Is Charlie Hebdo a Western Hate-Machine?

Is Charlie Hebdo a Western Hate-Machine?

By Ahmed RAJEEV (Bangladesh)

Ex: http://orientalreview.org

On Thursday French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo published another insulting cartoon on the tragic incident of Russian plane crash in Sinai, Egypt. Charlie Hebdo ridiculed the plane crash by two cartoons. The first cartoon shows parts of the aircraft and a passenger falling toward the ground, while an Islamic State militant, armed with a gun, ducks for cover to avoid the falling debris. Underneath the caricature is the caption: “Daesh: Russia’s aviation intensifies its bombardments.” And the second cartoon showed a skull and a destroyed plane on the ground, with the caption: “The dangers of low-cost Russia. I should have taken Air Cocaine.””

From the very beginning, Charlie Hebdo has been intentionally injecting inhumane hatred in traditional societies worldwide. It published cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (PUBH) who has a follower of more than 1.5 billion, to pump up religious hatred worldwide.  It published a cartoon after the discovery of plane wreckage confirmed to belong to missing Malaysian Airline flight MH370. The cover of the edition showed a pair of hands groping what appeared to be at first glance coconuts, but was actually a pair of breasts. And the caption says, “We’ve found a bit of the pilot and the air hostess,” as two onlookers celebrate in the background.  Another publication mocked the drowning of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi who died during a perilous journey across the Mediterranean to try and reach Europe along with his family. The poster showed Jesus walking on water with the dead Muslim boy next to him. And the caption said, “Welcome migrants, you are so close to the goal.” There was another cartoon with captioned “Christians walk on water… Muslims kids sink,” They kept their unacceptable offensive satirical reporting despite the global wave of empathy after their office suffered a deadly terrorist attack in January 2015.

Charlie Hebdo never criticizes liberalism or liberal ideologies. It works irresponsibly as a fascist’s tool for the liberals. It attacks recklessly any kind of anti-liberal, anti-western establishments. On the other hand, on the disguise of liberalism or freedom or freedom of expression they are being used as a tool of social-psycho oppression for the West. The Western geopolitical aims to destroy the organic social harmony and install puppet governments in resilient states, are very aligned to the Charlie Hebdo’s editorial policy. So Charlie Hebdo is a direct threat to traditional cultures and lifestyles. It is a hate-machine! It is a Western tool to promote psychopathic hatred among different racial and cultural groups in the name of “freedom of expression” to serve geopolitical purposes of their masters.

Ahmed Rajeev is the Executive Editor of Bangla Hunters News web-site.

Obama is Out of Control

Obama is Out of Control

By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics & http://www.lewrockwell.com

The United States is wagging its finger at Zimbabwe, threatening to ratchet up sanctions over a plan to develop a platinum mine involving Russian and Zimbabwean companies. Obama is attempting to impose his own rule of law over the entire world – my way or highway. He has no such constitutional authority and this guy who misses most of his daily briefings as Fox News reported, and countless others.

I am not kidding. This is precisely how Athens fells. It dictated to all its allies and one by one they turned against Athens and joined Sparta. Sparta was a virtual communist state and Athens was a state in a battle swinging back and forth between oligarchs and democracy.

Russia is rising and Obama is the direct cause of handing power to Russia in the EXACT same manner as we saw the fall of Athens. Piss-off all your allies and they then turn against you and joining your enemy. Your enemy is my friend – as the saying goes. Putin is way smarter than Obama. He has adopted the words of Abraham Lincoln, you destroy and enemy by making him your friend. Since he cannot do that with Obama, he is doing it with everyone around him. Putin is a master chess player – Obama may not even be capable of checkers.

Joe Biden is great for saying things he shouldn’t. Now Biden in a boast admitted publicly that the Americans have for the first time have forced the EU and Merkel against their will to sanction Russia. Joe Biden said that Obama has insisted that the EU take into account economic damage to punish the Russians. The Biden’s remarks make clear that Angela Merkel and her EU colleagues have followed the instructions of Obama against the self-interests of their own people. In Germany, this is having a serious impact for Merkel’s words of the free self-determination sound more like just political bullshit.

No in the parliamentary elections that took place in Latvia, the Pro-Russian party Harmony won with 23.3% –  the most votes of any party. Nevertheless, a change of government is, however, unlikely. Russia can thank Obama’s sanctions for more and more countries and regions are turning to Russia.

Previously ruling center-right coalition in Latvia of Prime Minister Laimdota Strsujuma coming together to almost 58 percent of the vote so there will be no real change. Nonetheless, we are seeing the rising trend in support of Russia around the globe.

Iran has rejected sending exports of energy to Europe. President Rouhani said Iran did not have enough gas to allow it to export to the EU. Tehran has since been living with sanctions of the West and therefore seeking an alliance with Moscow. Another great failure of sanctions.

Putin is gaining support in China, Middle East, and even making friends in South America. All Obama can do is sanction people trying to run the world like managing children, but Putin refuses to go to his room. So now what comes next – a spanking? Obama will never back off of sanction because then he has to admit he has been wrong. Nevertheless, domestic confidence in Obama is at record lows. The Republican pray he comes to their state to try to support the local democrat. The association with Obama is becoming disaster.

