Jump to content


Spartacus

US-Funded "Activist" Becomes President of Tunisia


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2011 - 06:12 AM

link http://www.activistp...esident-of.html

Monday, December 12, 2011
US-Funded "Activist" Becomes President of Tunisia
From A-Z, the Arab Spring is Fake

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The BBC hails Tunisia's assembly and their election of a new president in their article, "Tunisian activist, Moncef Marzouki, named president." What the BBC predictably fails to mention is that Marzouki's organization, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, was a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization.



It was earlier reported in "Soros Celebrates the Fall of Tunisia," that Marzouki was named "interim-president" of Tunisia and that the myriad of NGOs and opposition organizations that worked with him to overthrow the government of Tunisia were fully subsidized and backed by the US government and US corporate-funded foundations.



Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a "Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile" and a participant in the WMD "third assembly" alongside Marzouki's Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros' Open Society, and USAID.

Marzouki, along with his Libyan counterpart Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the Petroleum Institute, sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, makes for the second Western proxy installed into power either by covert sedition or overt military aggression, during the US-engineered "Arab Spring." Western proxies in Egypt including Mohamed ElBaradei and Mamdouh Hamza are also vying for power in the wake of similar foreign-fomented unrest, while NATO backed militants harbored in Turkey are attempting to overthrow the government of Syria by force.

The Arab Spring is Fake

Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution penned the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy," originally designated for the destabilization and recolonization of Myanmar, still called "Burma" throughout much of the West. Sharp's book would be utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) throughout Eastern Europe, throughout Asia, and eventually, in 2011, for the US-engineered "Arab Spring."

According to Sharp's own Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) 2000-2004 annual report, AEI had been sponsored by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its funded subsidiary International Republican Institute (IRI) to train activists in Serbia (page 18) Zimbabwe (page 23) and Myanmar (page 26) to help overthrow their respective sovereign governments.

Australia's Southern Cross University's "Activating Human Rights & Peace (AHRP)" conference had put out a revealing account of their 2008 proceedings illustrating that all of Gene Sharp's work, beyond what was even mentioned in his own institution's annual report, had been fully funded and in support of the US government and its global domineering agenda. Beginning on page 26, Sharp's affiliations, in particular with the National Endowment for Democracy, which is described as carrying out "a lot of work that was formerly undertaken by the CIA," as well as the Ford Foundation, and billionaire Wall Street patriarch George Soros' Open Society Institute are fleshed out in immense detail.


-o-o-o-o
The "Arab Spring" itself was not spontaneous, nor was it indigenous. Rather it was a was a premeditated geopolitical plot engineered by US corporate-financier interests years in advance. The New York Times in its article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," clearly stated as much when it reported, "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."

Further confirming this were public statements made by the US State Department-sponsored "Alliance for Youth Movements" (AYM) counting Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement among its above mentioned inaugural AYM summit attendees in New York City as far back as 2008. Foreign Policy magazine admited that April 6 received further training from CANVAS in Serbia, before fomenting unrest in Egypt. FP magazine would also report that "CANVAS has worked with dissidents from almost every country in the Middle East; the region contains one of CANVAS's biggest successes, Lebanon, and one of its most disappointing failures, Iran."

The destabilization in Iran, of course, was drawn up by corporate-funded Brookings Institution, as articulated in its "Which Path to Persia?" report, with the actual mechanics of organizing the foreign-funded revolution subcontracted to organizations like US-funded CANVAS, NED and its subsidiaries.

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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.

Conclusion

With a similar gambit now playing out in Russia, fueled by the exact same Western organizations and foundations, not only is it obvious that Tunisia was overthrown, not by spontaneous, indigenous protests, but rather premeditated foreign-funded sedition carried out by the likes of Moncef Marzouki and his US-funded opposition group, it is also obvious that Tunisia was just one of many nations destabilized in the largest concerted geopolitical reordering since World War II. With Russia now targeted by foreign-fomented color revolutions, the US' declaration of a new "American Pacific Century" aiming to contain China, and Western proxies beginning to climb into positions of power throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, it is clear that the campaign of encirclement and destabilization of both Russia and China by the forces of global corporate fascism described in February 2011's "The Middle East & then the World" is indeed an unfolding reality.

It is a necessity to research the backgrounds and affiliations of all political groups and NGOs, and assess both their funding and their affiliations. The National Endowment for Democracy is indisputably disingenuous in both their stated cause and their actions. Their board of directors alone betrays their motto of "Supporting freedom around the world," as it is almost entirely made up of corporate-fascists, Neo-Conservative warmongers, and corporate lobbyists. The organizations, opposition groups, media outlets, and NGOs, they support seek to destabilize and destroy the nations they infest.

Exposing and fighting this disingenuous enterprise is important. Equally important is to identify the corporate-financier interests driving its true agenda and the global elites' overarching plan of achieving global hegemony. Boycott these interests entirely out of business, and replace them with business models, institutions, and bodies of governance that truly serve "we the people."

Tony Cartalucci is a syndicated independent journalist and editor of the LandDestroyer.blogspot.com.

Edited by Steven Gaal, 13 December 2011 - 06:14 AM.


#2 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2011 - 08:21 AM

He's right you know, the Arab Spring was a pre-meditated geo-political plot engineered by US corporate-financial interests years in advance. I was there, in the corporate board room when Mohamid Bouazizi suggested that we free political prisoners, infiltrate subversives into union cells, infuse democracy and get rid of all the kings and dictators of the oil monarchies, but he was shot down because all the dictators and kings of the oil monarchies were already in our pockets. An overall regional revolution in North Africa and the Middle East just wasn't what the corporate-financial directors wanted, not something they foreseen or anticipated, and they still don't know how to deal with it, so all this posturising about the planned corporate revolution just doesn't hold water, no matter how many times you post other idiots saying it.

And if you ever read Gene Sharp or his "From Dictatorship to Democracy," it is actually a very handy blueprint for organizing a serious peaceful democratic movement, and it was said to have been used early on by some of the activists in Egypt and possibly Syria, but you can throw that book out the window when the situation reaches the levels of violence it did in Libya and Syria. Then Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" kicks in, and whoever is the most determined persevere.

As for the liberal millionaires like Sors and the CIA backing democratic movements around the globe, I don't doubt it. For once they are on the right side, instead of being with the dicktators.

I don't know about the State Dept guy - Michael Posner saying the US spends $50 million a year supplying foreign activists with tools on how to stay out of jail. It seems like they should have given that money and advice to the Wall Street Occupiers.

Nor does your friend Tony Cartalucci say what companies are behind this revolution they've been planning for years, though he asks us to boycott them.

Hell, I want to ask them for a job.

Just don't name Soros or the Endowment for Democracy.

You keep ploughing through these absurd commentaries Steve, and when you find one that tells us who these guys are who planned this revolution,
you be sure to tell me, because I want to thank them for making things interesting.

BK
Revolutionary Program


link http://www.activistp...esident-of.html

Monday, December 12, 2011
US-Funded "Activist" Becomes President of Tunisia
From A-Z, the Arab Spring is Fake

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The BBC hails Tunisia's assembly and their election of a new president in their article, "Tunisian activist, Moncef Marzouki, named president." What the BBC predictably fails to mention is that Marzouki's organization, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, was a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization.

It was earlier reported in "Soros Celebrates the Fall of Tunisia," that Marzouki was named "interim-president" of Tunisia and that the myriad of NGOs and opposition organizations that worked with him to overthrow the government of Tunisia were fully subsidized and backed by the US government and US corporate-funded foundations.

Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a "Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile" and a participant in the WMD "third assembly" alongside Marzouki's Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros' Open Society, and USAID.

Marzouki, along with his Libyan counterpart Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the Petroleum Institute, sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, makes for the second Western proxy installed into power either by covert sedition or overt military aggression, during the US-engineered "Arab Spring." Western proxies in Egypt including Mohamed ElBaradei and Mamdouh Hamza are also vying for power in the wake of similar foreign-fomented unrest, while NATO backed militants harbored in Turkey are attempting to overthrow the government of Syria by force.

The Arab Spring is Fake

Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution penned the book "From Dictatorship to Democracy," originally designated for the destabilization and recolonization of Myanmar, still called "Burma" throughout much of the West. Sharp's book would be utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) throughout Eastern Europe, throughout Asia, and eventually, in 2011, for the US-engineered "Arab Spring."

According to Sharp's own Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) 2000-2004 annual report, AEI had been sponsored by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its funded subsidiary International Republican Institute (IRI) to train activists in Serbia (page 18) Zimbabwe (page 23) and Myanmar (page 26) to help overthrow their respective sovereign governments.

Australia's Southern Cross University's "Activating Human Rights & Peace (AHRP)" conference had put out a revealing account of their 2008 proceedings illustrating that all of Gene Sharp's work, beyond what was even mentioned in his own institution's annual report, had been fully funded and in support of the US government and its global domineering agenda. Beginning on page 26, Sharp's affiliations, in particular with the National Endowment for Democracy, which is described as carrying out "a lot of work that was formerly undertaken by the CIA," as well as the Ford Foundation, and billionaire Wall Street patriarch George Soros' Open Society Institute are fleshed out in immense detail.

-o-o-o-o
The "Arab Spring" itself was not spontaneous, nor was it indigenous. Rather it was a was a premeditated geopolitical plot engineered by US corporate-financier interests years in advance. The New York Times in its article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," clearly stated as much when it reported, "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."

Further confirming this were public statements made by the US State Department-sponsored "Alliance for Youth Movements" (AYM) counting Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement among its above mentioned inaugural AYM summit attendees in New York City as far back as 2008. Foreign Policy magazine admited that April 6 received further training from CANVAS in Serbia, before fomenting unrest in Egypt. FP magazine would also report that "CANVAS has worked with dissidents from almost every country in the Middle East; the region contains one of CANVAS's biggest successes, Lebanon, and one of its most disappointing failures, Iran."

The destabilization in Iran, of course, was drawn up by corporate-funded Brookings Institution, as articulated in its "Which Path to Persia?" report, with the actual mechanics of organizing the foreign-funded revolution subcontracted to organizations like US-funded CANVAS, NED and its subsidiaries.

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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.

Conclusion

With a similar gambit now playing out in Russia, fueled by the exact same Western organizations and foundations, not only is it obvious that Tunisia was overthrown, not by spontaneous, indigenous protests, but rather premeditated foreign-funded sedition carried out by the likes of Moncef Marzouki and his US-funded opposition group, it is also obvious that Tunisia was just one of many nations destabilized in the largest concerted geopolitical reordering since World War II. With Russia now targeted by foreign-fomented color revolutions, the US' declaration of a new "American Pacific Century" aiming to contain China, and Western proxies beginning to climb into positions of power throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, it is clear that the campaign of encirclement and destabilization of both Russia and China by the forces of global corporate fascism described in February 2011's "The Middle East & then the World" is indeed an unfolding reality.

It is a necessity to research the backgrounds and affiliations of all political groups and NGOs, and assess both their funding and their affiliations. The National Endowment for Democracy is indisputably disingenuous in both their stated cause and their actions. Their board of directors alone betrays their motto of "Supporting freedom around the world," as it is almost entirely made up of corporate-fascists, Neo-Conservative warmongers, and corporate lobbyists. The organizations, opposition groups, media outlets, and NGOs, they support seek to destabilize and destroy the nations they infest.

Exposing and fighting this disingenuous enterprise is important. Equally important is to identify the corporate-financier interests driving its true agenda and the global elites' overarching plan of achieving global hegemony. Boycott these interests entirely out of business, and replace them with business models, institutions, and bodies of governance that truly serve "we the people."

Tony Cartalucci is a syndicated independent journalist and editor of the LandDestroyer.blogspot.com.



#3 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:04 AM

[quote name='William Kelly' date='13 December 2011 - 07:21 AM' timestamp='1323760889' post='240769']
He's right you know, the Arab Spring was a pre-meditated geo-political plot engineered by US corporate-financial interests years in advance. I was there, in the corporate board room when Mohamid Bouazizi suggested that we free political prisoners, infiltrate subversives into union cells, infuse democracy and get rid of all the kings and dictators of the oil monarchies, but he was shot down because all the dictators and kings of the oil monarchies were already in our pockets. An overall regional revolution in North Africa and the Middle East just wasn't what the corporate-financial directors wanted, not something they foreseen or anticipated, and they still don't know how to deal with it, so all this posturising about the planned corporate revolution just doesn't hold water, no matter how many times you post other idiots saying it.

And if you ever read Gene Sharp or his "From Dictatorship to Democracy," it is actually a very handy blueprint for organizing a serious peaceful democratic movement, and it was said to have been used early on by some of the activists in Egypt and possibly Syria, but you can throw that book out the window when the situation reaches the levels of violence it did in Libya and Syria. Then Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" kicks in, and whoever is the most determined persevere.

As for the liberal millionaires like Sors and the CIA backing democratic movements around the globe, I don't doubt it. For once they are on the right side, instead of being with the dicktators.

I don't know about the State Dept guy - Michael Posner saying the US spends $50 million a year supplying foreign activists with tools on how to stay out of jail. It seems like they should have given that money and advice to the Wall Street Occupiers.

Nor does your friend Tony Cartalucci say what companies are behind this revolution they've been planning for years, though he asks us to boycott them.

Hell, I want to ask them for a job.

Just don't name Soros or the Endowment for Democracy.

You keep ploughing through these absurd commentaries Steve, and when you find one that tells us who these guys are who planned this revolution,
you be sure to tell me, because I want to thank them for making things interesting.

BK
Revolutionary Program
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Bill ===Didnt plot it,but wants to control it.
From Tunisia to “Occupy Wall Street”: Who is the AFL-CIO’s Stuart Appelbaum?


by David Walsh


Global Research, October 10, 2011
World Socialist Web Site - 2011-10-08







In a widely reproduced article October 5 (“Seeking Energy, Unions Join Protest Against Wall Street”), the New York Times pointed prominently to the attitude and role of Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), in relation to the current Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Times first explained that “Appelbaum, an influential union leader in New York City, was in Tunisia last month, advising the fledgling labor movement there, when he received a flurry of phone calls and e-mails alerting him to the rumblings of something back home.”

Thus “alerted” to the spreading protests, “Mr. Appelbaum recalled asking a colleague over the phone to find out who was behind Occupy Wall Street—a bunch of hippies or perhaps troublemakers?—and whether the movement might quickly fade.”

The article went on to observe that this week “several prominent unions … made their first effort to join forces with Occupy Wall Street.” The newspaper cites Appelbaum’s comment: “The labor movement needs to tap into the energy and learn from them … They are reaching a lot of people and exciting a lot of people that the labor movement has been struggling to reach for years.”

As we noted yesterday on the WSWS, the AFL-CIO officialdom is intervening in the Occupy Wall Street protests to prevent them from emerging as a mass movement independent of the Democratic Party and oriented toward socialism. Nothing terrifies the union leadership more than the thought of working class revolt in the US.

When the Times, equally anxious to see the political strangulation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, comes to write about the AFL-CIO and the Wall Street protests, the first name that comes up is Appelbaum’s. Who, or it might perhaps be better phrased, what is Stuart Appelbaum?

First, what was Mr. Appelbaum doing in Tunisia? The Times does not say, but the general outlines of the AFL-CIO intervention there are clear, based on the organization’s history and recent activity.

Through outfits such as the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), a joint effort of the AFL-CIO, the US government and corporate executives, the American trade unions have been engaged for decades in pursuing the reactionary political aims of the US ruling elite. Founded during the Cold War in 1961, under the tutelage of former AFL-CIO president George Meany, the AIFLD gave direct aid to US-backed coups in Brazil, Argentina and Chile.

Under Meany’s successor, Lane Kirkland, the AIFLD stepped up its backing of right-wing unions in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, at the same time the Reagan administration increased its funding for the death squad regimes in Central America and the contras seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

The AFL-CIO continues to run filthy operations around the world through such organizations as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), or “Solidarity Center,” 96 percent funded by the US government. The ACILS is a constituent element of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a conduit for government funds that used to be funneled covertly from the CIA. The ACILS has been active in efforts to overthrow the Chavez regime in Venezuela, among other operations.

This is the significance of AFL-CIO operations in Tunisia. The chief concern of the American trade union officials is to see that workers in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere do not challenge US imperialist interests in the region. The trade unions they help establish have as their mission the defense of capitalism and the suppression of left-wing elements.

In Tunisia, as the WSWS has noted, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)—in collaboration with the AFL-CIO and the British TUC—“works through its affiliate, the UGTT [Tunisian General Labour Union], a long time ally of [former dictator] Ben Ali, which initially denounced the mass demonstrations against him and then, after he fled, joined the bogus ‘national unity’ government of his henchmen until protests forced the UGTT officials to resign.”

The AFL-CIO’s website is filled with hypocritical articles about the struggle for “human rights” in Tunisia, a struggle that never concerned US union officials for decades while the Ben Ali regime was firmly in power. The website notes that a Tunisian trade union activist, Jamel Bettaieb, was feted in Washington in June and received one of the National Endowment for Democracy’s 2011 “Democracy Awards,” along with a Syrian, a Libyan, a Bahraini, a Yemeni and an Egyptian. (The various national origins of any given year’s NED award winners would probably be a useful guide to those areas the US government and CIA consider to be “hot spots.”)

Three AFL-CIO officials, Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO, William (Bill) Fletcher, director of field services and education for the American Federation of Government Employees, and Shannon Lederer, associate director for international affairs at the American Federation of Teachers, visited Tunisia (along with Palestine and Egypt) in June, in a trip sponsored by the aforementioned “Solidarity Center.” They met with officials of the UGTT, as well as union officials from Libya and Algeria.

This is the type of US government-sponsored operation in Tunisia from which Appelbaum recently returned to try to help put out the fire closer to home.

However, it would be doing Appelbaum a disservice to refer only to this particular Tunisian venture. His interests and activities are far more wide-ranging. This is a busy man.

As well as serving since 1998 as president of the 100,000-member RWDSU, now a division of the United Food and Commercial Workers (Change to Win Federation), Appelbaum is president of the Jewish Labor Committee, a pro-Israeli lobby within the American trade unions. In this capacity, he regularly defends Zionist policy, although in its “moderate” Labor Party version, and denounces Palestinian resistance. He is also associated with Ameinu, the successor to the Labor Zionist Alliance.

Prior to the disaffiliation of the UFCW from the AFL-CIO, Appelbaum functioned as a Vice President of the national AFL-CIO and a member of the federation’s Executive Council from 1998 until 2005. He also currently serves as a vice president of the New York State AFL-CIO and the New York City Central Labor Council.

He plays a prominent role in the Democratic Party, having served formerly as Chief House Counsel of the Democratic National Committee. Appelbaum was elected a delegate to the 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 Democratic National Conventions and an alternate delegate to the 1992 Democratic National Convention. In 2008, he served as a member of the Electoral College as an Obama elector from New York.

The RWDSU president also finds time to sit on the board of trustees of Freedom House, a Washington DC institution most closely associated with CIA-directed anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War against the Soviet Union and the other Stalinist regimes. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, in their Manufacturing Consent (1988), noted Freedom House’s “interlocks” with various ultra-right outfits “and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA.” It “has long served,” they wrote, “as a virtual propaganda arm of the government and international right wing.”

Appelbaum sits on Freedom House board with a variety of right-wing academics, trade unions officials and assorted US government operatives past and present, including Kenneth Adelman, formerly an assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (under Gerald Ford), and later a member of the Defense Policy Board. Another Freedom House trustee is Diane Villiers Negroponte, wife of John Negroponte, ambassador to Honduras during the 1980s, who played a key role in supplying and supervising the CIA-backed “contra” mercenaries who were based in that country, and whose operations claimed 50,000 lives.

Another member of the board is Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001 to 2009. Dobriansky belongs to the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), an ultra-right think tank set up after 9/11 to combat Islamic fundamentalism. Dobriansky hobnobs in the FDD with billionaire Steve Forbes, right-wing journalist Bill Kristol, former FBI director Louis J. Freeh, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal and former CIA director James Woolsey.

These are the deeply reactionary and sinister circles in which Appelbaum lives and breathes. What he brings to the Occupy Wall Street protests is a ferocious hostility to the working class and to socialism.

AFL-CIO officials such as this should be driven out of the protests as the agents of big business and political reaction that they are.


David Walsh is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Walsh

#4 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:15 AM

delete post

Edited by Steven Gaal, 28 December 2011 - 04:55 AM.


#5 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 07:17 AM

American Union leader Appelbaum goes to Tunisia to advise them on how to organize after they've already had a revolution that's succeeded, and while he's there, Appelbaum gets a phone call from home telling him about Occupy Wall Street, which was inspired by an anti-commercial Canadian magazine.

I'm still waiting to learn how the Arab Spring revolutions were organized by the CIA.

Everybody wants to rule the world

#6 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:57 AM

American Union leader Appelbaum goes to Tunisia to advise them on how to organize after they've already had a revolution that's succeeded, and while he's there, Appelbaum gets a phone call from home telling him about Occupy Wall Street, which was inspired by an anti-commercial Canadian magazine.

I'm still waiting to learn how the Arab Spring revolutions were organized by the CIA.

Everybody wants to rule the world

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
====================================================================

Bill take out your reading glasses..already posted in this thread. BEFORE A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL FRUIT/VEGTABLE VENDER HAD A NON-SLAPPING INCUDENT WITH A FEMALE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ,this was in place...
(already posted)
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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.
------------------
please see link http://www.activistp...e-security.html
------------------
also the template of this governmental activity of 'revolution' used before, see link http://globalresearc...es/MOW502A.html

Edited by Steven Gaal, 28 December 2011 - 11:14 AM.


#7 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 11:32 AM


American Union leader Appelbaum goes to Tunisia to advise them on how to organize after they've already had a revolution that's succeeded, and while he's there, Appelbaum gets a phone call from home telling him about Occupy Wall Street, which was inspired by an anti-commercial Canadian magazine.

I'm still waiting to learn how the Arab Spring revolutions were organized by the CIA.

Everybody wants to rule the world

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
====================================================================

Bill take out your reading glasses..already posted in this thread. BEFORE A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL FRUIT/VEGTABLE VENDER HAD A NON-SLAPPING INCUDENT WITH A FEMALE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ,this was in place...
(already posted)
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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.
------------------
please see link http://www.activistp...e-security.html
------------------
also the template of this governmental activity of 'revolution' used before, see link http://globalresearc...es/MOW502A.html


Hey, It worked!

$50 mill well spent. But it says they were trained six weeks prior to April 2011 - that's still after the Tunisians had booted Ali out of the country, and I don't believe
Mohamid Bouazizi was one of the 5,000 students.

And you convinced me it will be worthwhile to find and read this April 2011 AFP report and if its worthwhile I will post it.

I wonder if they trained any of the Wall Street Occupiers?

I remember when I was a college student radical - Saul Alinsky was the guy who wrote the book on organizing the protest movements in the 60s.

The book/manuscript "From Dictatorship to Democracy" was also an influential learning tool for the Arabs in Egypt.

I just don't understand if the State Department instigated the revolutions how come the CIA didn't predict them or even recognize they were happening until the spark was a bonfire?

Nor do I understand why you and global research think this is a bad thing.

2011 was a bad year for dictators, and that was a good thing. May 2012 be worse for them.

BK
Revolutionary Program

#8 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:41 PM



American Union leader Appelbaum goes to Tunisia to advise them on how to organize after they've already had a revolution that's succeeded, and while he's there, Appelbaum gets a phone call from home telling him about Occupy Wall Street, which was inspired by an anti-commercial Canadian magazine.

I'm still waiting to learn how the Arab Spring revolutions were organized by the CIA.

Everybody wants to rule the world

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
====================================================================

Bill take out your reading glasses..already posted in this thread. BEFORE A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL FRUIT/VEGTABLE VENDER HAD A NON-SLAPPING INCUDENT WITH A FEMALE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ,this was in place...
(already posted)
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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.
------------------
please see link http://www.activistp...e-security.html
------------------
also the template of this governmental activity of 'revolution' used before, see link http://globalresearc...es/MOW502A.html


Hey, It worked!

$50 mill well spent. But it says they were trained six weeks prior to April 2011 - that's still after the Tunisians had booted Ali out of the country, and I don't believe
Mohamid Bouazizi was one of the 5,000 students.

And you convinced me it will be worthwhile to find and read this April 2011 AFP report and if its worthwhile I will post it.

I wonder if they trained any of the Wall Street Occupiers?

I remember when I was a college student radical - Saul Alinsky was the guy who wrote the book on organizing the protest movements in the 60s.

The book/manuscript "From Dictatorship to Democracy" was also an influential learning tool for the Arabs in Egypt.

I just don't understand if the State Department instigated the revolutions how come the CIA didn't predict them or even recognize they were happening until the spark was a bonfire?

Nor do I understand why you and global research think this is a bad thing.

2011 was a bad year for dictators, and that was a good thing. May 2012 be worse for them.

BK
Revolutionary Program

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ooooooooooooooo++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Bill,the report was in April,the training in revolution was before. The report says, "last two years".
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
===============================================V=====================================
Bill Kelly "what hath you wrought" ?????????
======================================oooooooo?oooooooo==============================
----------------------------------------------?--------------------------------------
US "Withdrawal" In Iraq Paves Way for US-Israeli Strike on Iran



SUNDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2011

US "Withdrawal" In Iraq Paves Way for US-Israeli Strike on Iran
Global elite maneuver into position for final leg of Middle East campaign, one year into "Arab Spring," one step closer to global hegemony.
by Tony Cartalucci

December 18, 2011 - Nearly every option described within the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report in regards to US-initiated regime change in Iran has been carried out to the letter. From proposals to fund and arm terrorist organizations like the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to fomenting foreign-backed "color revolutions" in the streets of Tehran, to carrying out covert US-Israeli military operations within Iran itself, it is clear that the Brookings Institution either was writing the playbook on conquering Iran or was reading from it when compiling "Which Path to Persia?" The only remaining options left are airstrikes and invasion.

The report extensively details using Israel as a US-proxy in attacking Iran in an attempt to cripple its nuclear program as well as destroy much of its security apparatus while maintaining "plausible deniability" for the attack's US architects. It is also hoped that the airstrikes incur a sufficient Iranian retaliation (or at least the opportunity to stage a false flag operation in Iran's name) to allow Israel and the United States to carry out a more extensive follow-up military operation against the Islamic Republic.

The primary hurdle described throughout the report's examination of using a "unilateral" Israeli strike, however, was a US-occupied Iraq and the complications an Israeli airstrike would cause passing through the nation's airspace on its way to bombing Iran. However with the US' recent rushed "exit" from Iraq, this complication is no longer an issue.

"An Israeli air campaign against Iran would have a number of very important differences from an American campaign. First, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has the problem of overflight transit from Israel to Iran. Israel has no aircraft carriers, so its planes must take off from Israeli air bases. It also does not possess long-range bombers like the B-1 or B-2, or huge fleets of refueling tankers, all of which means that unlike the United States, Israel cannot avoid flying through someone’s air space. The most direct route from Israel to Iran’s Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace. " Which Path to Persia?-page 105 (.pdf)

"From the American perspective, this negates the whole point of the option—distancing the United States from culpability—and it could jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, thus making it a possible nonstarter for Washington. Finally, Israeli violation of Jordanian airspace would likely create political problems for King Abdullah of Jordan, one of America’s (and Israel’s) closest Arab friends in the region. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, and because of the problems it would create for Washington and Amman, it is unlikely that Israel would try to fly over Jordan." Which Path to Perisa?-page 106 (.pdf)
"An Israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF’s conventional superiority in the region." Which Path to Persia-page 106 (.pdf)

The US withdrawal from Iraq is being done in tandem with NATO operations to destabilize Syria and in turn disrupt Hezbollah's capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a strike on Iran - a concern also duly noted within the Brookings report.

"...the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus." -page 109 (.pdf)
It is quite clear that eliminating Syria entirely as an obstacle has been instead attempted, and with NATO standing by and a continuous influx of foreign fighters being armed and sent across the border to mire Syrian forces in asymmetrical warfare, any coordinated retaliation against Israel by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah has been at the very least blunted significantly. The significance of Syria's ability to weather this US-backed destabilization and maintain a coherent deterrence against Anglo-American-Israeli forces in the region has been noted by Russia who has thus far blocked attempts to justify further, more overt intervention by NATO in Syria.

However, Syria will be taken down, as will Iran, at any cost just as was done with Libya, and only a tactical defeat of Wall Street and London's military forces in the process will prevent this from happening. Attempts to soften Russia's grip on Syria was recently made as US-funded NGOs began attempting to sow "Arab Spring-style" disarray in the streets of Moscow. While some consider it a sign of madness on behalf of Wall Street and London - it is in reality part of a highly orchestrated global campaign, being executed in sequence, and thus far highly successful in achieving its goals. Throughout each stage, feigned weakness has been exhibited only to result in victory and it would be great folly to underestimate the endurance or will of the West at this juncture.

The Bottom Line

Already, one year into the US-engineered "Arab Spring," a US-funded "activist leader" has been made president of Tunisia, a British Petroleum (BP), Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute representative made PM of Libya, and other Western puppets are now poised to seize power in Egypt. Wall Street and London have also recently announced via the US State Department that an official campaign of frustrating, encircling, and containing China's ambitions throughout Asia will be pursued under the title of "America's Pacific Century." Already Chinese projects in Myanmar have been canceled while Wall Street stooge Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand has been maneuvering politically to return to power at an already terrible cost to the Thai people.

Now more than ever, "we the people" must steel ourselves against this immense corporate-fascist empire as it sprawls death, destruction, and domination, militarily and economically, across the planet. We must, our very survival depends on it, boycott and replace entirely the corporate-financier interests that drive this dark, expansive agenda. It has been literally spawned of our apathy, complicity, and ignorance, fueled by us - the very source of corporate fascism's power - and it must be our activism, resistance, and intellect that brings it to an end.

As far fetched as it may sound, every Pepsi we swig, every day we decide to drink beer and tune into our corporate-sponsored bread and circus, be it the modern day chariot races of NASCAR or the gladiatorial contests of the NFL, we bring inescapable eternal servitude to a corporate-fascist scientific dictatorship one step closer. It is now "do or die" - unlike in the past, mankind now possesses the technology to render the vast majority of the population intellectually inferior through mass medication, food poisoning, GMO crops that rot our bodies and minds from the inside-out, and the martial means of eliminating vast swaths of the population permanently. Not only is this a possibility, it is a reality the global elite have conspired over at great length through texts like Ecoscience penned by current White House science adviser John Holdren and former White House science adviser Paul Ehrlich who openly talk about mass, involuntary medication to forcibly sterilize the population, reduce our numbers and confine us within what they literally call a "planetary regime."

The End Game approaches.

link http://landdestroyer...way-for-us.html

Edited by Steven Gaal, 28 December 2011 - 05:43 PM.


#9 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2011 - 10:25 PM




American Union leader Appelbaum goes to Tunisia to advise them on how to organize after they've already had a revolution that's succeeded, and while he's there, Appelbaum gets a phone call from home telling him about Occupy Wall Street, which was inspired by an anti-commercial Canadian magazine.

I'm still waiting to learn how the Arab Spring revolutions were organized by the CIA.

Everybody wants to rule the world

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooVooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
====================================================================

Bill take out your reading glasses..already posted in this thread. BEFORE A HIGHLY EMOTIONAL FRUIT/VEGTABLE VENDER HAD A NON-SLAPPING INCUDENT WITH A FEMALE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ,this was in place...
(already posted)
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 (emphasis added) "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 "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.
------------------
please see link http://www.activistp...e-security.html
------------------
also the template of this governmental activity of 'revolution' used before, see link http://globalresearc...es/MOW502A.html


Hey, It worked!

$50 mill well spent. But it says they were trained six weeks prior to April 2011 - that's still after the Tunisians had booted Ali out of the country, and I don't believe
Mohamid Bouazizi was one of the 5,000 students.

And you convinced me it will be worthwhile to find and read this April 2011 AFP report and if its worthwhile I will post it.

I wonder if they trained any of the Wall Street Occupiers?

I remember when I was a college student radical - Saul Alinsky was the guy who wrote the book on organizing the protest movements in the 60s.

The book/manuscript "From Dictatorship to Democracy" was also an influential learning tool for the Arabs in Egypt.

I just don't understand if the State Department instigated the revolutions how come the CIA didn't predict them or even recognize they were happening until the spark was a bonfire?

Nor do I understand why you and global research think this is a bad thing.

2011 was a bad year for dictators, and that was a good thing. May 2012 be worse for them.

BK
Revolutionary Program

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ooooooooooooooo++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Bill,the report was in April,the training in revolution was before. The report says, "last two years".
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
===============================================V=====================================
Bill Kelly "what hath you wrought" ?????????
======================================oooooooo?oooooooo==============================
----------------------------------------------?--------------------------------------
US "Withdrawal" In Iraq Paves Way for US-Israeli Strike on Iran

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2011

US "Withdrawal" In Iraq Paves Way for US-Israeli Strike on Iran

by Tony Cartalucci

December 18, 2011 - Nearly every option described within the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report in regards to US-initiated regime change in Iran has been carried out to the letter. From proposals to fund and arm terrorist organizations like the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to fomenting foreign-backed "color revolutions" in the streets of Tehran, to carrying out covert US-Israeli military operations within Iran itself, it is clear that the Brookings Institution either was writing the playbook on conquering Iran or was reading from it when compiling "Which Path to Persia?" The only remaining options left are airstrikes and invasion.

The report extensively details using Israel as a US-proxy in attacking Iran in an attempt to cripple its nuclear program as well as destroy much of its security apparatus while maintaining "plausible deniability" for the attack's US architects. It is also hoped that the airstrikes incur a sufficient Iranian retaliation (or at least the opportunity to stage a false flag operation in Iran's name) to allow Israel and the United States to carry out a more extensive follow-up military operation against the Islamic Republic.

The primary hurdle described throughout the report's examination of using a "unilateral" Israeli strike, however, was a US-occupied Iraq and the complications an Israeli airstrike would cause passing through the nation's airspace on its way to bombing Iran. However with the US' recent rushed "exit" from Iraq, this complication is no longer an issue.

"An Israeli air campaign against Iran would have a number of very important differences from an American campaign. First, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has the problem of overflight transit from Israel to Iran. Israel has no aircraft carriers, so its planes must take off from Israeli air bases. It also does not possess long-range bombers like the B-1 or B-2, or huge fleets of refueling tankers, all of which means that unlike the United States, Israel cannot avoid flying through someone's air space. The most direct route from Israel to Iran's Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace. " Which Path to Persia?-page 105 (.pdf)

"From the American perspective, this negates the whole point of the option—distancing the United States from culpability—and it could jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, thus making it a possible nonstarter for Washington. Finally, Israeli violation of Jordanian airspace would likely create political problems for King Abdullah of Jordan, one of America's (and Israel's) closest Arab friends in the region. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, and because of the problems it would create for Washington and Amman, it is unlikely that Israel would try to fly over Jordan." Which Path to Perisa?-page 106 (.pdf)
"An Israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF's conventional superiority in the region." Which Path to Persia-page 106 (.pdf)

The US withdrawal from Iraq is being done in tandem with NATO operations to destabilize Syria and in turn disrupt Hezbollah's capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a strike on Iran - a concern also duly noted within the Brookings report.

"...the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus." -page 109 (.pdf)
It is quite clear that eliminating Syria entirely as an obstacle has been instead attempted, and with NATO standing by and a continuous influx of foreign fighters being armed and sent across the border to mire Syrian forces in asymmetrical warfare, any coordinated retaliation against Israel by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah has been at the very least blunted significantly. The significance of Syria's ability to weather this US-backed destabilization and maintain a coherent deterrence against Anglo-American-Israeli forces in the region has been noted by Russia who has thus far blocked attempts to justify further, more overt intervention by NATO in Syria.

However, Syria will be taken down, as will Iran, at any cost just as was done with Libya, and only a tactical defeat of Wall Street and London's military forces in the process will prevent this from happening. Attempts to soften Russia's grip on Syria was recently made as US-funded NGOs began attempting to sow "Arab Spring-style" disarray in the streets of Moscow. While some consider it a sign of madness on behalf of Wall Street and London - it is in reality part of a highly orchestrated global campaign, being executed in sequence, and thus far highly successful in achieving its goals. Throughout each stage, feigned weakness has been exhibited only to result in victory and it would be great folly to underestimate the endurance or will of the West at this juncture.

The Bottom Line

Already, one year into the US-engineered "Arab Spring," a US-funded "activist leader" has been made president of Tunisia, a British Petroleum (BP), Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute representative made PM of Libya, and other Western puppets are now poised to seize power in Egypt. Wall Street and London have also recently announced via the US State Department that an official campaign of frustrating, encircling, and containing China's ambitions throughout Asia will be pursued under the title of "America's Pacific Century." Already Chinese projects in Myanmar have been canceled while Wall Street stooge Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand has been maneuvering politically to return to power at an already terrible cost to the Thai people.

Now more than ever, "we the people" must steel ourselves against this immense corporate-fascist empire as it sprawls death, destruction, and domination, militarily and economically, across the planet. We must, our very survival depends on it, boycott and replace entirely the corporate-financier interests that drive this dark, expansive agenda. It has been literally spawned of our apathy, complicity, and ignorance, fueled by us - the very source of corporate fascism's power - and it must be our activism, resistance, and intellect that brings it to an end.

As far fetched as it may sound, every Pepsi we swig, every day we decide to drink beer and tune into our corporate-sponsored bread and circus, be it the modern day chariot races of NASCAR or the gladiatorial contests of the NFL, we bring inescapable eternal servitude to a corporate-fascist scientific dictatorship one step closer. It is now "do or die" - unlike in the past, mankind now possesses the technology to render the vast majority of the population intellectually inferior through mass medication, food poisoning, GMO crops that rot our bodies and minds from the inside-out, and the martial means of eliminating vast swaths of the population permanently. Not only is this a possibility, it is a reality the global elite have conspired over at great length through texts like Ecoscience penned by current White House science adviser John Holdren and former White House science adviser Paul Ehrlich who openly talk about mass, involuntary medication to forcibly sterilize the population, reduce our numbers and confine us within what they literally call a "planetary regime."

The End Game approaches.

link http://landdestroyer...way-for-us.html


STEVEN, Do you really believe that the US corporate-fascist scientific bread and circus dictatorship, led by the White House science advisor, is forcibly sterilizing the planet with Pepsi, beer and NASCAR?

There's a lot of misinformation in the above that you keep repeating - and I keep correcting, but will try not to bother with anymore, especially if you keep reposting the same junk from the same, lame sources.

For starters, the US military, having learned the lessons of Iraq, will not invade and occupy another country, at least for the next decade or so. All bets accepted.

Now I'm against global corporations, big oil and foreign dominance of anything, but "global elite" is now a new Marxist term that has lost all meaning, and the idea that the global elitest, whoever they are, have sparked the "Arab Spring" democratic revolts across North Africa and the Middle East is absurd because the real global elitists were behind the dictators in the first place, and had no desire or intention to get rid of the guys they had in their pockets and now have to cultivate a new, uncertain leadership based on the will of the people.

And it seems like your friend Tony Cartalucci has the Israel bug up his butt too, and I won't bother to respond to that.

I will respond to his assertion that the USA is behind the revolution in Syria and the protests in Russia, as it is quite apparent to anyone who has followed these events that both were inspired by the bad leadership in both countries, where the people are just tired of being dictated to.

And I've found the AFP - that's Agency French Press - report that you have referred to and is so widely quoted in part throughout the internet - and have reposted it in full at my blog for those who want the full story and not mumbo jumbo propaganda being fed to the anti-globalist crowd by the Russian and Islamic Security State puppets that you so blindly read, apparently believe and repost here to try to infect our minds with.

BK

Revolutionary Program: US Trains Activists $50 M for 5,000

Edited by William Kelly, 28 December 2011 - 10:29 PM.


#10 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:15 PM

Now I'm against global corporations, big oil and foreign dominance of anything, but "global elite" is now a new Marxist term that has lost all meaning, and the idea that the global elitest, whoever they are, have sparked the "Arab Spring" democratic revolts across North Africa and the Middle East is absurd because the real global elitists were behind the dictators in the first place, and had no desire or intention to get rid of the guys they had in their pockets and now have to cultivate a new, uncertain leadership based on the will of the people.
KELLY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GAAL
Bill what I cited ,which use have ignored twice, is that activists were trained and sent in two years ago to creat the ARAB SPRING .PLEASE RE-READ.


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 (emphasis added) "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
KELLY
STEVEN, Do you really believe that the US corporate-fascist scientific bread and circus dictatorship, led by the White House science advisor, is forcibly sterilizing the planet with Pepsi, beer and NASCAR?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GAAL
Please, I think you are smarter than your posts, you understand the usage of the phrase , "BREAD AND CIRCUSES" ???????
Bread and Circuses (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. It was the basic Roman formula for the well-being of the population, and hence a political strategy unto itself[citation needed]. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.[1][2][3] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).
In modern usage, the phrase has also become an adjective to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life. Or as famous American author Robert Heinlein said, "Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree." To many across the political spectrum, left and right, it connotes a supposed triviality and frivolity that characterized the Roman Republic prior to its decline into the autocratic monarchy characteristic of the later Roman Empire's transformation about 44 BCE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KELLY

Now I'm against global corporations, big oil and foreign dominance of anything, but "global elite" is now a new Marxist term that has lost all meaning, and the idea that the global elitest, whoever they are, have sparked the "Arab Spring" democratic revolts across North Africa and the Middle East is absurd because the real global elitists were behind the dictators in the first place, and had no desire or intention to get rid of the guys they had in their pockets and now have to cultivate a new, uncertain leadership based on the will of the people.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GAAL Your point is well , to be charitable,not really in line with history......recall the examples of Manuel Antonio Noriega and President Ferdinand Marcos.

These dictators were in our pocket and then out of our pocket.

Tarpley/

the 1986 US-backed oligarchical coup whose figurehead was the weak and vapid oligarch Cory Aquino. This was the so-called EDSA agitation in Manila, which set back the economic development of the Philippines, lowered the standard of living, increased political instability, and undermined national independence in favor of a gaggle of parasitic compradors. Such experiences are painful and deplorable, but can also contribute to the formation of capable political activists – real cadres and mass leaders.

+++++++++++++++++++v++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===================v==========================
===================v==========================

Mubarak Toppled by CIA Because He Opposed US Plans for War with Iran; US Eyes Seizure of Suez Canal; Was this the Threat that Forced Mubarak to Quit?
[Translate]
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
February 18, 2011

Washington DC, Feb. 18, 2011 — There never was an “Egyptian revolution,” but rather a behind-the-scenes military putsch by a junta of CIA puppet generals who evidently could not succeed in their goal of ousting Hosni Mubarak without the help of a heavy-duty ultimatum from Washington in the night between Thursday, February 10 and Friday, February 11, 2011. There is growing evidence that the threat in question involved the seizure or blocking of the Suez Canal, the Egyptian waterway which carries over 8% of all seaborne world trade, which the imperialists tried to grab back in 1956, and from which they would today like to exclude China, Iran, and Russia. As for Mubarak, there are strong indications that he was toppled by Washington and London because he opposed the current US-UK plan to organize a block of Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Gulf states — under a US nuclear umbrella and shoulder to shoulder with Israel — for purposes of confrontation and war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and their Shiite and radical allies.

This means that, with the fall of Mubarak, the Middle East has taken a big step on the road to general war. As for the junta, they have now dissolved parliament, shredded the constitution, and announced six months of martial law.

In the days after Mubarak’s fall, the Anglo-American controlled media chorus chanted obsessively that this was one regime change in the Arab world which had been brought about by the Egyptian people, all by themselves. In reality, the relatively limited popular agitation was actually the least important factor in toppling the long-serving Egyptian rais. Since there was no real mass organization capable of seizing power, and no program of economic reconstruction, development, and reform which could have united the efforts of larger sectors of the Egyptian population, Egypt was left to the tender mercies of the now standard CIA/National Endowment for Democracy color revolution, people power coup, or postmodern putsch. According to this recipe, the destabilization was begun by gathering the privileged youth of the upper middle classes — the ones with access to the Internet, Google, Facebook, and Twitter — in Tahrir Square, where, despite their relatively anemic numbers in a city as big as Cairo, they provided a photo opportunity for the Al Jazeera television network, which shamelessly served as the demagogic speaking tube of British intelligence, the former colonial power in Egypt.

The incendiary role played by Al Jazeera also reflects the strange brinksmanship currently going on in Doha, Qatar, where this network is based. As Gamal Mubarak supposedly told US Senator Joseph Lieberman in February 2009 according to a State Department report purloined by Wikileaks, ‘Unfortunately, Qatar is playing “spoiler” in order to get “a seat at the table….” They are coordinating closely with Syria and Iran, Gamal said, “in an orchestrated attack on Egypt and other moderate Arab states.”‘1 Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and the other Al Thani royals of Qatar may soon find themselves hoist by their own petard of regional destabilization.

So it was therefore the golden youth of Cairo who kept up some kind of a presence before the TV cameras , allowing the Al Jazeera agitators and provocateurs to argue that these young dupes, anarchists, and nihilists represented the incarnation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s popular will, and therefore the court of last resort for all political decisions regarding the future of Egypt. Sometimes there were only a few hundred young enthusiasts in the square, but for Al Jazeera they were the supreme oracle of what Egypt wanted. Egypt has upwards of 80 million people, and the Cairo metropolitan area numbers almost 20 million, but the anti-Mubarak forces had a very hard time ever getting above 50,000 or so — even in the days when they bombastically promised a Million Man March or even a Two Million Man March. Compared to Kiev, a smaller city, in November 2004, Cairo was a feeble effort.

The gaggle in the square was simply a made for television moment, and its participants — what ever their subjective intentions — were reduced to props, scenery, extras, or walk-on parts at the very most. They hated Mubarak. They wanted the entire regime out. They rejected hierarchy. They wanted transparency. With such a pathetic and primitive level of political consciousness, the mob in the square could never hope to determine events, but was always condemned to become the tool of some organized force which actually knew what it wanted — such as the CIA.

The mob was not organized, but there were organizations inside the mob. One was the April 6 Movement, which turned out to be a clone or knockoff of the original color revolution vehicle, the Serbian Otpor! of 1999-2000 which had been used by the National Endowment for Democracy to overthrow Milosevic. Apparently feeling the pinch of budget austerity, the CIA had recycled the fist salute logo of the Serbian group directly into the Egyptian one. Other aspects of the mob also reflected the recycled debris of earlier color revolution attempts — the much-vaunted slogan “Game Over” was in fact left over from an attempt to destabilize Tibet in the service of the Dalai Lama.

A century and a half ago a certain British agent, looking at the London-backed coup of Napoleon III of France, wrote that the tradition of past generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. Today we would say that the accumulated junk from past color putsches, now recycled by the CIA to save money, is making their discredited destabilization techniques even easier to identify. It is amazing to see intelligent but gullible adults fall victim to the romantic Schwärmerei of The Revolution, even to the point of believing that the emotional cripple Assange is Lord Byron, or the subversion operative Ghonim of Google is Robespierre, instead of a refugee from the Revenge of the Nerds.

When the golden youth needed numerical reinforcements, they called in the British Freemasonry known as the Moslem Brotherhood. The Ikhwan provided the big battalions, but also brought public-relations problems. To neutralize these, a propaganda campaign was mounted by a number of CIA alumni, including Bruce Riedel, to assure the US public that there was nothing to worry about.

It should be stressed that the Egyptian destabilization became quite violent very early on. On Friday, on January 28, protesters committed a massive act of arson by burning down the large office building in central Cairo which housed the headquarters of Mubarak’s political party. It is not known whether there were fatalities on this occasion. Other protesters systematically burned police stations. Several policemen were reportedly lynched by the mob. There was also an armed attack by gunmen on the headquarters of the Interior Ministry, which was repelled after a firefight with riot police. This violence by the shining heroes of democracy was not noticed, much less condemned, by Ban-ki Moon, the European Union, or other guardians of world morality.

The Anglo-Americans evidently believe that the current combination of the world economic breakdown crisis or depression (complete with rising prices for food and fuel as well as high unemployment and economic despair), plus the presence of a youth bulge throughout the Arab world offers the opportunity of toppling governments like bowling pins, somewhat on the model of what the British did to the Metternich system or Holy Alliance in Europe in 1848, or of what the Anglo-Americans did to the Soviets in Eastern Europe in 1989. This time the goal is to overthrow the entrenched authoritarian rulers of the Arab world, among them Ben Ali of Tunisia, who had been in power for some 23 years; Mubarak of Egypt (31 years), followed then by Gaddafi of Libya (41 years), Bouteflika of Algeria (12 years), the Assad dynasty in Syria (about 40 years), Saleh of Yemen (21 years), plus Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and other nations. Some of the more manic denizens of Foggy Bottom and Langley seriously believe that they can ride the current wave of destabilizations all the way to Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow.

Not Dependent Enough: Why the CIA Wants to Overthrow the Existing Arab Rulers
The goal of these operations is to remove entrenched client rulers who have been in power so long that they have acquired a significant degree of autonomy vis-à-vis the imperial dictates coming from Washington and London, and have grown accustomed to acting to some degree as national rulers, rather than as the pure puppets the CIA and the State Department are always seeking. The Washington consensus is that these multi-decade rulers are not dependent enough on NATO, the International Monetary Fund, and so forth. Washington and London need total kamikaze puppets, who will be willing to take the point in coming confrontations with Iran, China, and Russia.

One US hypothesis for the future of Egypt is simply a continuation of the existing regime, largely based on the Army, the state bureaucracy, and the security forces, and led by military officers in civilian clothes. But in this case the rulers would be the Suliemans, the Tantawis, or the Annans, or perhaps the Baradeis or Moussas, all much weaker figures than Mubarak. Another possibility is a period of chaos — such as what is happening right now in Tunisia — followed by a seizure of power on the part of the Moslem brotherhood, leading to the creation of a de facto Cairo Sunni caliphate which the US could use to challenge (and consolidate) the de facto Shiite caliphate in Tehran. Both of these alternatives could then be used to support the fundamental US-UK strategy for the Middle East, which is to assemble a block of Arab and Sunni countries (notably Egypt, Saudis, Gulf states, and Jordan) which, formed into a front with the participation of Israel, would collide with the Iranian Shiite front, including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and various radical forces. Another possibility is that Egypt and many other countries simply descend into chaos, leaving the imperialists the possibility of intervening to seize selected assets, such as the Algerian or Libyan oil fields, or Egypt’s Suez Canal.

As a manufactured, synthetic, color revolution, the Egyptian exercise had certain glaring technical weaknesses from the point of view of branding and marketing, which are crucial in such an operation. It had no color or catchy symbol, like the orange of Ukraine, the roses of Georgia, with the cedars of Lebanon. It had no hegemonic slogan, such as the Georgian “Enough!”, the Serbian “He’s Finished!”, the Obamabots’ “Yes we can!”, or the Ukrainian “It’s time!”. They had no charismatic, telegenic demagogue such as the Georgian Saakashvili. The Mubarak regime deprived them of Facebook and Twitter on January 27, and after that Al Jazeera became their main electronic medium, until this channel was shut down as well.

Mubarak also had strengths and weaknesses. His regime evidently knew that the destabilization was coming, and had taken the elementary precaution of preparing a way to quickly shut down the Internet almost completely. On the other hand, the regime proved incapable of keeping out foreign television correspondents who were little more than destabilization agitators. As the world’s largest grain importer, with much of the grain either coming from the United States or being financed by US food aid under the Camp David treaty, Egypt also has a dangerous vulnerability to use of the food weapon by Washington.

Mubarak’s two most salient weaknesses can be seen by comparing his response to Iranian leader Ahmadinejad’s successful resistance to the CIA’s Twitter Revolution in Tehran in June 2009. When the NED unleashed its protests, Ahmadinejad was quick to mobilize the basij — drawn significantly from the underprivileged classes — against the CIA’s golden youth and desperate housewives of north Teheran. Mubarak had his equivalent to the basij in the form of the so-called baltagies, but they were not deployed until the destabilization was more than a week old, and then soon retreated after having been shelled by army tanks. The other thing Mubarak lacked was visible international support. When the Anglo Americans made their move against Ahmadinejad, he was able to fly to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, where he met with Putin and others, visibly demonstrating the falseness of the Anglo-American propaganda line that he was totally isolated. Mubarak, although he got some support from Russia, Berlusconi, and the PLO, was not able to make use of similar options.

The Egyptian protesters, of course, did have valid grievances — no destabilization is possible without them. Food prices in fuel prices had been rising rapidly, and Egypt’s highly beneficial system of price subsidies for low income workers had been mercilessly slashed over recent years under pressure from the IMF, although it could still provide some degree of protection. Egyptian wages remained much too low. Unemployment was very high, especially among college-educated youth. Many of these problems are of course of the responsibility of Wall Street and London zombie bankers and hedge fund hyenas, and are beyond the purview of the Mubarak regime. Finally, there was a heavy weight of authoritarian repression under the emergency laws which Mubarak had implemented in 1981, in the wake of the assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat by the US-UK — with the help of networks inside the Muslim brotherhood, including one led by Zawahiri, later the legendary right-hand man of Osama bin Laden.

Thursday February 10: Mubarak Defies the CIA Coup
For many days, the Obama regime had been using all of its channels, including personal ties to Egyptian officers who had trained in the United States, to force Mubarak out and to consummate regime change. On the morning of Thursday, February 10, a high-ranking army officer visited the crowd in Tahrir Square and promised them that by nightfall, all of their wishes would be satisfied. A vast program, as General de Gaulle might have said. It was leaked that the Supreme Military Council, which meets very rarely, had come together in the absence of Mubarak and deliberated that it was time for him to go. The Associated Press dispatch announcing these events, which was widely reported on CBS radio news, characterize the event as a “soft coup.” A jovial CNN commentator opined: “It’s a coup!” In a gesture of incredible stupidity, CIA director Leon Panetta told a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee that there was a “high likelihood” that Mubarak would fall from power before the end of the day. Panetta thus told the world that the real authors of the imminent putsch were not the Egyptian people in any form, but rather the hacks of Langley. The feckless, fatuous, and incompetent Obama, eager to harvest some good will from left liberals which he could use to cover his next round of budget betrayals of the American people, then proceeded to climb out very far on the same limb with the CIA boss: “We are watching history unfolding,” babbled the tarnished Messiah. On Thursday afternoon in Washington, it was expected that Mubarak would make a television speech within an hour or two to announce that he had finally succumbed and would resign.

The Counter-Coup of Thursday, February 11
I commented on these events in real time in an interview broadcast on the Alex Jones radio program shortly after 2 p.m. eastern time. I noted in passing that it was not at all certain whether Mubarak would quit. Invited back by Alex Jones shortly after 3 p.m. eastern time, I started off by saying that there was now growing evidence that a countercoup directed against the US putsch designs was now in progress. More than an hour after that estimate was broadcast, a taped statement by Mubarak was telecast by Egyptian state television. As this telecast proceeded, the manic hopes of Foggy Bottom, Langley, and the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House (where National Security Council staffer Samantha Power was reportedly playing a key role) were dashed when it became clear from Mubarak’s tone, and then from his specifics, that he was insisting on remaining in office until his successor was duly elected and inaugurated in late September or October.

Obama Chews the Carpet
In the late afternoon and evening of that Thursday, there was no joy in Mudville. Washington had good reason to fear a partial collapse of US imperialism, which would have occurred if the existing model of the color revolution had turned out to be unworkable because of growing US weakness. Already, the Georgian roses revolution had been thoroughly tarnished as its top honcho, Saakashvili, had been revealed as a warmonger, an oppressor, and a fascist madman. The 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine had been thoroughly aborted and rolled back with the ouster of its two most visible kleptocrats, Timoshenko and Yushchenko, meaning among other things that the US had not been able to orchestrate a gas crisis in eastern Europe in the winter of 2010-11. The Cedars Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 had succeeded in driving out the Syrian troops, but had not been able to break the organized mass power of Hezbollah, and the latest Lebanese government was more under the influence of Hezbollah than any previous one. The Twitter Coup of June 2009 in Iran had fizzled. The use of soft power, subversion, and destabilization in the Carter-Brzezinski tradition, which had always been the central pillar of the Obama foreign policy in contrast to the stress on direct military intervention seen during the Bush-Cheney era, would have been revealed as impotent. Given the growing conventional military power of Iran and Hezbollah, of which the Israeli defeat in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 had provided a harbinger, Anglo-American imperialism was at risk of being left without both its military option and its subversion option in the middle of a depression. If that happened, what would be left? There was a glimmer of hope for the rest of us that the Middle East might cease to be the unipolar playground of the Anglo Americans and Israelis, and might revert to its previous status as a normal multi-polar arena in which Russia, China, Turkey, and possibly even Europe would have influence, allowing the countries of the region to assert their national independence and right to full-scale modern economic development.

CIA’s Egypt Putsch was Dead in the Water Thursday Night
On CNN Thursday evening, Fareed Zakaria whined that the Egyptian army had now definitively chosen to be on the side of Mubarak, at least to the extent of granting him the long transition he wanted. The Dickensian hypocrite David Gergen was more militant, thundering that Mubarak’s defiance “will not be allowed to stand.”

Most apoplectic of all was reportedly Obama himself. According to the New York Times,
“Mr. Obama was furious, …seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo….”2 From the US point of view, the long-prepared Egyptian putsch was dead in the water on Thursday night.

Gamal Mubark and the Countercoup of Thursday
What had actually happened? According to published reports, Mubarak had indeed recorded a televised message in which he tendered his resignation. This was the tape which the Anglo Americans had seen or become aware of, and which was the basis for much of their gloating. But after this tape had been made, Mubarak’s elder son Gamal had intervened with his father, and had successfully talked him out of resigning.

Here is an Egyptian account of how this transpired: “A heated argument broke out between Alaa and Gamal Mubarak, the two sons of the former Egyptian president, inside the presidential palace last Thursday during the recording of their father’s last speech to the nation, Egypt’s government-owned al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Sunday. Hosni Mubarak reportedly was supposed to announce his resignation in a speech that the military sent to him on Thursday but his son Gamal and senior officials in his entourage pressed him to deliver a different speech in which he insisted on staying in power until September. The newspaper said Gamal lost his temper after he heard the recording of the speech that his father was supposed to deliver that night and in which he was going to declare stepping down. According to the report, American officials were aware of that recording but they did not know that Gamal had prompted his father to discard it and record a different speech, which was delivered that night. Earlier in that day U.S. President Barack Obama had told an audience in Michigan that ‘we are witnessing history unfold,’ a sign that Mubarak was stepping down. Hours later, President Obama heard something perplexing: Mubarak was not quitting. Obama apparently did not know that Mubarak’s resignation speech was discarded by Mubarak’s son in the last minute.”3

But then, on Friday, the situation was abruptly reversed. According to reports, Mubarak left Cairo by helicopter for the resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh at the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula. Soon Egyptian government television said that an important announcement about the presidency was imminent. Then Vice President Suleiman came on television and declared that Mubarak had resigned, and that he had transferred power to the Supreme Military Council — something which the Egyptian constitution gave him no power to do. What had happened?

The US Cover Story about Mubarak’s Departure
The reasons for Mubarak’s sudden departure now constitute a highly explosive political theme in themselves. US intelligence was quick to come forward with an account which portrayed the toppling of Mubarak as an indigenous coup, the work of Egyptian military officers. This approach is necessary to mask the imperialist nature of the coup, and to keep alive the pathetic illusion that the Egyptians did it “all by themselves.”

A detailed summary of these fables appeared as an article by Joby Warrick which appeared in the Washington Post of February 12. Here the author repeats at least twice that Washington bigwigs were out of the loop as far as the events in Cairo were concerned, and could only “learn of” the accomplished facts which the Egyptian army officers were creating on the ground. Here we read: “Late Wednesday, CIA and Pentagon officials learned of the Egyptian military’s plan to relieve President Hosni Mubarak of his primary powers immediately and end the unrest that had convulsed the country for more than two weeks….Communication between top U.S. and Egyptian officials had become increasingly sporadic early this week as Mubarak deputies complained publicly about U.S. interference in Cairo’s affairs. But then U.S. intelligence and military officials began to learn details of the plan by Egyptian military leaders – something between a negotiated exit and a soft coup d’etat – to relieve Mubarak of most, if not all, of his powers.”4 Here it is alleged that Mubarak disappointed his backers above all by the tone of his remarks, leading them to conclude that he was incorrigible and had to go: “In the end, Mubarak’s efforts only ensured a hasty and ignominious departure, the officials said. Within hours of the speech, Egyptian army officials confronted the discredited president with an ultimatum: Step down voluntarily, or be forced out.”5

But this is a fiction, since it was clear to the entire world that Washington officialdom, starting with CIA boss Panetta, were the prime movers behind the Egyptian putsch. The problem was that the US puppet officers, even operating behind the smokescreen provided by the golden youth in the square, simply did not have the raw political muscle to kick Mubarak out. As the Italian Middle East expert Franco Macchi pointed out on the morning of February 13, “In fact, I do not think that Gen. Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and his supreme council could have been able to force Mubarak out. They tried, as expected from Washington, and failed for quite some time. Even at the last minute the idea of Mubarak was clear: I don’t care, I will stay. This would have provoked (or had already provoked) a split in the army with their CIA puppets risking isolation and hostility from the backbone of the army. It is not even clear to me how much Tantawi is chained to the US side (and could be relied on) and how much he is trying to mediate a compromise. However, the key element is what kind of decisions and passions will develop from deep inside the army. And these could be very non-linear….” In other words, new Nasserist-nationalist colonels may soon tire of discredited US puppets like Tantawi and send them packing, with incalculable consequences for the US.

Achilles’ Heel of the US Cover Story: Communiqué Number 2 of the Supreme Military Council
The truly insuperable obstacle for Joby Warrick’s thesis of an indigenous coup stamped Made in Egypt is the fact, which Warrick nowhere mentions, that a meeting of the Supreme Military Council was held on Friday morning and came out with an endorsement of Mubarak’s plan for a gradual transition into September or October supervised by the incumbent president — and said so in their Communiqué Number 2. The main facts were reported by the Press Trust of India in a dispatch where we can read: “Egyptian military today came out in support of a beleaguered President and asked protesters to go home, assuring them of free and fair elections in September and the lifting of a much-hated emergency law, in a stand that caused widespread disappointment among the people who pledged to take their campaign to its ‘final stage’. As the powerful military unexpectedly threw its weight behind Hosni Mubarak, tens of thousands of angry people converged again on the streets and vowed to take the protest to the “doorsteps of political institutions.” This dispatch continues: “As Mubarak dashed hopes of millions of his countrymen and global expectations by refusing to step down, the military Supreme Command Council met twice in less than 24 hours before announcing that it supported Mubarak’s move to transfer some of his powers to Vice President Omar Suleiman. Egyptian state-television interrupted its programme to read out the Council’s ‘communiqué number 2′ in which it vowed to lift the much-criticised emergency laws in the country, without specifying a date and said it would guarantee ‘free and fair elections’ in September, as outlined by Mubarak. But, in what appeared to be a warning to protesters, who for 18 days have been calling Mubarak to stand down after three decades in power, the military asked them to go home and get back to work.”6

These decisions by the Supreme Military Council were announced on television little more than an hour before the first indication that Mubarak was going to make an important statement. The US theory of the indigenous coup will therefore have to explain why, if the Egyptian generals had turned against Mubarak in the night between Thursday and Friday, they still gathered on Friday morning to proclaim and publish their continued support for the incumbent president. All indications are that the Egyptian generals, including the CIA puppets, were as surprised as the rest of the world when Mubarak announced that he was leaving. The military had proven itself incapable of forcing this decision. There must therefore have been some outside force which acted directly on Mubarak and induced him to tender his resignation on his own power. Given the nature of current world affairs, that power could only have been the United States, perhaps with some help from the British.

The Reality: US Threats to Mubarak
To ask the question, “How could the Obama regime had squeezed Mubarak?” is already to answer it. Given Obama’s carpet-chewing rage, the entire gamut of CIA and other capabilities could have been unleashed on the Egyptian president and his family, including his wife Suzanne, his sons Gamal and Alaa, his granddaughter, and other relatives inside Egypt or abroad. We need only suggest the endless possibilities for wetwork, torture, kidnapping, rendition, criminal prosecutions, the confiscation of assets, and so on down the line. “Al Qaeda” could have put out a contract on the Mubaraks, etc., etc. In fact, we can speculate with some confidence that some or all of these threats were made or implied in some form.

But there were perhaps other threats which might have been more eloquent in persuading such a proud, elderly, nationalist autocrat and patriarch as Mubarak. The most obvious of these, for which we also have some evidence, is a threat for US move against the Suez Canal, one of Egypt’s greatest national assets.

Evidence for a US Threat to the Suez Canal
In terms of imperialist mentality, not all that much has changed since the days of 1956, when British Prime Minister Anthony Eden would become apoplectic at the mere sight of Colonel Amal abd-el Nasser, the gallant Egyptian leader who successfully nationalized the Suez Canal in defiance of the British and the French. When the imperialists look across the northern edge of Africa, the valuable assets they see are the oil of Algeria and Libya, and above all the Suez Canal, one of the classical naval choke points of the world, through which 8% of world maritime trade currently passes. The Anglo Americans are acutely aware of the endless possibilities for mischief against countries like Iran, China, and Russia that could be derived from a reassertion of the old imperialist control of Suez. If some pretext could be found for banning Chinese ships from the Suez Canal, China’s entire trade with Europe would be severely disrupted. However, in order to make a grab for Suez politically feasible, Egypt would have to descend into chaos. This may in fact be one of the prime motivations of what is currently going on. If the national states collapse, then the empire is free to step in and seize what it wants.

In any case, the early 2011 destabilization of Egypt has already been unmistakably accompanied by a series of threatening gestures towards the Suez Canal. No sooner had Mubarak left office than Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman began vociferating about the intolerable threat to his country represented by the allegedly imminent passage of two Iranian military vessels through Suez; he seemed to be threatening open war over this incident. In one account we read: ‘Israel’s foreign minister claimed Wednesday that Iran is about to send two warships through the Suez Canal for the first time in years, calling it a “provocation,” but he offered no evidence. The Egyptian authority that runs the canal denied it. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the ships would cross later Wednesday, en route to Syria. He offered no evidence and did not say how he knew it. “This is a provocation that proves that Iranian audacity and insolence are increasing,” he said in a statement. The Egyptian body that runs the Suez Canal denied the claim.’7 Lieberman’s rhetoric knew no bounds: ‘”This is a provocation that proves that the self-confidence and insolence of the Iranians is growing from day to day,” he said. “This happens after the Iranian president’s visit to south Lebanon and his aggressive declarations there towards Israel.”‘

Washington was more than willing to take this matter quite seriously: U.S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley declared “We’ll be watching to see what they [the supposed Iranian warships] do.” Crowley confirmed that he was talking about the same ships which had so upset the Israeli foreign minister.8

February 5: Egypt-Israel-Jordan Natural Gas Pipeline Bombed; al Qaeda Accused
But the question of the Suez Canal and its security had been raised repeatedly over the previous weeks, during the entire time of the Egyptian crisis. This issue came up during the first week of February when a mysterious bomb hit the gas pipeline across the Sinai Peninsula which delivers natural gas from Egypt into Israel and Jordan. The bombing was soon blamed on alleged terrorists, specifically Hamas and a branch of al Qaeda. The website Debkafile, which reputedly reflects the views of the Israeli intelligence community, had this to say: “Intelligence updates reaching Israel reveal that Hamas plans to follow up its attack on the Egyptian-Israel-Jordanian gas pipeline Saturday, Feb. 5, with more large-scale operations against Israel, using Egyptian Sinai as its launching-pad. Since the uprising began in Egypt two weeks ago, more than 1,000 Hamas gunmen have infiltrated North Sinai from the Gaza Strip and seized control of the region. They were followed by Al-Qaeda cells which redeployed from Iraq in the Gaza Strip. Hamas has established a command center in North Sinai for coordinating its operations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo…. Debkafile‘s military sources report that Hamas and Mumtaz Durmush, head of Jaish al-Islam (The Army of Islam) which is linked to Al Qaeda, have struck a deal for Hamas to transfer the Islamists to Sinai and provide them with the weapons and explosives for attacking Israeli patrols along the Egyptian border and Egyptian security forces posted there.”9

Another website commented on the strategic significance of this gas pipeline: “On Saturday, February 5, an explosion cut off distribution from a natural gas line in the Sinai region. The pipeline delivers gas to Israel and Jordan. Originally, government officials ruled the explosion an accident; however, new intelligence is reporting that the incident may have been a planned terrorist attack. The guards on duty to protect the pipeline are now claiming that they were restrained by four masked gunmen who remotely detonated explosives—intentionally cutting off gas supplies to Egyptian neighbor countries. Israel is dependent on Egyptian natural gas to help supplement upward of half of their electricity needs, and Jordan in response has, for the time being, converted their power plants to run on diesel and oil reserves. Egyptian officials are stating that the gas line will be repaired and operational within one week. The security implications of the Egyptian riots are severe, especially in light of this terrorist attack.”10

We can already imagine the headlines: “Obama Orders Marines to Seize Suez Canal to Stop al Qaeda Grab of World’s Most Vital Waterway.” A great strategy for the upcoming primary elections, Obama may imagine.

The Kearsarge Task Force in the Suez Canal at the Great Bitter Lake
A concrete US capability for beginning a move on the Suez Canal was represented by a task force around the USS Kearsarge, which was officially portrayed as being there to help with the evacuation of US nationals in case the political situation in Egypt further deteriorated. According to one account: “The USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group has sped its way into the Suez canal, and is now waiting in Suez Canal’s Great Bitter Lake nearby Ismailia Egypt; this is telling in that its specific function is to carry Marines and equipment designed for beach landing and land deployment operations…. The USS KEARSARGE’s principal mission is deployment, landing and support of a Marine landing force anywhere in the world. The USS KEARSARGE’s armament suite includes the NATO Sea Sparrow point defense missile systems, the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) defense system, the PHALANX close-in weapon system, 25mm chain guns and Electronic Warfare (EW) protection systems for defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, aircraft and surface vessels. The USS Kearsarge also lands tanks, trucks, artillery, and the complete logistic support needed to supply an assault. The question is, what are the intentions of the U.S. government and military, given that thousands of Marines are now offshore and could amphibiously launch at a moments notice…Could this be a combat operation? Or is it a non-combat operation, to pull out and evacuate certain people should it become necessary?”11 At least one attack carrier, the USS Enterprise, was nearby throughout the crisis.

On February 11, other reports suggested that, in conjunction with the US moves, the Israelis were seeking to reestablish their siege positions in the so-called Philadelphia corridor in the Sinai between the Gaza strip and Egypt: “Egyptian media sources have confirmed reports from Israeli intelligence agencies that the US has moved some of its naval forces from the Fifth Fleet closer to the Suez Canal. It is feared that the situation in Egypt could spiral out of control and threaten navigation in the Canal. The Egyptian newspaper Al Masri Al Yawm has said that the naval personnel include 850 US Marines. They have taken up a strategic position near Ismailia, giving easy access to the main Egyptian land mass and the Sinai Peninsula. The newspaper cited Israeli sources regarding the deployment which came about following the statement by Vice President Omer Suleiman that Egypt faces a choice between a coup d’état or dialogue. Al Masri Al Yawm also referred to a recent report published in Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in which Israel Defence Forces officers have called for the re-occupation of the Philadelphia corridor located between Egypt and the Gaza Strip in the event of the total collapse of the Mubarak regime.”12 For the Italian commentator Bernardino Ferrero, the conclusion was clear: “Mubarak will leave, but the US will stay in Suez.”13

Chaos and Confusion Scenario, as in 1956
When the British and the French took back the Suez Canal from Nasser in 1956, one of their main propaganda arguments was that the primitive Egyptians were far too backward to ever be able to manage such a complicated enterprise as the Suez Canal Authority. Therefore, the European colonialists had to reassert their control in the public interest of the world. This was of course nonsense, but such arguments may be about to make a comeback.

One pretext which neo-imperialists might use was the sitdown strike of the employees of the Suez Canal itself, which was reported by Bloomberg news on February 8. Tolls were not collected, and the constant upkeep which is necessary to keep the canal functioning apparently came to a halt. As Bloomberg reported: “Shipping on Egypt’s Suez Canal, used to carry about 8 percent of global seaborne trade, is transiting on schedule after service workers linked to the waterway began striking, the Suez Canal Authority said. Workers from Suez Canal Co. began a sit-in today, Al-Ahram newspaper reported earlier today in its online edition, without saying where it got the information. The 6,000 workers are from Suez, Port Said and Ismailia, Al-Ahram said…. The canal has the capacity to handle 2.2 million barrels of oil a day while that of the adjacent Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline is 2.3 million barrels, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”14

A few days later, shooting broke out along the canal as police clashed with protesters: “Ismailiya, Egypt – Egyptian protesters in the north Sinai town of El-Arish exchanged gunfire with police on Friday and hurled Molotov cocktails at a police station, witnesses said, amid nationwide anti-government rallies. About 1,000 protesters broke off from a larger group and headed towards a police station, lobbing firebombs and burning police cars, witnesses said.”15 We should also recall that in Egypt, 2011 had begun with the murderous bombing of a Coptic Christian Church.

Israel Claims Sinai Front was Denuded
In the midst of these events, Debkafile summarized accounts in the Israeli press according to which three decades of peace in the Sinai peninsula under the Camp David Accords had lulled the Israeli high command into a false sense of security, leading them to neglect what Debka called the Sinai front: “Thirty-two years of peace with Egypt leave Israel militarily unprepared for the unknown and unexpected on their 270-kilometer long southern border: the current generation of Israeli combatants and commanders has no experience of desert combat, its armor is tailored for operation on its most hostile fronts: Iran, Lebanon’s Hizballah and Syria; it is short of intelligence on the Egyptian army and its commanders and, above all, no clue to the new rulers’ intentions regarding Cairo’s future relations with Israel and security on their Sinai border. The Israeli Defense Forces are trained and equipped to confront Iran and fight on the mountainous terrain of Lebanon and Syria. After signing peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel scrapped the combat brigades trained for desert warfare, whose last battle was fought in the 1973 war, and stopped treating the Egyptian army as a target of military intelligence. Israel’s high command consequently knows little or nothing about any field commanders who might lead units if they were to be deployed in Sinai.”16 Much here is fanciful, but the purpose of the article is evident enough.

Franco Macchi summed up these ingredients as follows: “First, the pipeline sabotage (at the very beginning of the ‘revolution’ in Tahrir square); second, the exaggerated representations by Israel that a vital source of energy had been cut, creating a problem of national security; third, the military-style attacks on Egyptian barracks and soldiers in the Sinai; fourth, the rumored revolt of the ‘uncontrollable’ Bedouin tribes in the Sinai; and fifth, the strike of the Suez canal workers.” Macchi’s conclusion: “The danger of the scenario of ‘Chaos and Loss of Control by the Egyptian government’ as a credible pretext for a military intervention has been hanging like a sword of Damocles over Egypt since the beginning of the crisis.”

Based on the circumstantial evidence, we therefore advance the hypothesis that one of the elements inducing Mubarak to resign as president of Egypt could well have been a threat by the United States to seize the Suez Canal in whole or in part.

Why the US Dumped Mubarak
We must now examine in detail the specific reasons why the US chose to bring down Mubarak, and why now. The overall pattern that emerges from this survey is one of a Mubarak who was increasingly and outspokenly hostile to the overall direction of US policy, especially on the central question of whether Egypt, the key Sunni Arab state, should participate in the State Department’s planned regional alliance against Iran and its allies. No one knew better than Mubarak that the division of the Arabs over the last three decades into a rejection front of radicals on the one hand, and a moderate Arab bloc on the other, had reduced these states to the status of expendable pawns. There are signs that he was seeking to do something about this situation.

Lebanon: Mubarak Bitterly Opposed to Obama and Hillary on Frameup of Hezbollah
The last known conversation between Obama and Mubarak before the Egyptian crisis exploded appears to have taken place on January 19. According to read-outs, Obama called Mubarak to thank him for Egyptian support in the US policy towards Lebanon, which can only mean the United Nations kangaroo court tribunal which the US was using to indict the leaders of Hezbollah, along possibly with Syrian and Iranian officials, in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Less than a week before the rioting began, we find the following wire service dispatch: ‘WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama spoke with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday about the U.S. desire for calm in Tunisia and thanked him for Egypt’s support for a U.N.-backed tribunal set up to try the assassins of Lebanese statesman Rafik al-Hariri…. Obama thanked Mubarak for Egyptian support of the tribunal, “which is attempting to end the era of impunity for political assassination in Lebanon and achieve justice for the Lebanese people,” the White House said.’17

What makes Obama’s tactic so unbelievable is that Mubarak was one of the leading opponents of the entire UN kangaroo court/tribunal indictment scheme against Hezbollah, clearly because this was nothing but a recipe to restart Lebanese civil war, and then quite possibly a general regional war. Mubarak wanted no part of Obama’s policy, and Obama must have known it. This incongruous phone call therefore takes on the character of some form of oblique warning to the Egyptian president to stop sabotaging one of the main US gambits to the destabilization of the entire region.

Mubarak: Iran a Part of the Solution
Mubarak’s favorite formulation on this theme was that the entire future of the Lebanese nation should not depend on the looming UN frameup. Here is how Mubarak expressed his dissent last October: ‘Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak said a verdict against a senior Hezbollah official could be detrimental to the internal security of Lebanon and added that “The fate of Lebanese consensus and coexistence should not become hostage to this indictment regardless of its content.” Mubarak also warned that the Middle East peace process “cannot afford a new failure.” “It also cannot afford escalation of violence and terrorism in the region if negotiations collapsed,” he said. Mubarak believed any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track opens the way for similar progresses and agreements on both the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.” On Iran, he said Tehran “can become part of a solution to the Middle East crises, rather than being one of the causes of problems.”‘

Iran a part of the Middle East solution!! Iran was supposed to be totally isolated, and was the main US target!! It was pure heresy, the diametrical opposite of the sermon so stridently preached by Hillary Clinton during all of 2010.

Mubarak Rejects US Nuclear Umbrella, US-backed Sunni Arab Alliance with Israel Against Iran
As already noted, the main US diplomatic gambit of the first year of the Obama administration was the creation of a Sunni-Arab bloc centered on Egypt, together with Israel, under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, for purposes of regional confrontation and possible war against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and their associates. One of the by-products of the scheme would have been to force Egypt and Saudi Arabia into a military alliance with the Israelis against Moslem Iran. The first Gulf War had shown the lasting aversion of Arab leaders to participating in the military enterprise shoulder to shoulder with the Israelis, who therefore had to stay out of Kuwait. Nevertheless, an alliance with Israel was precisely what Obama and Hillary Clinton were demanding. Saudi Arabia, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel, would very likely have been obliged to open them. As for Egypt, even though the Camp David peace treaty with Israel has been in place for three decades, there are still many aspects of Egyptian-Israeli bilateral relations which are far from being normalized down to the present day. Mubarak had no intention of allowing such an automatic normalization, and of course did not want Egypt to become cannon fodder in the US attempt to smash and partition Iran.

The “nuclear umbrella” plan would also have necessitated the creation of US military bases in Egypt, which Mubarak has always rejected. There are about 500 US military personnel in Egypt, but these are stationed in the Sinai desert as part of the Multinational Force and Observers, along with troops from 10 other countries as part of the surveillance of the Israel-Egypt border under the terms of the Camp David peace treaty of March 26, 1979. Mubarak has never wanted any US bases in Egypt. He has also systematically rejected all demands by the US that he provide Egyptian forces for the war in Afghanistan.18

Here is how the “nuclear umbrella” proposal was formulated in the summer of 2009: ‘US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on Wednesday to sketch out how the United States might cope with a nuclear Iran – by arming its neighbors and extending a “defense umbrella” over the region. She said crossing the nuclear threshold would not make Iran, which Washington believes is pursuing nuclear weapons, safer or more secure.’19

Mubarak was vehemently opposed to this strategy, as we can see from the tone of the following report published in one of the semi-official Cairo papers, and made available through the Israeli Ynet: ‘Al-Gumhoria newspaper says Egyptian president strongly objects to American proposal to Israel, Arab states to create nuclear umbrella against Iranian attack. The United States has offered Israel, Egypt and Persian Gulf countries to be part of a nuclear umbrella against an Iranian attack, Egyptian newspaper al-Gumhoria reported Thursday. According to the idea, Israeli and American aircraft would be deployed in those Arab countries in preparation of a response against any expected Iranian strike. Everyone knows, the editor wrote, that those bases would be used to launch a war on Iran if the American diplomatic dialogue with Tehran were to fail.’

The Ynet summary of the Al-Gumhoria commentary, obviously inspired by Mubarak’s presidential palace, continues as follows: ‘”The deceptive thought was that Israel would in actual fact defend the Gulf states against the danger they are saying is approaching. We cannot rule out a possibility that they would even present the Gulf rulers with satellite images showing that an Iranian attack against the region is imminent. And this will lead to a war Israel has been planning for some time, with Israel turning later on into the only nuclear regional force in the Middle East, which will be a huge gain as far as they are concerned,” the editorial said.

According to the Ynet summary, ‘”The American defense umbrella which Israel will be part of is aimed at allowing Israel to enjoy the Gulf countries’ trust and be part of the defense lineup over the economic wealth of oil-producing countries. This is indirect normalization and a concealed bribe to Israel.” According to the editor, “The only one to reveal this satanic plan was President Hosni Mubarak, who was very firm in his response. He stressed that Egypt does not support free normalization with Israel, regardless of its reasons.” According to the editorial, Cairo is against taking part in the defense alliance, even if Israel is not part of it. Several days ago, the newspaper’s editor wrote, more than 200 Republican and Democratic Congress member send a letter to Saudi King Abdullah, expressing their disappointment over his failure to accept President Obama’s call to make steps of normalization towards Israel.’20

From this we can also glean that Mubarak’s categorical rejection of the US “nuclear umbrella” plan provided the weaker Saudi leadership with enough political cover so that they could also reject Obama’s demands, which they probably wanted to do anyway, but might have otherwise been bullied into accepting.

Mubarak’s Ultimate Deviation: Signs of Egyptian Rapprochement with Iran
During 2010, the US was bending every effort to impose a new round of economic sanctions on Iran, and also to browbeat individual countries and groups of countries to go beyond the UN Security Council sanctions with extra sanctions of their own, cutting off every conceivable commercial and financial link with Iran. In what must have been a carefully calculated affront to the State Department, Mubarak chose this moment to inaugurate direct flights between Cairo and Tehran, a service which had not existed for the past 30 years. As AOL News reported, “In what many see as a calibrated rapprochement between two of the Muslim world’s most powerful and long-embittered foes, Iran and Egypt this week announced an agreement to resume direct flights after more than 30 years. Hamid Baghaei, an Iranian vice president and the head of culture and tourism, said the agreement was ‘one of the most valuable economic agreements that have been signed between Iran and Egypt over the past 30 years,’ according to Iranian state TV. He suggested it could be a first step toward issuing visas to Egyptian and Iranian citizens and otherwise furthering ties between the two usually hostile states. The agreement between Egypt’s civil aviation authority and Iran’s national aviation company, signed Oct. 3 [2010], provides for up to 28 private flights a week but does not specify a start date or a reason for their resumption. The deal has baffled observers long accustomed to watching the two regional adversaries spar. Ties between the two countries fell apart in the wake of the Iranian revolution and Egypt’s peace accord with Israel in 1979. Neither has an embassy in the other’s capital, operating instead through interest sections. ‘At a time when the world is cutting off its ties to Iran, it seems strange that Egypt, a close ally of the United States, is broadening its ties to Iran,’ said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In that bellicose context, restoring flights between the two feuding capitals carries symbolic significance at the very least. ‘It’s not exactly like they’ve normalized relations, but the direct flights after 31 years, it’s a pretty big deal,’ said Steven Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Cook said the agreement might be an indication that the Egyptian government is distancing itself from the U.S. as Egypt approaches a potential transition of power.“21

Mubarak appeared to be acting on the basis of an understanding that the perpetual division of the Arabs and Moslems into two contending and hostile camps was playing into the hands of the Israelis, enabling their recent atrocities. After Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s visit last autumn to Lebanon, where the conciliatory note was very prominent, we may conclude that Ahmadinejad was also aware of the sterility of pure ideological rejection-front politics, since such an approach guaranteed Moslem division and defeat, while facilitating imperialist divide and conquer tactics..

The pro-Israeli MEMRI site recently carried the following report of a political attack on Ahmadinejad in an Iranian newspaper close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. This polemic accuses of Ahmadinejad of moving away from dead-end sectarianism in favor of compromise and cooperation with the moderate Arab states, lead by Mubarak: ‘In a December 20, 2010 article titled “The Diplomatic Mirage of Amman, Riyadh, Cairo, and Sana’a,” the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not only criticized these countries’ regimes but also attacked Ahmadinejad’s foreign initiatives aimed at rapprochement with them. The criticism came in response to a number of recent developments, including a meeting held in Amman between King ‘Abdallah of Jordan and Ahmadinejad’s advisor Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, and an invitation of the former to visit Iran; statements made by Iran’s newly appointed caretaker foreign minister ‘Ali-Akbar Salehi, in his swearing-in ceremony, which emphasized the importance of developing special ties with Saudi Arabia in light of its prominent religious and economic status; and reports in the media of improving economic ties between Iran and Egypt. Kayhan claimed that Ahmadinejad’s gestures of friendship towards the moderate Arab states contradicted the regime’s official policy, which was determined by officials senior to Ahmadinejad, most notably Khamenei. Kayhan wrote: “[Iran's moves of] sending [Esfandiar Rahim Mashai] as a special envoy to Jordan [on Ahmadinejad's behalf], [holding] two teleconferences with the Saudi royal court in a single month, expressing hope for the establishment of relations with Egypt, and intimating that a special delegate will be sent to Yemen are all extremely logical [moves] in an atmosphere of bilateral cooperation or when both sides express a willingness [to cooperate]. However, they are entirely illogical in an atmosphere where one side is begging [for rapprochement] and the other is playing hard to get.”‘22 Mubarak was also interested in cooperation with Qaddafi’s Libya.

The evidence suggests that a convergence of two historical regional powers of the Middle East, Mubarak’s Egypt and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, may have been in progress, with Saudi Arabia and Jordan also participating. We are left with the impression that Ahmadinejad, for his part, was attempting to free himself from the foreign policy prejudices of the mullarchy. Ahmadinejad, himself a general, was looking more and more like a Nasserist, and was more able to get along with Mubarak. This may well be the real diplomatic revolution which the duped and hapless youth of Tahrir Square were mobilized by the CIA myrmidons to bloc.

An obvious question in regard to these diplomatic maneuvers is whether they enjoyed the support of any of the great powers from outside of the Middle East. Here it might be useful to know more about Russian President Medvedev’s recent visit to the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, which had been preceded by a trip to Syria earlier last year and a meeting with Mubarak in Cairo on June 30, 2009.

Mubarak as Peacemaker for Lebanon and Syria when Bush-Cheney Wanted More War
In the aftermath of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Mubarak attempted to mediate a modus vivendi between the Israelis on the one hand, and the Lebanese and Syrians on the other. This, again, was the diametrical opposite of the US policy under Bush and Cheney, which aimed at maximizing this conflict and prolonging it as much as possible. Mubarak spoke out quite openly against the US warmongers, as the London Daily Mail reported on January 5, 2007: ‘Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview published yesterday of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria. “I believe America is preventing (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert from achieving peace with Syria,” Mubarak told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth during Olmert’s visit to the Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh on Thursday….’23

Rather than hiding behind the stonewall refusal of the US neocons to negotiate, Mubarak recommended a strategy of testing Syrian intentions through a policy of active engagement, without preconditions: ‘”Bring the truth to light, if it’s just a (tactical) manoeuvre or true intentions. Check out which peace he (Assad) wants to achieve. Why say no to a peace offering?” he said. He added: “Now, when the president of Syria calls for peace, don’t imagine he will come to Jerusalem. That won’t happen. No Arab leader will come to Jerusalem until peace is achieved.”‘…

Mubarak wanted help for the Palestinian Authority, which Bush and Cheney were interested in destroying: ‘Mubarak said in the interview that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is in conflict with a cabinet led by Hamas, needed financial help to strengthen him. “We have to strengthen him so he can make decisions. He has a government, but he has problems with his government. We must assist him financially, unfreeze money and make conditions easier so people can live,” he said. …

Mubarak: Execution of Saddam under US Auspices “Illegal,” “Revolting and Barbaric”
Mubarak also sharply condemned the “revolting and barbaric” US role in the public execution of Saddam Hussein before the eyes of the world: ‘In his first comments, Mubarak said: “No one will ever forget the way in which Saddam was executed. They turned him into a martyr and the problems in Iraq remain. People are executed all over the world, but what happened in Baghdad on the first day of Eid Al Adha was unthinkable. I didn’t believe it was happening. Why did they have to hurry? Why hang him when people are reciting their holiday prayers?” Mubarak said he had written to US President George W. Bush asking him to postpone the execution, arguing that it would not be helpful at that time. He did not say how Bush responded. “Then the pictures of the execution were revolting and barbaric, and I am not discussing here whether he deserved it or not. As for the trial, all experts in international law said it was an illegal trial because it was under occupation. Also, there was a conspiracy to carry out the execution before the end of the year,” he added.24

Mubarak condemned the US attack on Iraq in 2003, and refused to contribute military forces. Then, at the end of 2006, when he saw that the US was eager to leave Iraq, he once again contradicted Washington by warning against the problems that could be created by an over-hasty withdrawal: ‘ (Reuters) 6 December 2006 DUBLIN – An immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq would be dangerous but staying is also risky, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview published on Wednesday. He told the Irish Times Iraq needs a strong leader…’25 Again the opposite of the US, who wanted the puppet Allawi.

Color Revolutions on the March
The Obama-Zbigniew Brzezinski foreign policy tacitly concedes that the US is now too weak, too isolated, too hated, and too bankrupt to undertake direct military attacks on the long list of countries which Bush, Cheney, and the neocons were eager to assail. The new policy of subverting existing governments and replacing them with regimes far more susceptible of being played as kamikaze puppets against the regional enemies of the United States is described in detail in my http://www.amazon.co...402&sr=8-2Obama the Postmodern Coup — the Making of a Manchurian Candidate, which was published almost three years ago.

The indispensable allies of this Obama-Brzezinski policy are ignorance, stupidity, gullibility, and the willingness to be blinded by hatred. During the first phase of the Egyptian destabilization, Brzezinski boasted to Newsweek of his ability to manipulate the youth bulge across the Arab world, using them to accomplish at low cost what Bush and Cheney failed to do through direct military attacks, with extravagant military and financial losses. Like a Mephistopheles, Brzezinski gloated that his destabilization cohorts, his revolutionaries, are the “somewhere between 80 million and 130 million young people around the world who come from the socially insecure lower middle class and constitute a community of mutual infection with angers, passions, frustrations, and hatreds. These students are revolutionaries-in-waiting. When they erupt at volatile moments, they become very contagious. And whereas Marx’s industrial proletariat more than a century ago was fragmented in local groups, today these young people are interacting via the Internet. What young people want is political dignity. Democracy may enhance that. But political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights. All of this now takes place in a wired world where the youth are acutely aware of economic, racial, and social inequities. Egypt is seething. To the extent it is possible, it is best to channel these aspirations. So I think Obama started out right in outlining in his Cairo speech a notion of how to deal with, specifically, the Islamic problem. But since then, he has simply lapsed into passivity.” Now, the CIA-NED destabilization ops have created a fait accompli to which Obama has had to respond.

Mubarak’s stubborn resistance to the putschist generals of the CIA has had the effect of further exposing Washington’s cynical sponsorship of the current wave of color coups. Unfortunately, Mubarak’s fall has cleared away one of the principal obstacles to a US plan for the reorganization of the Middle East in a way which radically increases the short-term chances for a cataclysmic general war in this region.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:
1 http://webcache.goog...09CAIRO326.html
2 “In U.S. Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift,” New York Times, February 12, 2011, at http://www.nytimes.c...cy.html?_r=2
3 “Gamal Mubarak convinced his father to change his last TV speech and to refuse to quit,” AlArabiya.net, at http://www.alarabiya.../13/137490.html
4 Joby Warrick, “In Mubarak’s final hours, defiance surprises U.S. and threatens to unleash chaos,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingto...1106690_pf.html
5 http://www.washingto...1106690_pf.html
6 PRESS TRUST OF INDIA, Feb 11, 2011, 06.08pm IST, http://timesofindia....ow/7476575.cms. See also the Deccan Herald: “Egyptian military today came out in support of a beleaguered President and asked protesters to go home, assuring them of free and fair elections in September and the lifting of a much-hated emergency law, in a stand that caused widespread disappointment among the people who pledged to take their campaign to its ‘final stage’.” http://www.deccanher...tion-plan.html. See also http://www.rediff.co...ls/20110211.htm
7 Mark Lavie, “Israel claims Iran warships to transit Suez Canal,” AP, February 16, 2011, at http://news.yahoo.co...rael_iran/print
8 “US To Monitor Iranian Ships Sighted In Red Sea,” AFP. February 16, 2011 at http://ae.zawya.com/...W20110216000226
9 http://warsclerotic....al-qaeda-cells/
10 John Shimkus, “Terrorism: Natural Gas Explosion Highlights Egypt’s Energy Security Risks; A pipeline explosion cutting off natural gas supplies from Egypt to Israel and Jordan is believed to be terror-related,” at http://www.energydig...-security-risks
11 Marine Landing Force, Ismailia Egypt, http://modernsurviva...ismailia-egypt/
12 “US moves naval forces off Ismailia while Israelis call for re-occupation of Philadelphia corridor,” 11 February 2011, at http://www.middleeas...lphia-corridor. According to Wikipedia, “The Philadelphi Route or Philadelphia Corridor refers to a narrow strip of land, 14 km in length, situated along the border between Gaza and Egypt. Under the provisions of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979, the buffer zone was controlled and patrolled by Israeli forces. After the 1995 Oslo Accords, Israel was allowed to retain the security corridor along the border.” (http://en.wikipedia....iladelphi_Route)
13 “Seguiamo la rotta della Uss Kearsarge e della Uss Ponce, le navi da guerra americane che sorvegliano la zona dello Stretto pronte a un’azione di salvataggio del personale diplomatico e dei civili americani. Un contingente di duemila marines aspetta il da farsi. Barack Obama vuole Suez, centro nevralgico dei traffici marittici internazionali. Non più di questo. Mentre si rivolge idealmente ai giovani egiziani, pensa prosaicamente alle “transizioni” sullo stretto.” Bernardino Ferrero, “Mubarak se ne andrà presto ma gli Usa restano a Suez,” (L’Occidentale, 11 Febbraio 2011, at http://www.loccidentale.it/node/102299)
14 “Suez Canal Still Operating as Service Workers Strike,” Bloomberg, http://www.businessw...ers-strike.html
15 “Egypt protesters, police clash in north Sinai,” AFP, February 11, 2011, at http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz1DfWACdd1
16 “Israel’s military caught unready for Sinai front. Tantawi is no friend,” http://www.debka.com/article/20660/
17 “Obama and Egypt’s Mubarak discuss Tunisia and Lebanon,” Patricia Zengerle, Reuters, January 19, 2011, at http://www.reuters.c...E70I07N20110119, emphasis added.
18 Mubarak “refused to send troops to Afghanistan…. Egypt also opposed US military intervention of March 2003 in Iraq, continued to oppose US occupation of the country after the war and further refused to comply with US requests to send troops to the country even under a UN umbrella.” (http://en.wikipedia....ations_of_Egypt)
19 “Clinton promises ‘defense umbrella’ against Iran; US secretary of state outlines how her country may cope with nuclear threat – by working to upgrade defense of allies in region,” Reuters, July 22, 2009, at http://www.ynetnews....3750303,00.html
20 “Report: Mubarak opposes US defense umbrella,” Roee Nahmias, YNET, August 21, 2009, at http://www.ynetnews....3765075,00.html
21 Sarah A. Topol, “Are Bitter Foes Egypt and Iran Burying the Hatchet?,” AOL News, Oct 7, 2010, emphasis added, at http://www.aolnews.c...ng-the-hatchet/
22 “Iranian Daily Kayhan: Ahmadinejad’s Rapprochement with Moderate Arab States is ‘Capitulation,’” MEMRI, February 11, 2011 at http://m.memri.org/1...cb6422bedb5dfbe
23 “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview published yesterday of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria,” London Daily Mail, January 5, 2007, at http://www.dailymail...s-Mubarak.html; see also. “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview published yesterday of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria,” http://gulfnews.com/...barak-1.153789; and http://archive.thepe...rica/90474.html
24 http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1DrkwBcZJ
25 Khaleej Times 2006-12-06, at http://article.wn.co...awal_from_Iraq/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Bill, I think it best you run your ARAB SPRING posts through John Judge and PD Scott before you post on this forum. I'm sure they can be of great help to you. THANKS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH Steve Gaal

Edited by Steven Gaal, 05 January 2012 - 10:26 PM.


#11 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:03 AM

Dear Bill, I think it best you run your ARAB SPRING poststhrough John Judge and PD Scott before you post on this forum. I'm sure theycan be of great help to you. THANKS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH Steve Gaal

Dear Steve, The idea that you can read a few anti-Globalist, Russian and leftist propaganda pieces, cut and paste them to this forum and then lecture me about it, does not mean that I will be persuaded that the CIA is behind the grand scheme of things and everything is going according to plan. John Judge is against military intervention anywhere, and Canadian Peter Dale Scott, while a student of US military activity, is well aware that the NATO mission in Libya was a Canadian led and reinforced event, and not one that the CIA had inspired or had anything to do with.


