An “active role on the ground” — new mounds of Iraq-style “collateral damage,” corpses, chaos, breakdown, extremism, brutality, suffering? They don’t care.”
EU Prepares Military Ground Operation In Libya
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: No need to worry, folks. Our benevolent leaders will ‘save’ Libya… - SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 19, 2011 at 12:04 am
Posted in Africa, Big Brother, Bush Regime, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Education, Eugenics, Europe, European Union, False Flag, Fascism, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Government, History, Iraq, Law and Justice, Libya, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, NATO, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolution, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, War, War Crimes, World Disasters, World Government, World News, World Series, WWIII
April 16, 2011: Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer / Activist Post - April 16, 2011
Bangkok, Thailand: April 17, 2011 – With the war in Libya set only to expand, the precedent for attacking a sovereign nation based on unverified reports to then assist foreign funded, armed insurrection is already being used to lay the groundwork for a similar campaign against Syria.
In a February 26, 2011 Brookings Institute report titled, “Libya’s Test of the New International Order,” the intervention in Libya was described as “a test that the international community has to pass.”
Failure would “shake further the faith of the people’s region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law.” Succeeding, the report would go on to say, would “demonstrably draw a line in the sand to deter other Arab autocrats who resort to attacking their people rather than dialogue and genuine reforms.” Of course by reforms, Brookings means integration into the “international system” its corporate-financier sponsorship lords over.
In late March after bombing began in Libya, Sarkozy of France would echo Brookings’ sentiments stating, “Every ruler should understand, and especially every Arab ruler should understand that the reaction of the international community and of Europe will from this moment on each time be the same: we will be on the side of peaceful protesters who must not be repressed with violence.” He would go on to say there is a “new post-UNSC 1973 model of “world governance.”
During a Fox News interview, Joe Lieberman would also threaten Syria with a Libyan-style intervention. What Sarkozy and Lieberman both fail to point out is that the opposition in Syria is funded and supported, as is the opposition across the Arab world, by the same corporate-financier interests that hand them both their talking points. Much of the Syrian opposition is comprised of London-based activists, the Muslim Brotherhood, their “national coalition to support the youth,” and of course the admittedly US trained, funded, and equipped youth activists themselves (first video below).
Sarkozy and Lieberman also forget to mention the fact that these protesters are far from merely singing songs and carrying placards. Riots, violence, shootings, arson, and clashes with security forces and residents loyal to the Syrian government are being reported from across the country. In the city of Deraa, protesters torched the Baath Party headquarters and destroyed cars parked along the street, while two protesters were reportedly killed as they attempted to light ablaze another government building in the city of Latakia (second video below).
It is difficult to understand how any responsible government should be expected to allow foreign funded mobs to commit widespread arson and vandalism with the expressed goal of removing the standing government from power. Doing so would embolden anyone with enough money from abroad to fund those willing to destroy property and risk lives locally in order to extort from the government their demands. It is also difficult to understand how these protesters are continuously labeled as “peaceful” by disingenuous meddlers and war mongers like Joe Lieberman and Nicolas Sarkozy.
The violence exhibited by the protesters is designed to intentionally provoke Syrian security forces attempting to maintain order. As security forces react, the corporate media and puppet politicians abroad attempt to leverage legitimacy away from Syria’s government, citing the violence as a potential impetus for expanded meddling and even military intervention.
To ensure the violence and chaos continues during a color revolution, provocateurs are often employed to kill protesters and security forces alike – as seen in Thailand on April 10, 2010, now with similar mystery gunmen turning up in Yemen and Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Syria yesterday to “refrain from any further violence against their own people,” to further reinforce the official “Libyan-esque” narrative.
As with Libya, we are made to believe our “leadership” is reacting to spontaneous events unfolding on the ground, when in reality they are executing an agenda that has been on the drawing board since at least 1991. We must then look past the puppet politicians and the corporate media who are merely repeating talking points, and instead focus on the corporate-financier oligarchs writing these talking points. We must see them as the problem, and understand that replacing them is the real revolution.
Senator Lieberman: US Should Intervene In Syria
Syria’s Assad Faces Major Challenge As Unrest Grows
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: We are all headed straight into the belly of the beast and WWIII… – SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 16, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Posted in Africa, al-Qaeda, Big Brother, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Deception, Disinformation, Education, Eugenics, False Flag, Fascism, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, Law and Justice, Libya, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, NATO, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolution, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Syria, Terrorism, U.S. News, United Nations, Video, Wall Street, War, War Crimes, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII