 |
| Dolphin Submarine Receiving Nuclear Armaments in Germany, VT |
Coyote HOWLIN ~ Israel is not a religious state other than worshiping the faith of how
to prey upon all earth, including their own family and families when the
cause demands.
The 'chosen' do not actually bond in a human 'friendship' and in actuality due to the wide spread of the mutilation practice [metzitzah b’peh,
http://theartof12.blogspot.com/2013/04/metzitzah-bpeh-update-april-2-2013-baby.html ], as sold by the 'clergy' and of course the doctors too, lots of money in practicing 'Hobbling Our Society' ~ >> ~
http://campraxix.wordpress.com/category/clif-high/ ~~>>E4 – March 24, 2012 – The Grand Penis Conspiracy (warning…bound to offend, adults only…) FREE DOWNLOAD ],
our human being reality is what it is ~
mass murdering our own species.
Why? More likely than not, NATURE stolen for thousands of years to control the human being population, and the thieves are from the people tribe who have thought that the ideology of 'Israel'
and the practices of the faux 'religion - religious' is 'chosen' is a reality for earth wholly.
How
can chosen be as predatory as it is, in the practice of taking what is
natural and making believe sometime in the future there may or may not
be, something that can or cannot happen? Very confusing belief.
Why, IN the 'aught years', that is 21century, would the majority of human beings allow such a confused state of
mind lead the planet earth as though this madness makes sense?!
 |
| SYRIA, IRAN'S ROUTE TO THE SEA |
Author:
Finian Cunningham
Source:
strategic-culture.org
.. Now again, as the American-backed «peace conference» is being dangled
in front of Damascus, Washington is replaying that same cynical offer.
Either, drink from this poisoned political chalice – or «we’ll send the
boys around to do their worst» ...
In Mafia terms, it’s called «making an offer that can’t be refused».
The «offer» is not one of free choice between options that may benefit
the object party. In reality, it is about setting up a scenario of
duress, under which the object party is coerced to capitulate to
detrimental terms of extreme prejudice determined cynically by the other
party.
This is the scenario that Washington and its NATO allies are contriving for the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad…
The so-called international peace conference that may take place in
the coming weeks, at the behest of Washington and Moscow, is ostensibly
aimed at finding a negotiated end to the conflict in Syria that is now
in its third year and which has resulted in up to 80,000 deaths. At
least half of these deaths are believed to be civilian.
Russian officials have confirmed that the Syrian government is
willing to participate, in principle, in the conference with factions of
the Syrian «opposition» – provided, says Damascus, that the latter
participants do not have «blood on their hands».
That criterion may yet turn out to make the forthcoming conference a
non-runner since the main opposition group – the Western-backed Syrian
National Coalition (SNC) – is entwined with a host of mercenary forces
on the ground that are drenched in blood from a relentless campaign of
terrorism and sabotage.
However, it is not even clear if the fractious and mainly exile-based
SNC has any authority over the motley crew of militant groups – more
than 75 per cent of whom are foreign self-styled jihadi extremists that
emanate from 30 or more Arab and other countries, according to United
Nations reports.
Chief among these groups that comprise the so-called Free Syrian Army
is the Al Nusra Front, the main fighting force, which is aligned with
the Al Qaeda-affiliated network that stretches from Russia’s Caucus
region, through Afghanistan and Iraq, to Libya, Mali and Niger.
It has to be said that Russia’s intentions for a negotiated peace
settlement seem to be honourable – and based on the principle of
arriving at some kind of internal Syrian consensus. To that end, Russia
maintains the position of not setting preconditions about the political
fate of the incumbent President Assad. Russia is supported in this view
by Iran and China. It is not, they say, for foreign governments or their
regional allies and proxies to determine the outcome of the conference
and in particular the political future of Assad.
Contrast that with the position of the other broker – Washington. At a
preliminary meeting in Jordan this past week, the US Secretary of State
John Kerry insisted, along with NATO allies, Britain, France, Italy and
Germany, as well as the Persian Gulf Arab sheikhdoms, that Assad «must
go».
Kerry told the assembled «Friends of Syria» that the US was not
dictating the outcome of the planned peace conference, but then
contradicted himself flatly by repeating the assertion that President
Assad would not be part of any Syrian political transition.
«Can a person who has used artillery shells and missiles and Scuds
and tanks against women and children and university students – can that
person possibly be judged by any reasonable person to have the
credibility and legitimacy to lead that country in the future?» asked
Kerry.
The veracity of these allegations against the Assad regime is more
than a moot point. There is substantial evidence that the violations
Kerry was attributing to Syrian government forces, such as the rocket
attack on Aleppo University in January that resulted in more than 80
deaths, were in fact committed by Western-backed militants. The use of
chemical weapons near Aleppo in March has also been shown recently by
Russian RTR journalists to be the work of Western-backed militants, not
the regime, as Western governments have been insinuating.
But that aside, the immediate point here is that Kerry and his
«Enemies of Syria» coalition are very much trying to dictate terms on
the anticipated political process. That same Western intransigence was
largely why the Geneva accord reached last June by the UN Security
Council came unstuck – and tens of thousands more Syrian deaths
followed.
Adding to the warped framework of negotiations, the US, Britain and
France are also insisting – in contrast to Russia and China – that Iran
should not be permitted to take part in the process. Of course, the NATO
powers can rely on their Sunni allies among the Persian Gulf monarchies
of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to endorse that stipulation. Why the Western
powers and their Arab dictator friends have any more right than Iran –
an ally of Syria with vital interests at stake in the conflict – is
beyond their permitted rationale or discussion.
So, the upshot is that Assad is being offered a poisoned political
chalice. On one hand, he is being told to forfeit the sovereign rights
of his people to have him as their leader, and by all accounts a leader
with a popular mandate, to give way to a negotiation with «opposition»
parties who are solely designated, funded and patronised by foreign
powers.
The SNC’s Ghassan Hitto, a Texas-based Syrian businessman, is
designated by Washington, London and the former colonial power Paris as
Syria’s premier-in-waiting. It is fair to say that Hitto, as with many
other American-accented members of the SNC, has negligible popular
support within Syria. That is, without any mandate from the Syrian
population, these exiles are being foisted to negotiate the political
future of Syria – a future that is extremely prejudicial in favour of
Western geopolitical interests.
On the other hand – and this is where the Mafia analogy takes hold –
the Western powers are making thinly veiled threats that if Assad does
not conform to the warped political framework, that is, drink from the
poisoned chalice, then all hell will break lose on this country with an
even greater escalation of Western-backed violence.
«The United States is lobbying European governments to back a
British-led call to amend [lift] the EU arms embargo on Syria,» reported
the British Guardian this week, as Washington and its friend were
gathering in Jordan.
Up to now, Washington has at least been maintaining
the fiction that it is not arming the
anti-Assad militants. It has, of course, been plying the mercenaries
covertly with weaponry and logistics, along with its NATO allies and the
Gulf Arab dictatorships.
Militant commander Brigadier General Salim Idriss has been pleading
for Washington to begin openly supplying anti-tank and anti-aircraft
missiles – not just the assault rifles and explosives that have come so
far through the clandestine CIA/MI6 conduits of Turkey, Jordan, Qatar
and Saudi Arabia.
Since last month, Washington officials have begun briefing media
outlets, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, that the
Obama administration is moving towards more direct military intervention
in aid of the militants in Syria. «We’re clearly on an upward
trajectory,» a senior US official said somewhat cryptically on 30 April.
«We’ve moved over to assistance that has a direct military purpose.»
Days later, in the first week of May, US Secretary of Defence Chuck
Hagel hosted a press conference at the Pentagon with his British
counterpart, Philip Hammond. «Arming the rebels, that’s an option,» said
Hagel, indicating an apparent reversal of White House policy of
ostensibly only sending «non-lethal aid».
And this week a US Senate committee voted in favour of Washington arming the «rebels» in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry is adding to this increasingly
articulated threat. Voice of America reported from the Jordanian meeting
last week: «Kerry says the Obama administration hopes President Assad
‘will understand the meaning of that’ [shift in US military policy
towards Syria].»
This latent threat of greater aggression against Syria by the US, if
it does not toe the political line as ordained by Washington, is not a
new tactic in America’s underlying objective of regime change.
Last month, the Iranian FARS news agency reported that Syrian envoy
to Iran, Adnan Mahmoud, disclosed that as far back as March 2011 – when
the conflict was kicking off in Syria – that the then US Secretary of
Defence, Robert Gates, had starkly told the Damascus government that it
faced «a choice».
The Syrian envoy to Iran was quoted by FARS as saying: «Of
course, in the very first weeks of the conflict in Syria, the US
Secretary of Defence [Robert Gates] sent a message to the Syrian
government, and said we should have cut our ties with the Islamic
Republic of Iran if we wanted to stop the war, and stressed that if we
did so, they [the US] would provide us with whatever we want». In other
words, Washington was making Syria back then «an offer it couldn’t
refuse». Well, Syria did refuse back in early 2011 to comply with US
demands to cut its strategic ties with Iran, and as time has shown
Damascus has since paid a heavy price in terms of human lives and the
destruction of the country.
http://www.syrianews.cc/makes-syria-offer-refuse/
0.10
0.06%