Before you start telling me what to do, you should start at the beginning, and learn how and why Arab Spring happened and is continuing to develop, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and before it is over, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuaitt, Pakistan, China and possibly sub-Sahara Africa.

I have been following the situation in Libya for decades and began my US-Libyan History blog http://rememberthein...d.blogspot.com/ in 2008, and recognizing the Tunisian revolt as a Deep Political Event that it is, have been following the Arab Spring revolutions since late December 2010 and began my http://revolutionary...m.blogspot.com/ in mid-February 2011, two days before the protests began in Benghazi, while my friends John Judge and PDS and others, including you, didn't start paying attention until NATO got involved in mid-March, long after the game was underway.

As a hint, when you read people like Tarpley, Phd or any of the Globalists propagandists, you can tell they are pulling your leg when they drop words like "imperialists" and "colonialists" and other Marxists terminology that clouds their thinking and yours, as they are 19th century descriptions that no longer work in todays world - unless you are still a communist, trying to persuade the masses to join the failed revolution.


The revolution that is working, the one that got rid of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and Syria on the ropes and others wondering if they are next, the unpredicted and unexpected and unplanned Democratic Arab Revolutions were not engineered by the CIA to get rid of Mubarak so the USA can go to war with Iran - as Dr. Tarpley's warped view of the world sees things, but it is regional revolution that has already changed the world as we knew it and is not over yet.

Tarpley's whole point - that the USA wants to invade Iran is hogwash, as the US Military will not take that on as a mission even if the President orders it - and as the budget dictates, the US military is winding down, and not gearing up for war, any war anywhere.

The USA didn't dump Mubarak, the people of Egypt forced him out, and unlike Tarpley's count of a few hundred people who protested in Egypt, there were many hundreds of thousands of people, and the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part in the early part of the protests and only joined in once it became apparent that the demonstrators were going to succeed. Just google images of Egypt in March and you count the bodies protesting - it was bigger than Woodstock, so Tarpley's count of a few hundred people shows you how wrong he is.

You want to keep reading that garbage, go ahead, but don't try to use it to give me a lesson in logic and reason because its BS.

And you can tell if they use the word "imperialist" in the first paragraph, and you just stop reading there.

BK












#12 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2012 - 05:40 AM

Dear Bill, I think it best you run your ARAB SPRING poststhrough John Judge and PD Scott before you post on this forum. I'm sure theycan be of great help to you. THANKS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH Steve Gaal

Dear Steve, The idea that you can read a few anti-Globalist, Russian and leftist propaganda pieces, cut and paste them to this forum and then lecture me about it, does not mean that I will be persuaded that the CIA is behind the grand scheme of things and everything is going according to plan. John Judge is against military intervention anywhere, and Canadian Peter Dale Scott, while a student of US military activity, is well aware that the NATO mission in Libya was a Canadian led and reinforced event, and not one that the CIA had inspired or had anything to do with.


Before you start telling me what to do, you should start at the beginning, and learn how and why Arab Spring happened and is continuing to develop, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and before it is over, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuaitt, Pakistan, China and possibly sub-Sahara Africa.

I have been following the situation in Libya for decades and began my US-Libyan History blog http://rememberthein...d.blogspot.com/ in 2008, and recognizing the Tunisian revolt as a Deep Political Event that it is, have been following the Arab Spring revolutions since late December 2010 and began my http://revolutionary...m.blogspot.com/ in mid-February 2011, two days before the protests began in Benghazi, while my friends John Judge and PDS and others, including you, didn't start paying attention until NATO got involved in mid-March, long after the game was underway.

As a hint, when you read people like Tarpley, Phd or any of the Globalists propagandists, you can tell they are pulling your leg when they drop words like "imperialists" and "colonialists" and other Marxists terminology that clouds their thinking and yours, as they are 19th century descriptions that no longer work in todays world - unless you are still a communist, trying to persuade the masses to join the failed revolution.


The revolution that is working, the one that got rid of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and Syria on the ropes and others wondering if they are next, the unpredicted and unexpected and unplanned Democratic Arab Revolutions were not engineered by the CIA to get rid of Mubarak so the USA can go to war with Iran - as Dr. Tarpley's warped view of the world sees things, but it is regional revolution that has already changed the world as we knew it and is not over yet.

Tarpley's whole point - that the USA wants to invade Iran is hogwash, as the US Military will not take that on as a mission even if the President orders it - and as the budget dictates, the US military is winding down, and not gearing up for war, any war anywhere.

The USA didn't dump Mubarak, the people of Egypt forced him out, and unlike Tarpley's count of a few hundred people who protested in Egypt, there were many hundreds of thousands of people, and the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part in the early part of the protests and only joined in once it became apparent that the demonstrators were going to succeed. Just google images of Egypt in March and you count the bodies protesting - it was bigger than Woodstock, so Tarpley's count of a few hundred people shows you how wrong he is.

You want to keep reading that garbage, go ahead, but don't try to use it to give me a lesson in logic and reason because its BS.

And you can tell if they use the word "imperialist" in the first paragraph, and you just stop reading there.

BK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=================================================================ooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv+o+vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"Sometimes there were only a few hundred young enthusiasts in the square"....SOMETIMES. Gee Bill thats true. Try To Discredit Tarpley with facts Bill.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The US Engineered "Arab Spring": The NGO Raids in Egypt


by Tony Cartalucci 12/11/11


The LA Times reported, "Egypt raids foreign organizations' offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses."

....

However, it is no "ruse" as the US-funded "activists" claim. And while the LA Times denies its readership a documented back-story either confirming or denying "activist claims," understanding the US role in funding sedition in Egypt is essential to understanding why not only are the raids of NGOs justified, but an absolute necessity to protect both Egyptian national sovereignty and international stability.

Documented Back-Story of the US-Engineered "Arab Spring" in Egypt

In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous" uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:


"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."
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "
It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the "Arab Spring" began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first "fist" was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."

Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department's Michael Posner 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." That ripple effect of course, is the "Arab Spring."

NED & Freedom House are Run by Warmongering Neo-Cons

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD's and "terrorism," NED is employed under the cover of bringing "democracy" to "oppressed" people. However, a thorough look at NED's board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.

Upon NED's board of directors we first find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their "entry into the complex China market easy." Surely Bohn's ability to manipulate China's political landscape through NED's various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears "conflict of interest" is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.

Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as "Vice President of Congressional Relations" as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil's ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.

We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED's board of directors including Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Will Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this "think tank" are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled "Rebuilding Americas Defenses." As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous rights advocate Freedom House also gravitates.

The "Statement of Principles," signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Of course by "international order" they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House's Paula Dobriansky, Dan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.

A PNAC "Statment on Post-War Iraq" regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House's Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring "Which Path to Persia?" report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC's latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America "hostage" and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to "help the Libyan opposition."

An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses' Ellen Bork (2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.

It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garners within its ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of "supporting freedom around the world." It is also safe to say that the principles of "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights" they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda.

Considering NED and Freedom House's role in fomenting the premeditated destabilization disingenuously titled the "spontaneous, indigenous" "Arab Spring," and the true nature of those that constitute their boards of directors, we can examine the LA Times article regarding the recent raids for what it is - a white wash if not an outright lie. Similarly, the US State Department comments made condemning the recent raids in Egypt take on a new, farcical, and very hypocritical tone in light of the documented fraud the US is carrying out through the State Department and the organizations it is on record funding.

The Current NGO Raids in Egypt

The LA Times claims:


"Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements.

The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed "foreign hands" for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses."
The LA Times would go on to describe the US State Department's response:

"This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a news briefing after the raids. "We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately."

Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas."
Ironically, US-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei would chime in on the side of the US State Department claiming, "human rights organizations are the guardians of the nascent freedom. Efforts to suffocate them will be a major setback and will surely backfire." Freedom House director David Kramer, formally a State Department official under the Bush Administation, would claim the Egyptian army crackdown was "an intensive campaign by the Egyptian government to dismantle civil society through a politically motivated legal campaign aimed at preventing 'illegal foreign funding' of civil society operations in Egypt." Meanwhile NDI president Ken Wollack said "cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt's historic transition sends a disturbing signal."

We see then, US and Egyptian organizations that are documented frauds acting in absolute concert not only with each other, but in tandem with both the US State Department and a willfully ignorant corporate-media. These "NGOs" are the equivilant of Great Britain's imperial networks that spanned the globe, supplanted national sovereignty in nation after nation and executed the will of the crown, not that of the people they ruled over from Ireland to India, from Myanmar to the American colonies.

Conclusion

Let us note and expose the perversion of ideals such as "representative governance" cheaply reduced to "democracy" or "mob rule," and the obscene abuse of concepts such as "free speech" and "human rights" by organizations like NED and Freedom House who have themselves engineered conflicts that have resulted in genocide, state-sponsored terrorism, codified torture and indefinite detention as well as everything else that crawls out from beneath the rocks of Wall Street and London's brand of corporate-fascism and its willing servants in America's "Neo-Conservative" establishment and more recently Obama's supposedly "liberal" presidency.

And while Egypt has taken up the challenge to directly confront traitors and foreign-funded sedition within their own sovereign borders, as has Belarus recently, Egypt is by far not the only nation suffering under the debilitating division and destruction NED and its US State Department-funded subsidiaries sow throughout nations.

Tunisia's new president had literally served the US agenda for decades via his Paris-based, NED-funded "NGO." The destabilization that his NGO contributed to paved the way for his coming to power. Likewise, a list of nations are documented to be under similar attack.

Myanmar: "Democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi's entire political apparatus is US and British funded.

Thailand: Fraudulent NGOs like Prachatai, Thai Netizen, and many others are entirely funded by US State Department cash and are insidiously paving the way for Wall Street servant Thaksin Shinawatra to remove Thailand's traditional institutions and replace it with US-installed "civil society."

Russia: Moscow's streets have been choked week after week with protesters led by verified servants of the US State Department, funded for years by NED and whose foreign-funded NGOs constitute the entirety of accusations of "fraud" in Russia's recent elections.

Malaysia: NED-funded "Bersih" protesters are attempting to sow division and instability to pave the way for IMF stooge Anwar Ibrahim to return to power and enter the people of Malaysia back under Anglo-American servitude.

Egypt and Belarus have given the world a model to follow. Instead of striking out at throngs of protesters manipulated and used by these insidious organizations as the Egyptian military has been doing, they are now striking at the organizations and the foreign-funded traitors doing the manipulation in the first place. By exposing and attacking Wall Street and London's network of insidious agents directly, the global destabilization they are attempting to carry out may just very well fail - and not only fail but leave those behind it naked in their megalomania and criminal intentions for all the world to see.

And finally, while Egyptians, and indeed the world, must scrutinize NGOs claiming to promote "democray," "freedom," and "human rights," they must likewise scrutinize those whom these NGOs are attacking. If the forces of "liberal activism" can be so completely hijacked, so can the forces of nationalism. We must then identify the corporate-financier interests driving this obscene agenda, and not only boycott and entirely replace them, but in the meantime, monitor their interactions not only with these NGOs now confirmed to be frauds, but inroads they may be making in compromising the nationalist forccs they are attacking. Eternal vigilance is a price we must be willing to pay if freedom is truly something we aspire for.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV########VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
=========V=============oooooooo======V=========^
=======================VVVVVVVVV===============^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv^
Friday, December 9, 2011
Wall Street Vs. Russia
Wall Street's poorly hidden, poorly coordinated agenda in Russia. Who is behind it?
by Tony Cartalucci

Уолл-стрит против России

1. Wall Street-London's Defense Team for Jailed Russian Oligarch Khodorkovsky

The background of jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his "Open Russian Foundation" fashioned after George Soros' Open Society Institute and chaired by both Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger, can be found in William Engdahl's, "The Real Crime of M. Khodorkovsky," as well as in the London Telegraph's humorously titled, "This man is now the people's billionaire," reflecting the paid-for rhetoric of Khodorkovsky's Wall Street-London-appointed lawyer Robert Amsterdam.

In the latest round of attempted destabilization in Russia, it may be instructive to look at the "Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center," a website developed in part by Robert Amsterdam and what is called an "international legal team." Coincidentally, it fully embraces the narrative peddled by the West and its corporate media that the Russian elections were "rigged." However, this accusation tenuously hinges on the work of US-funded NGOs including Golos - fully funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Just as Robert Amsterdam is doing in Thailand, where he is using his "defense" of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as a point of leverage to in fact induce regime change in the Southeast Asian country, his defense of Khodorkovsky also aims not at defending his client legally, but at using his case to undermine and ultimately overturn the leadership of Russia. It is done in a concerted effort with the US State Department, the corporate media, and a vast network of US and European subsidized NGOs sowing sedition within Russia itself.

khodorkovskycenter.com

2. Neo-Conservatives Attempting to Encircle Russia with NATO

The Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Initiative, whose membership has helped engineer and promote every war in at least the last 30 years of American history, clearly enumerates what it believes the next steps the US should take toward Russia should be. These include continuing the encirclement of Russia with NATO and its controversial "missile defense" efforts, continuing to build up the Republic of Georgia as a menacing proxy-threat lying on Russia's borders, and "supporting human rights" focusing on the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011" which seeks yet again to sanction members of the Russian government based on disingenuous "human rights" concerns, just as the FPI and its collaborators did in Libya.

Foreign Policy Initiative's Board of Directors
FPI Analysis: Moving Beyond the U.S.-Russian “Reset”

3. The Henry Jackson Foundation, NED, Alexey Navalny, & Ilya Yashin

We'll keep hearing the name Alexey Navalny until the fact that he is fully subsidized by the US State Department through the National Endowment of Democracy is widely exposed, and like Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei, cast aside as extra-baggage.

The first clue comes to us from the London, Telegraph who afforded column space to a Mr. Michael Weiss of the Henry Jackson Society, providing a very robust defense for Navalny and his efforts to expose "corruption" during Russia's election. And while Weiss does his best to fend off accusations that Navalny is indeed a foreign agent, calling such accusations "adorably old-fashioned," he fails to point out that, again, the NGOs and poll monitors accusing Russia of rigging the elections, and whom "activists" like Navalny continuously cite as evidence, are all funded by the very US and European governments conducting the NATO military encirclement of Russia.

The background of Weiss' Henry Jackson Foundation should surprise no one. It's corporate-sponsors include (page 18) Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, IBM, General Dynamics, State Farm, and Xerox, while "signatories" of its "statement of principles" include current and former members of the British Government, members of the corporate-financier sponsored Chatham House, and professors throughout British academia.

International patrons include Neo-Con Max Boot - Michael Chertoff - Carl Gershman president of NED - Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold - FPI, Brookings Institution, and PNAC signatory Robert Kagan - Max Kampelman, also a PNAC signatory - Neo-Con William Kristol of the above mentioned FPI and also a PNAC signatory - Clifford May of the Neo-Con Foundations for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) - Neo-Con Richard Perle - former-NATO commander General Jack Sheehan - and Neo-Con warmonger James Woolsey, formally of the CIA and a leading proponent for war with Iran.

One must be forgiven for doubting the genuine resolve of the Henry Jackson Foundation's commitment toward human rights and democracy, since those they associate with have single-handledly done more to exterminate such ideals from our collective human conscience than any other group of villains combined. Their association with Carl Gershman, president of NED who is on record funding NGOs like Golos in Russia, not only write off any legitimacy they portray themselves as having, but also begin to cast serious suspicion on Alexey Navalny whom they are so vigorously defending.

And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for "exposing corruption," at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:


"Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector."
The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list "youth movements" operating in Russia:


"DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection."


Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian "activist" opposition group.


(photo not pasted)


Photo: Alexei Navalny, Yale World Fellow and co-founder of US National Endowment for Democracy Da! or "Democratic Alternative/Yes in Russian." It is yet another Otpor-esque organization courtesy of the United States government and willful traitors to their motherland.

....


Ilya Yashin leads the Moscow branch of the People's Freedom Party and is a leading member of the "Strategy 31" campaign, which claims to be fighting for the freedom of assembly. Unfortunately, Strategy 31's ranks are filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED-funded NGOs. From the official NED.org website we find:



"Moscow Group of Assistance in the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords $50,000
To draw greater attention to the issue of freedom of assembly in Russia and to the “Strategy 31” movement, which seeks to protect this fundamental right. The organization will train a network of regional activists and coordinate their activities through mini-seminars and field visits, and conduct an information cam­paign through press conferences, posters, and educational handouts pertaining to freedom of assembly, to be distributed to the general public by regional partners."

This is also confirmed in NED's "Democracy Digest" where the "Moscow Helsinki Group" is explicitly stated as leading Strategy 31 marches and that the group is a "long-time grantee of the National Endowment of Democracy."


Worst yet, Yashin's People's Freedom Party is lined not with aspiring youth seeking "freedom" for the Russian people, but rather lined with career politicians and businessmen collaborating with foreign-interests. Among them is Vladimir Ryzhkov, a member of the NED-funded, Washington-based World Movement for Democracy. There is also Boris Nemtsov whose adviser, Vladimir Kara-Murza (of Solidarnost) recently took part in a September 14, 2011 NED-sponsored event titled, "Elections in Russia: Polling and Perspectives" where they used a NED-funded polling organization, the "Levada Center," to project "winners" in upcoming elections and study the Manezh riots of 2010 - for now obvious reasons as the US attempts to fan the flames of unrest across Russia.


World Movement for Democracy, About Us
Vladimir Ryzhkov's World Movement for Democracy Profile



4. Freedom House



Rounding off the list is Freedom House, a US government-funded subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy. President of Freedom House, David Kramer, a minion under the Bush administration, recently wrote "Now Hear This, Moscow."

In his piece he notes that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "unambiguously stood with those who protested against Vladimir Putin and his party of power, United Russia, both in the voting booth and on the streets of Moscow on Monday and Tuesday." Between Kramer's Freedom House, NED who clearly has funded and supported, if not entirely created the current Russian opposition, and indeed Clinton's "unambiguous" stand with the mobs in the streets, it is very easy to see why Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the US of interfering in Russia's sovereign internal affairs.

Kramer would go on by citing the Organization for Security and Cooperation OSCE poll monitors - funded by various nations, UN funds, and strangely enough Soros' Open Society, Statoil, and USAID (page 125) - and his "concerns" over the alleged harassment of US NED-funded Golos. As usual, faux-human rights crusaders like Kramer who intentionally destabilize nations and foment unrest, then claim any measure taken by the targeted nation to defend itself is an abuse of "human rights" and "freedom," an all too familiar narrative that has played out from Tunisia to Thailand, from Syria to Myanmar.

Another Freedom House statement, provided on their own website, again calls for the "Sergei Magnitsky Act" are made to leverage their false claims of human rights abuses to sanction and begin bringing down Russia's leadership. The statement is signed off not by noted humanitarians, but by notorious Neo-Cons Eric Edelman, Jamie Fly, Robert Kagan, Kramer himself, and Stephen Rademaker, a corporate lobbyist at the notorious Podesta Group and a "foreign policy adviser" for Mitt Romney.

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Foreign Policy Initiative, and even the US State Department whose new foreign affairs advisory board is full of think-tanks representing overt corporate-financier interests, are not interested in "democracy," "human rights," or "freedom" in Russia, but rather removing the Kremlin out of the way, and reestablishing the parasitic feeding on the Russian people and its economy they enjoyed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Kremlin is definitely fighting fire with fire, however they are doing so on their own sovereign soil against foreign-interests disingenuously masquerading behind the ideals of Western civilization. The mobs polluting the streets of Russia, while consisting of well intentioned folks are being led by willful liars who are on record covering up their foreign-funding knowing full well their "legitimacy" will be compromised should it be made public. After what Wall Street and London have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and in nation after nation as it expands its vast empire, why should any organization taking funds from these people to destabilize and overthrow their own country retain any semblance of legitimacy?

And while NED and other corporate-funded foundations execute this policy of meddling in Russia's affairs, it is Wall Street and London, the largest banking, oil, defense contracting, and industrial interests on earth that are producing the policy. They do so via a network of think-tanks they themselves fund. It is essential that we understand who these corporations are, boycott them out of business, and begin replacing them entirely as a society. If they can meddle and cause chaos in the streets of a large, nuclear armed super power, what threat do they pose to average people, their families, and communities?
Posted by Land Destroyer ====================================########==============================================
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV########VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Edited by Steven Gaal, 06 January 2012 - 05:47 AM.


#13 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2012 - 06:52 AM


Dear Bill, I think it best you run your ARAB SPRING poststhrough John Judge and PD Scott before you post on this forum. I'm sure theycan be of great help to you. THANKS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH Steve Gaal

Dear Steve, The idea that you can read a few anti-Globalist, Russian and leftist propaganda pieces, cut and paste them to this forum and then lecture me about it, does not mean that I will be persuaded that the CIA is behind the grand scheme of things and everything is going according to plan. John Judge is against military intervention anywhere, and Canadian Peter Dale Scott, while a student of US military activity, is well aware that the NATO mission in Libya was a Canadian led and reinforced event, and not one that the CIA had inspired or had anything to do with.


Before you start telling me what to do, you should start at the beginning, and learn how and why Arab Spring happened and is continuing to develop, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and before it is over, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuaitt, Pakistan, China and possibly sub-Sahara Africa.

I have been following the situation in Libya for decades and began my US-Libyan History blog http://rememberthein...d.blogspot.com/ in 2008, and recognizing the Tunisian revolt as a Deep Political Event that it is, have been following the Arab Spring revolutions since late December 2010 and began my http://revolutionary...m.blogspot.com/ in mid-February 2011, two days before the protests began in Benghazi, while my friends John Judge and PDS and others, including you, didn't start paying attention until NATO got involved in mid-March, long after the game was underway.

As a hint, when you read people like Tarpley, Phd or any of the Globalists propagandists, you can tell they are pulling your leg when they drop words like "imperialists" and "colonialists" and other Marxists terminology that clouds their thinking and yours, as they are 19th century descriptions that no longer work in todays world - unless you are still a communist, trying to persuade the masses to join the failed revolution.


The revolution that is working, the one that got rid of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and Syria on the ropes and others wondering if they are next, the unpredicted and unexpected and unplanned Democratic Arab Revolutions were not engineered by the CIA to get rid of Mubarak so the USA can go to war with Iran - as Dr. Tarpley's warped view of the world sees things, but it is regional revolution that has already changed the world as we knew it and is not over yet.

Tarpley's whole point - that the USA wants to invade Iran is hogwash, as the US Military will not take that on as a mission even if the President orders it - and as the budget dictates, the US military is winding down, and not gearing up for war, any war anywhere.

The USA didn't dump Mubarak, the people of Egypt forced him out, and unlike Tarpley's count of a few hundred people who protested in Egypt, there were many hundreds of thousands of people, and the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part in the early part of the protests and only joined in once it became apparent that the demonstrators were going to succeed. Just google images of Egypt in March and you count the bodies protesting - it was bigger than Woodstock, so Tarpley's count of a few hundred people shows you how wrong he is.

You want to keep reading that garbage, go ahead, but don't try to use it to give me a lesson in logic and reason because its BS.

And you can tell if they use the word "imperialist" in the first paragraph, and you just stop reading there.

BK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=================================================================ooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv+o+vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"Sometimes there were only a few hundred young enthusiasts in the square"....SOMETIMES. Gee Bill thats true. Try To Discredit Tarpley with facts Bill.

Steven, Tarpley does not acknowledge that there were hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in the Streets and the Squares of every city, and tries to pawn off their protests by calling them "a few hundred enthusiasts," and if the USA is engineering the "Arab Spring" and revolutions in Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Syria and now you say Russia - too - well that's just the same excuse for Watergate, to try to say that the domestic protests of dictatorship and tyranny is undue foreign influence. You and your Komrad mouthpieces for the Kremlin and discredited Commies still can't answer the question as to why the USA would suddenly adopt a foreign policy that espouses revolution and chaos when they already had the dictators and oil and security apparatus in their back pockets. The USA did not and does not support the revolution in Baharain, where a major US base is located, so how do you explain that? The USA encouraged revolution everywhere but where it has bases? It's the National Endowment for Democracy not Revolution and its Freedom House, not State Security House - and yes, these organizations are promoting American ideals and democracy all over the world, but they certainly didn't expect the regional Arab revolt that's occurring.

If you read your pal Cartalucci's article all the way to the end, he supports the dictator of Syria and blames the legitimate, peaceful protests in Russia against the Kremlin as being US inspired, when of course it is the people of Syria who are being murdered by their government and the people of Russia who are protesting because of their own beliefs, and not because the US is telling them to.

While I try to read everything that is published regarding Libya and the Arab revolts, you seem to limit yourself to a few ideologically inclined anti-globalist, pro-communist and pro-dictator propagandists who use the same tired cliches that prevent you and those who adopt them from thinking clearly and with an open mind.

Yes, the revolution in Egypt is not over and won't be until the military is no longer in power, and the USA does encourage democracy in Egypt and would do so in Syria if the tyranny imposed there didn't extend to everyone, including journalists and teachers.

In the end, we will see whether you are right - and that the regional Arab revolutions are the result of secret USA CIA engineers or real revolutions being conducted by people who are fed up with being subservient to tyrants. In either case, it is a Deep Political Event that deserves close study and analysis, but not by your narrow minded ideological idiots like Cartalucci and the pro-Commie Irishman.

The real question is why the CIA and other western intelligence agencies fail to predict the region wide revolt, especially if they started it, as you contend?

BK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The US Engineered "Arab Spring": The NGO Raids in Egypt


by Tony Cartalucci 12/11/11


The LA Times reported, "Egypt raids foreign organizations' offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses."

....

However, it is no "ruse" as the US-funded "activists" claim. And while the LA Times denies its readership a documented back-story either confirming or denying "activist claims," understanding the US role in funding sedition in Egypt is essential to understanding why not only are the raids of NGOs justified, but an absolute necessity to protect both Egyptian national sovereignty and international stability.

Documented Back-Story of the US-Engineered "Arab Spring" in Egypt

In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous" uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:


"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."
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "
It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the "Arab Spring" began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first "fist" was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared Cohen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while awaiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."

Clearly then, unrest was long planned, with activists from Tunisia and Egypt on record receiving training and support from abroad, so that they could return to their home nations and sow unrest in a region-wide coordinated campaign.

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm this, when US State Department's Michael Posner 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." That ripple effect of course, is the "Arab Spring."

NED & Freedom House are Run by Warmongering Neo-Cons

The National Endowment for Democracy, despite the lofty mission statement articulated on its website, is nothing more than a tool for executing American foreign policy. Just as the military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD's and "terrorism," NED is employed under the cover of bringing "democracy" to "oppressed" people. However, a thorough look at NED's board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiary, Freedom House, definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.

Upon NED's board of directors we first find John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their "entry into the complex China market easy." Surely Bohn's ability to manipulate China's political landscape through NED's various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interest. However, it appears "conflict of interest" is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.

Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as "Vice President of Congressional Relations" as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil's ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.

We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED's board of directors including Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Will Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this "think tank" are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled "Rebuilding Americas Defenses." As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous rights advocate Freedom House also gravitates.

The "Statement of Principles," signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Of course by "international order" they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House's Paula Dobriansky, Dan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.

A PNAC "Statment on Post-War Iraq" regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House's Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring "Which Path to Persia?" report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC's latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America "hostage" and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to "help the Libyan opposition."

An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses' Ellen Bork (2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.

It is safe to say that neither NED nor Freedom House garners within its ranks characters appropriate for their alleged cause of "supporting freedom around the world." It is also safe to say that the principles of "democracy," "freedom," and "human rights" they allegedly champion for, are merely being leveraged to co-opt well meaning people across the world to carry out their own self-serving agenda.

Considering NED and Freedom House's role in fomenting the premeditated destabilization disingenuously titled the "spontaneous, indigenous" "Arab Spring," and the true nature of those that constitute their boards of directors, we can examine the LA Times article regarding the recent raids for what it is - a white wash if not an outright lie. Similarly, the US State Department comments made condemning the recent raids in Egypt take on a new, farcical, and very hypocritical tone in light of the documented fraud the US is carrying out through the State Department and the organizations it is on record funding.

The Current NGO Raids in Egypt

The LA Times claims:


"Egyptian security forces on Thursday raided the offices of 17 nongovernmental organizations, including three U.S.-based agencies, as part of a crackdown on foreign assistance that has drawn criticism from the West and threatened human rights groups and pro-democracy movements.

The move appeared to be part of a strategy to intimidate international organizations. The ruling military council has repeatedly blamed "foreign hands" for exploiting Egypt's political and economic turmoil. But activists said the army was using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses."
The LA Times would go on to describe the US State Department's response:

"This action is inconsistent with the bilateral cooperation we have had over many years," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a news briefing after the raids. "We call on the Egyptian government to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue immediately."

Egyptian soldiers and black-clad police officers swept into offices, interrogated workers and seized computers across the country. Those targeted included U.S. groups the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom House, which are funded by Congress to monitor elections and promote democracy overseas."
Ironically, US-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei would chime in on the side of the US State Department claiming, "human rights organizations are the guardians of the nascent freedom. Efforts to suffocate them will be a major setback and will surely backfire." Freedom House director David Kramer, formally a State Department official under the Bush Administation, would claim the Egyptian army crackdown was "an intensive campaign by the Egyptian government to dismantle civil society through a politically motivated legal campaign aimed at preventing 'illegal foreign funding' of civil society operations in Egypt." Meanwhile NDI president Ken Wollack said "cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt's historic transition sends a disturbing signal."

We see then, US and Egyptian organizations that are documented frauds acting in absolute concert not only with each other, but in tandem with both the US State Department and a willfully ignorant corporate-media. These "NGOs" are the equivilant of Great Britain's imperial networks that spanned the globe, supplanted national sovereignty in nation after nation and executed the will of the crown, not that of the people they ruled over from Ireland to India, from Myanmar to the American colonies.

Conclusion

Let us note and expose the perversion of ideals such as "representative governance" cheaply reduced to "democracy" or "mob rule," and the obscene abuse of concepts such as "free speech" and "human rights" by organizations like NED and Freedom House who have themselves engineered conflicts that have resulted in genocide, state-sponsored terrorism, codified torture and indefinite detention as well as everything else that crawls out from beneath the rocks of Wall Street and London's brand of corporate-fascism and its willing servants in America's "Neo-Conservative" establishment and more recently Obama's supposedly "liberal" presidency.

And while Egypt has taken up the challenge to directly confront traitors and foreign-funded sedition within their own sovereign borders, as has Belarus recently, Egypt is by far not the only nation suffering under the debilitating division and destruction NED and its US State Department-funded subsidiaries sow throughout nations.

Tunisia's new president had literally served the US agenda for decades via his Paris-based, NED-funded "NGO." The destabilization that his NGO contributed to paved the way for his coming to power. Likewise, a list of nations are documented to be under similar attack.

Myanmar: "Democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi's entire political apparatus is US and British funded.

Thailand: Fraudulent NGOs like Prachatai, Thai Netizen, and many others are entirely funded by US State Department cash and are insidiously paving the way for Wall Street servant Thaksin Shinawatra to remove Thailand's traditional institutions and replace it with US-installed "civil society."

Russia: Moscow's streets have been choked week after week with protesters led by verified servants of the US State Department, funded for years by NED and whose foreign-funded NGOs constitute the entirety of accusations of "fraud" in Russia's recent elections.

Malaysia: NED-funded "Bersih" protesters are attempting to sow division and instability to pave the way for IMF stooge Anwar Ibrahim to return to power and enter the people of Malaysia back under Anglo-American servitude.

Egypt and Belarus have given the world a model to follow. Instead of striking out at throngs of protesters manipulated and used by these insidious organizations as the Egyptian military has been doing, they are now striking at the organizations and the foreign-funded traitors doing the manipulation in the first place. By exposing and attacking Wall Street and London's network of insidious agents directly, the global destabilization they are attempting to carry out may just very well fail - and not only fail but leave those behind it naked in their megalomania and criminal intentions for all the world to see.

And finally, while Egyptians, and indeed the world, must scrutinize NGOs claiming to promote "democray," "freedom," and "human rights," they must likewise scrutinize those whom these NGOs are attacking. If the forces of "liberal activism" can be so completely hijacked, so can the forces of nationalism. We must then identify the corporate-financier interests driving this obscene agenda, and not only boycott and entirely replace them, but in the meantime, monitor their interactions not only with these NGOs now confirmed to be frauds, but inroads they may be making in compromising the nationalist forccs they are attacking. Eternal vigilance is a price we must be willing to pay if freedom is truly something we aspire for.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV########VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
=========V=============oooooooo======V=========^
=======================VVVVVVVVV===============^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv^
Friday, December 9, 2011
Wall Street Vs. Russia
Wall Street's poorly hidden, poorly coordinated agenda in Russia. Who is behind it?
by Tony Cartalucci

Уолл-стрит против России

1. Wall Street-London's Defense Team for Jailed Russian Oligarch Khodorkovsky

The background of jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his "Open Russian Foundation" fashioned after George Soros' Open Society Institute and chaired by both Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger, can be found in William Engdahl's, "The Real Crime of M. Khodorkovsky," as well as in the London Telegraph's humorously titled, "This man is now the people's billionaire," reflecting the paid-for rhetoric of Khodorkovsky's Wall Street-London-appointed lawyer Robert Amsterdam.

In the latest round of attempted destabilization in Russia, it may be instructive to look at the "Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center," a website developed in part by Robert Amsterdam and what is called an "international legal team." Coincidentally, it fully embraces the narrative peddled by the West and its corporate media that the Russian elections were "rigged." However, this accusation tenuously hinges on the work of US-funded NGOs including Golos - fully funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Just as Robert Amsterdam is doing in Thailand, where he is using his "defense" of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as a point of leverage to in fact induce regime change in the Southeast Asian country, his defense of Khodorkovsky also aims not at defending his client legally, but at using his case to undermine and ultimately overturn the leadership of Russia. It is done in a concerted effort with the US State Department, the corporate media, and a vast network of US and European subsidized NGOs sowing sedition within Russia itself.

khodorkovskycenter.com

2. Neo-Conservatives Attempting to Encircle Russia with NATO

The Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Initiative, whose membership has helped engineer and promote every war in at least the last 30 years of American history, clearly enumerates what it believes the next steps the US should take toward Russia should be. These include continuing the encirclement of Russia with NATO and its controversial "missile defense" efforts, continuing to build up the Republic of Georgia as a menacing proxy-threat lying on Russia's borders, and "supporting human rights" focusing on the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011" which seeks yet again to sanction members of the Russian government based on disingenuous "human rights" concerns, just as the FPI and its collaborators did in Libya.

Foreign Policy Initiative's Board of Directors
FPI Analysis: Moving Beyond the U.S.-Russian “Reset”

3. The Henry Jackson Foundation, NED, Alexey Navalny, & Ilya Yashin

We'll keep hearing the name Alexey Navalny until the fact that he is fully subsidized by the US State Department through the National Endowment of Democracy is widely exposed, and like Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei, cast aside as extra-baggage.

The first clue comes to us from the London, Telegraph who afforded column space to a Mr. Michael Weiss of the Henry Jackson Society, providing a very robust defense for Navalny and his efforts to expose "corruption" during Russia's election. And while Weiss does his best to fend off accusations that Navalny is indeed a foreign agent, calling such accusations "adorably old-fashioned," he fails to point out that, again, the NGOs and poll monitors accusing Russia of rigging the elections, and whom "activists" like Navalny continuously cite as evidence, are all funded by the very US and European governments conducting the NATO military encirclement of Russia.

The background of Weiss' Henry Jackson Foundation should surprise no one. It's corporate-sponsors include (page 18) Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, IBM, General Dynamics, State Farm, and Xerox, while "signatories" of its "statement of principles" include current and former members of the British Government, members of the corporate-financier sponsored Chatham House, and professors throughout British academia.

International patrons include Neo-Con Max Boot - Michael Chertoff - Carl Gershman president of NED - Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold - FPI, Brookings Institution, and PNAC signatory Robert Kagan - Max Kampelman, also a PNAC signatory - Neo-Con William Kristol of the above mentioned FPI and also a PNAC signatory - Clifford May of the Neo-Con Foundations for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) - Neo-Con Richard Perle - former-NATO commander General Jack Sheehan - and Neo-Con warmonger James Woolsey, formally of the CIA and a leading proponent for war with Iran.

One must be forgiven for doubting the genuine resolve of the Henry Jackson Foundation's commitment toward human rights and democracy, since those they associate with have single-handledly done more to exterminate such ideals from our collective human conscience than any other group of villains combined. Their association with Carl Gershman, president of NED who is on record funding NGOs like Golos in Russia, not only write off any legitimacy they portray themselves as having, but also begin to cast serious suspicion on Alexey Navalny whom they are so vigorously defending.

And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for "exposing corruption," at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:


"Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector."
The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list "youth movements" operating in Russia:


"DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection."


Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian "activist" opposition group.


(photo not pasted)


Photo: Alexei Navalny, Yale World Fellow and co-founder of US National Endowment for Democracy Da! or "Democratic Alternative/Yes in Russian." It is yet another Otpor-esque organization courtesy of the United States government and willful traitors to their motherland.

....


Ilya Yashin leads the Moscow branch of the People's Freedom Party and is a leading member of the "Strategy 31" campaign, which claims to be fighting for the freedom of assembly. Unfortunately, Strategy 31's ranks are filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED-funded NGOs. From the official NED.org website we find:



"Moscow Group of Assistance in the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords $50,000
To draw greater attention to the issue of freedom of assembly in Russia and to the “Strategy 31” movement, which seeks to protect this fundamental right. The organization will train a network of regional activists and coordinate their activities through mini-seminars and field visits, and conduct an information cam­paign through press conferences, posters, and educational handouts pertaining to freedom of assembly, to be distributed to the general public by regional partners."

This is also confirmed in NED's "Democracy Digest" where the "Moscow Helsinki Group" is explicitly stated as leading Strategy 31 marches and that the group is a "long-time grantee of the National Endowment of Democracy."


Worst yet, Yashin's People's Freedom Party is lined not with aspiring youth seeking "freedom" for the Russian people, but rather lined with career politicians and businessmen collaborating with foreign-interests. Among them is Vladimir Ryzhkov, a member of the NED-funded, Washington-based World Movement for Democracy. There is also Boris Nemtsov whose adviser, Vladimir Kara-Murza (of Solidarnost) recently took part in a September 14, 2011 NED-sponsored event titled, "Elections in Russia: Polling and Perspectives" where they used a NED-funded polling organization, the "Levada Center," to project "winners" in upcoming elections and study the Manezh riots of 2010 - for now obvious reasons as the US attempts to fan the flames of unrest across Russia.


World Movement for Democracy, About Us
Vladimir Ryzhkov's World Movement for Democracy Profile



4. Freedom House



Rounding off the list is Freedom House, a US government-funded subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy. President of Freedom House, David Kramer, a minion under the Bush administration, recently wrote "Now Hear This, Moscow."

In his piece he notes that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "unambiguously stood with those who protested against Vladimir Putin and his party of power, United Russia, both in the voting booth and on the streets of Moscow on Monday and Tuesday." Between Kramer's Freedom House, NED who clearly has funded and supported, if not entirely created the current Russian opposition, and indeed Clinton's "unambiguous" stand with the mobs in the streets, it is very easy to see why Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the US of interfering in Russia's sovereign internal affairs.

Kramer would go on by citing the Organization for Security and Cooperation OSCE poll monitors - funded by various nations, UN funds, and strangely enough Soros' Open Society, Statoil, and USAID (page 125) - and his "concerns" over the alleged harassment of US NED-funded Golos. As usual, faux-human rights crusaders like Kramer who intentionally destabilize nations and foment unrest, then claim any measure taken by the targeted nation to defend itself is an abuse of "human rights" and "freedom," an all too familiar narrative that has played out from Tunisia to Thailand, from Syria to Myanmar.

Another Freedom House statement, provided on their own website, again calls for the "Sergei Magnitsky Act" are made to leverage their false claims of human rights abuses to sanction and begin bringing down Russia's leadership. The statement is signed off not by noted humanitarians, but by notorious Neo-Cons Eric Edelman, Jamie Fly, Robert Kagan, Kramer himself, and Stephen Rademaker, a corporate lobbyist at the notorious Podesta Group and a "foreign policy adviser" for Mitt Romney.

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the Foreign Policy Initiative, and even the US State Department whose new foreign affairs advisory board is full of think-tanks representing overt corporate-financier interests, are not interested in "democracy," "human rights," or "freedom" in Russia, but rather removing the Kremlin out of the way, and reestablishing the parasitic feeding on the Russian people and its economy they enjoyed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Kremlin is definitely fighting fire with fire, however they are doing so on their own sovereign soil against foreign-interests disingenuously masquerading behind the ideals of Western civilization. The mobs polluting the streets of Russia, while consisting of well intentioned folks are being led by willful liars who are on record covering up their foreign-funding knowing full well their "legitimacy" will be compromised should it be made public. After what Wall Street and London have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and in nation after nation as it expands its vast empire, why should any organization taking funds from these people to destabilize and overthrow their own country retain any semblance of legitimacy?

And while NED and other corporate-funded foundations execute this policy of meddling in Russia's affairs, it is Wall Street and London, the largest banking, oil, defense contracting, and industrial interests on earth that are producing the policy. They do so via a network of think-tanks they themselves fund. It is essential that we understand who these corporations are, boycott them out of business, and begin replacing them entirely as a society. If they can meddle and cause chaos in the streets of a large, nuclear armed super power, what threat do they pose to average people, their families, and communities?
Posted by Land Destroyer ====================================########==============================================
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV########VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV





#14 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 06 January 2012 - 03:40 PM

As a hint, when you read people like Tarpley, Phd or any of the Globalists propagandists, you can tell they are pulling your leg when they drop words like "imperialists" and "colonialists" and other Marxists terminology that clouds their thinking and yours, as they are 19th century descriptions that no longer work in todays world - unless you are still a communist, trying to persuade the masses to join the failed revolution.


Tarpley blew his credibility, even among many 'truthers' and other CTs, with his involvement in the "Kennebunkport Warning" fraud. He was a longtime associate of LaDouche and is an apologist for Chinese occupation of Tibet.

#15 Steven Gaal

Steven Gaal

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2012 - 05:05 PM


As a hint, when you read people like Tarpley, Phd or any of the Globalists propagandists, you can tell they are pulling your leg when they drop words like "imperialists" and "colonialists" and other Marxists terminology that clouds their thinking and yours, as they are 19th century descriptions that no longer work in todays world - unless you are still a communist, trying to persuade the masses to join the failed revolution.


Tarpley blew his credibility, even among many 'truthers' and other CTs, with his involvement in the "Kennebunkport Warning" fraud. He was a longtime associate of LaDouche and is an apologist for Chinese occupation of Tibet.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
====================================================================
Its hard Len to keep up with the latest info.......well,harder for some and not others. ;)

Four Years Later: The Kennebunkport Warning of August 2007 Confirmed by Dick Cheney in his New Autobiography
[Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
August 31, 2011
This week marks the fourth anniversary of the Kennebunkport Warning, whose text the reader will find elsewhere on this web site, together with related documentation. The Kennebunkport Warning of late August 2007 sought to prevent a false flag terror operation designed by the US-UK rogue network to facilitate an attack on Iran and/or Syria. Today, four years later, world events have come full circle, and we must once again be on guard for a new and wider war in the same region. This might take the form of an attack by Turkey on Syria, organized in advance with the NATO command and occurring under the cover story of events inside Syria, where an uprising of armed commandos of the Moslem Brotherhood now appears to have been largely quelled by the Syrian Army.

In order to attack Syria without being portrayed as an aggressor, Turkey will need a better pretext. Given the traditions of NATO, it is likely that an attempt will be made to furnish such a pretext in the form of a false flag terror event inside Turkey to be blamed on Syria or Hezbollah, or in the form of an staged Gulf of Tonkin incident to permit the charge that Syria attacked Turkey first. Or, a large massacre of Moslem Brotherhood supporters inside Syria could be carried out in reality or merely simulated on a Hollywood set in Doha, Qatar, to motivate an invasion based on humanitarian grounds.

Cheney’s June 2007 Demand for an Attack on Syria

Former US Vice President Dick Cheney is about to publish his autobiography, In My Time. Here, according to pre-publication press accounts, Cheney describes his June 2007 attempt to convince Bush to launch a bombing attack on Syria over the alleged Syrian nuclear program. Cheney says that he raised the issue, apparently at a meeting of the National Security Council. Bush asked if there was any support for the idea, and there was none. So, Cheney’s attempt to launch the attack on Syria by way of legal and institutional channels failed.

Here is part of Cheney’s account:

“‘I again made the case for US military action against the reactor,’ Mr. Cheney writes of a June 2007 White House meeting on the issue. ‘But I was a lone voice. After I finished, the President asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the Vice-President?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.” In the event, the site was destroyed three months later by Israeli warplanes.” (London Independent, August 26, 2011, http://www.independe...ia-2344112.html)

Cheney does not relate in his book what happened then. The US rogue network (variously referred to as invisible government, secret government, parallel government, or deep state – of which Cheney is a spokesman, operative, or appendage), having been rebuffed by the legal government in the form of the Bush NSC, characteristically sought to carry out the desired attack anyway, by illegal means.

It was around July 21, 2007 that I posted on the internet an article entitled “Cheney Determined to Strike in US.” This article became the headline story on the front page of the Rock Creek Free Press, and was thus widely distributed in boxes all over Washington DC, especially around Metro stations.

During August 2007, “Cheney Determined to Strike in US” was a very accurate description of the central political reality. This is what Cheney has now confirmed for us in his autobiography.

The Rogue B-52, Hijacked by the Parallel Government
Rogue network personnel embedded in the US Air Force hijacked a US Air Force B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber equipped with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles and flew it from Minot AFB in Colorado to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, the latter being the main point of departure for US flights to the Middle East. This flight was made totally outside of the command and control procedures of the US Air Force; it was an invisible government operation. It is clear that this rogue B-52 was intended to join the Israeli attack on Syria, which did in fact occur at the end of the first week of September, 2007.

Fortunately, the flight of this hijacked rogue B-52 towards the Middle East was blocked on the runway at Barksdale. This was done partly by rival intelligence factions, whose clash enveloped official Washington in a test of wills. In the end, the neocon faction was defeated, and the Brzezinski faction gained the upper hand.

In the background, it is entirely possible that the Kennebunkport Warning, for which signatures had been organized by Bruce Marshall and others, was on its way to being posted on over 110,000 websites, contributed something to blocking the flight of the rogue B-52.

In the wake of these events, a number of individuals and web sites in the 9/11 truth movement outdid themselves in condemning not the faction behind Cheney, but rather the Kennebunkport Warning and its supporters. They should have been agitating for an immediate investigation of the rogue B-52, which might have exposed some of the tentacles of the rogue network, which has remained more or less untouched. By their actions, these individuals and web sites helped usher in the substantial collapse of the 9/11 truth movement, which largely fell apart during 2008 and 2009.

The following summary of issues around the Kennebunkport Warning, written in October 2007, sums up the lessons of these events.

The Kennebunkport Warning And The Rogue B-52 – Confirmation With A Vengeance
By Webster G. Tarpley
October 8, 2007

The events of August and September 2007 now allow us to evaluate the accuracy of the August 26 Kennebunkport Warning, which generated much attention and controversy from the moment it was issued. The preliminary verdict of history is now in, and establishes the Kennebunkport Warning as one of the most remarkable successes of open source intelligence forecasting in recent decades. It may even have directly helped to disrupt Cheney’s plan for a nuclear sneak attack on Iran.

The Kennebunkport Warning was written in the afternoon of August 24, 2007. Support signatures were obtained in Kennebunkport, Maine later on August 24, and primarily on August 25. The document was sent out to a list of recipients in the US and abroad just before midnight eastern time on Sunday, August 26. The first known internet posting was on the Jeff Rense web site (www.rense.com), where the document appeared before midnight Pacific time on Sunday, August 26. The Kennebunkport Warning was thus in public view all day on Monday, August 27.

On Tuesday, August 28, Bush signaled an escalation of tensions with Iran in a raving speech before the American Legion convention in Kansas. Here he warned that the Middle East now lay in the shadow of a “nuclear holocaust” because of the Iranian nuclear program. He accused Iran of acting as a state sponsor of terrorism, intervening against the US forces in Iraq, and also made allegations about Iran as a backer of Hezbollah and Hamas. Diplomatic observers recognized that this tirade constituted an important intensification of US threats against Iran.

On Wednesday, August 29, Bush’s threats moved a step towards fulfillment as US Air Force personnel loaded six cruise missiles onto the wing mounts of a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. Each of the missiles carried a nuclear warhead of between 5 and 150 kilotons of explosive power. Reportedly because of mechanical problems, the loading process took some 8 hours.

On Thursday, August 30, the rogue B-52, with its cargo of six deadly nuclear-armed cruise missiles, made the 3.5 hour flight across the US to Barksdale, Louisiana. Barksdale is the number two US headquarters for nuclear warfighting, second only to Offutt AFB in Nebraska. Barksdale is also the jumping-off base for direct B-52 bombing runs into the Middle East, a role which Barksdale played in the shock and awe campaign in Iraq in the spring of 2003. By the time the rogue B-52 reached Barksdale, cataclysmic events were not far off. This was exactly the kind of situation which the Kennebunkport Warning, which by that time had been circulating on the internet for about three and a half days, had been concerned about.

At around this time, the rogue B-52 and its cargo appear to have come to a halt. Between the late afternoon of August 30 and the public announcement of the rogue B-52 incident on the afternoon of September 5, we enter a gray area which requires much further investigation. According to Wayne Madsen, it was a “revolt and push-back” by Air Force personnel determined to block a wider war in the Middle East from being set off by a nuclear sneak attack, with support from elements of the intelligence community, which blocked the rogue B-52 from proceeding towards a possible appointment with Armageddon in Iran or elsewhere in that region. This was exactly the case of loyal and patriotic military people refusing to obey an illegal order which the Kennebunkport Warning had pointed to less than four days earlier. As Madsen writes: “elements of the Air Force, supported by US intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and the US Intelligence Community.” (“Air Force Refused to Fly Weapons to Middle East Theater,” September 24, 2007, Wayne Madsen Report.)

The Kennebunkport Warning thus represents an exceptionally successful effort to alert public opinion to a grave and imminent danger. Precisely the dangerous situation the Kennebunkport Warning talked about occurred in reality less than four days after the document had been posted on the internet. The Kennebunkport Warning must be acknowledged as accurate, timely, necessary, and indispensable for anyone seriously interested in stopping a wider war with irreversible consequences.

On July 21, rense.com posted an analysis entitled “Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD This Summer.” This article was published as the front page story of the Rock Creek Free Press, and was displayed in news boxes in the Washington DC subway during August and into September. With the exposure of the rogue B-52 affair, this warning was also fully vindicated.

But there may be a further dimension. It cannot be excluded that the loyal and patriotic military and intelligence people who blocked the plan of the Cheney clique to use the nuclear cruise missiles in the Middle East, or even against a target or targets in the United States, had some how been encouraged to act by having seen the Kennebunkport Warning. The period of August 30 to September 5, when the crucial actions regarding the rogue B-52 would have had to occur, corresponds precisely to the maximum diffusion of the Kennebunkport Warning on the internet. On September 1, a Google search indicated that the Kennebunkport Warning was either posted in full or was mentioned on 72,000 web sites worldwide. By September 2, this figure had risen to 102,000 web sites. On September 3, the maximum diffusion of 110,000 web sites was attained. These figures do not include e-mailings and other forms of attention generated by the vast interest and lively controversy generated by the document. In any case, those who stopped the nukes from going to the Middle East are unsung heroes who deserve recognition.

On September 5, the US Air Force made a public announcement of the rogue B-52, which is quickly the subject of dispatches by Agence France Presse, The Army Times, The Air Force Times, and other wire services and web sites. Considerable press interest was generated, but, so far as is known, not one member of Congress or presidential candidate of either major party has lifted a finger to start the obviously imperative in-depth investigation of the entire incident, including the half-dozen deaths which may be a result of this incident. These deaths include:

Airman First Class Todd Blue, 20 years old, died Wyethville, Virginia, September 12
Two people from Barksdale Air Force Base (names unknown), died Caddo Parish, Louisiana, September 15
Airman Adam Barrs, aged 20, killed in an auto crash in Minot, July 5
Air Force 1st Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, B-52 pilot assigned to the 23rd Bomb Wing at the Minot base, killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee (date unknown)
Air Force Capt. John Frueh (age unknown), found dead in Skamania County, Washington state, September 2
On September 6, the Syrian News Agency SANA announced that the Israeli Air Force had mounted an incursion into the air space of northern Syria, and had jettisoned drop tanks and bombs along the Syrian-Turkish border. The Turkish Foreign Ministry protested the objects that had fallen on Turkish territory. The Israelis first denied, but later admitted, that this illegal incursion, an ipso facto act of aggressive war, had taken place. Middle East experts estimated that the Israelis had been probing the Syrian and Iranian air defenses, but that they had been driven off by the new and superior Russian air defense systems now fielded by these two countries. This meant that the US-UK-Israeli model of air blitzkrieg was now in crisis, just as the Israeli land blitzkrieg technique had been defeated by Hezbollah in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. To cover up this humiliating defeat, the Israelis later concocted a story that this had been a successful air attack on a nuclear facility operating in Syria with North Korean assistance; this silly tale was then retailed by neocon John Bolton and also by warmonger Democrat Hillary Clinton in a candidates’ debate. But any bombing of a nuclear facility would have had to produce a cloud of radioactive nuclear debris, which would have been registered by Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, Japan, or some other state in the region. Since no such reports have ever come to light, it must be assumed that the Israeli story was fabricated in an attempt to cover up the repulse of the Israeli jets.

According to Madsen, the rogue B-52′s cruise missiles were very likely linked to the Israeli sneak attack: “WMR has learned that a US attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel’s September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr-az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel’s attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the US to strike Iran.”

On Friday, September 7, Joseph Cirincione is interviewed on the Bill Press morning show on Air America. Cirincione argues that transporting nuclear missiles by air is an exceedingly rare occurrence. It emerges that the US Air Force officially ceased air transport of nuclear weapons around 1968, partly as a result of crashes and lost bombs in the US, Spain, and elsewhere.
Shortly after this, the US Air Force announced a highly unusual stand-down of the entire USAF for Friday, September 14. The announced goal was to have all units at all levels review operating procedures and safeguards having to do with the handling of nuclear weapons.

On Sunday, September 23, the Washington Post published a front page article above the fold which offered a sanitized version of the rogue B-52 story. Even in this sanitized form, an article of this sort would normally have been enough to trigger a congressional investigation, with hearings and witnesses subpoenaed to testify under oath. But the Democratic leadership has done nothing to force such a probe ­ meaning in effect that the Cheney clique has paid no real price for an attempt to start a nuclear war! This active complicity of the Democratic Party in war and genocide, typified by the neocon-warmonger candidacy of Mrs. Clinton (the new Thatcher) mightily encourages the Cheney clique to have another go at World War III.

On Monday, September 24, Wayne Madsen Report posted a story which concluded that “the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, was destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. [] It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of command and control chain-of-command ‘failures,’ but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons.”

This report does not however mention the possibility that one or more of the cruise missiles was destined to be used against an American city, as prescribed by the Cheney Doctrine. A stealth cruise missile fired at night would be almost undetectable; all the public would see would be a nuclear fireball. Predictably, the target city would be swarming with patsies and dupes carrying large suitcases or trunks with “Al Qaeda” or “Osama Bin Laden” monograms. At that point, Cheney would have the “suitcase bomb” pretext he so ardently desires. Madsen also does not discuss the half-dozen people connected to the Minot or Barksdale Air Bases who had perished under mysterious circumstances between July and September 2007. But Madsen does stress one critical fact: according to reliable sources, one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was reported missing in the course of the incident, and there was some indication that it was never found: “WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and still may be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.”

On October 2, David Swanson, an early critic of the Kennebunkport Warning, issued a statement on Iran entitled “Leading Americans,” with the signatures of a number of well-known personalities from politics, entertainment, and the arts. This belated statement is of course to be welcomed, but at the same time its weakness and narrowness, especially if compared to the Kennebunkport Warning, must also be pointed out. As soon as the Kennebunkport Warning had been published, Swanson challenged the notion that there was “massive evidence” of a false flag provocation by Cheney, to be used as a pretext to launch war with Iran. This new statement, coming five weeks after the Kennebunkport Warning, and thus too late to influence the rogue B-52 affair, now acknowledges the danger of an attack, and urges US military personnel to refuse to obey illegal orders. So far, so good. There is, however, no reference to the rogue B-52 incident, in which Air Force personnel have apparently done just what the statement urges. There is no reference to the question of a false flag attack. There are warnings against a “preemptive” attack on Iran, but Bush and Cheney, as well as their accomplice Mrs. Clinton, are already presenting the attack on Iran as retaliatory, aimed at stopping Iranian interference in Iran. Any US attack on Iran predicated on a false flag terror attack inside the US (as noted by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Feb. 1 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) would be portrayed as purely defensive. The Swanson statement therefore has an escape clause in it big enough for Cheney to sail an aircraft carrier battle group through. Instead of such an uncertain trumpet, we must state unequivocally: NO ATTACK ON IRAN, SYRIA, PAKISTAN, SUDAN, LEBANON, VENEZUELA, NORTH KOREA or any other country, including the United States, for any reason. False flag events must be attributed to Cheney, and not to the governments or forces accused and scapegoated by US-UK propaganda.

As for the scurrilous “Cosmos,” “Colonel Jenny Sparks,” “Arabesque,” and Michael Wolsey, to say nothing of their comrade in arms, the Ford Foundation’s favorite Chip Berlet, they have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran. Their sole focus is to harass and sabotage those who are undertaking action in that regard ­ and remarkably effective action it has turned out to be, despite the exertions of the wreckers.

We urge all persons of good will to support, endorse, and distribute the Kennebunkport Warning, which is fully as relevant today as when it was issued. Above all, it is necessary to agitate in every way possible to force a public investigation of the rogue B-52 case, which allows us to address both the impeachment of the current executive branch and blocking the planned war with Iran. In addition, all investigate journalists are called upon to contribute to the findings of the research written herein.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooo

Edited by Steven Gaal, 06 January 2012 - 10:55 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users