Reprinted from Armstrong Economics.

 

Copyright © 2014 Armstrong Economics

US Agents Incite Civil War in Venezuela

Nil NIKANDROV

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

Leopoldo López, the leader of radical opposition Popular Will (El Movimiento Voluntad Popular), has taken a decision to hand himself over to government forces. What has made him do so? Upon getting the news the arrest warrant was issued, he went in hiding, then tried to escape abroad. He changed his mind after the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (el Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional - SEBIN) made public a taped phone conversation. Two men from a Miami-based ultra-right emigrant group discussed the plans to physically liquidate Lopez and then shift the blame on the government of Nicolas Maduro. 

A number of terrorist groups were sent to Venezuela, they had accomplices in the ranks of Lopez’s team. The residence of US Central Intelligence Agency in Caracas knew about the terrorists’ plans. It never moved a finger to protect Lopez. He was doomed to face cold blooded and politically motivated action undertaken against him to serve the United States’ interests. Conspirators hoped this «sacred sacrifice» would give an impetus to the process of the country’s destabilization and make people hit the streets. The assassination had to cement the leading position of Enrique Capriles, an old time rival of Lopez, among the opposition ranks. 

Tensions run high in Venezuela. Lopez has created many problems for the ruling regime. At that, Diosdado Cabello Rondó, the President of the National Assembly (parliament), personally called the family of Lopez to give a warning about the imminent threat. The wife of Lopez said in an interview with CNN that she had no doubt the recording was genuine. The Lopez family knew well the people involved in the bugged conversation. Lopez was personally accompanied by Diosdado Cabello on his way to the Palace of Justice. He was given guarantees that the investigation of the events on February 12 would be just and impartial. The actions on the part of radical opposition leaders resulted in human loss of life, damage to administrative buildings and city’s infrastructure, including metro (underground). No doubt Lopez is guilty because it was him who called for «resolute actions». He is in high security prison now, the inquiry is underway. 

Talking to PDVSA (Petroleum of Venezuela, the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company - Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.) employees, President Nicolas Maduro said that Venezuelan reactionaries, who get funds from Miami, planned to assassinate ultra-right politician Lopez, their own fellow traveler, and spark a civil war in the country. Maduro remembered that the plotters have established a multi-million fund to provide for the activities of extremists, militants and murderers. Nevertheless, he said Leopoldo Lopez will be protected. The President said his father and mother were against them (Bolivarians) but deep inside their hearts they realized that the authorities were saving their son’s life. Maduro said another group of US diplomats was expelled from the country, claiming they gave promises to grant preferential visas and used their consulate cover to infiltrate universities and incite further students’ unrest. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said the three were: second secretary, Breeann Marie McCusker, and Vice Consuls Jeffrey Gordon Elsen and Kristofer Lee Clark. The expulsion does not create any serious problems for US special services using embassy cover, the operatives strength exceeds 200. Technically it is hard enough to keep them under the SEBIN surveillance. It’s not excluded that the number of diplomats will be limited to prevent subversive actions. No doubt such a step will decrease the intensiveness of the CIA and other hostile agencies operating in the country. 

Venezuelan political scholars unanimously say the United States embassy in Caracas is the main coordinating center of large-scale anti-government plot. The strategic goal of Washington is to establish control over the Venezuela’s riches – its mineral resources. The mission to be accomplished by conspirators is to shake the foundations of regime and smear its leadership, first of all President Nicolas Maduro, the successor of Hugo Chavez. It’s is becoming more evident that Washington is pursuing the goal of sparking a bloody civil war in Venezuela which would serve as a pretext for direct military intervention of the Empire. The springboards of the US armed forces Southern Command are already deployed along the Venezuelan border in Columbia, the countries of Central America and the Caribbean… 

The 4th operational fleet regularly hones its capability to block the Venezuelan coastline and prevent any attempts of the ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America - Peoples’ Trade Treaty, Spanish - Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América - Tratado de los Comercios de los Pueblos) to lend a helping hand. 

The economic war has been raging since the regime of Chavez came to power, it started to pick up steam during the Maduro’s tenure. The Venezueal media reports that huge piles of counterfeited goods from Venezuela, especially food and petrol, are daily comfiscated at the border with Columbia, Gayana and Brazil. Entrepeneurs are dissatisfied with the government actions aimed at preventing the process to get out of hand. So they hide everyday life goods. According to the so called Bolivarian people’s intelligence, there are secret caches of sugar, vegetable oil, milk powder etc. The commodities are immediately confiscated and sold through Mercal, a network of state-owned shops. As a result, the arsons are on the rise, they set of fire the «people’s» shops selling goods at low prices. 

The government is opposed by Fedecámaras (the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Spanish: la Federación de Cámaras y Asociaciones de Comercio y Producción de Venezuela) composed of chambers of commerce in twelve basic trade groups: banking, agriculture, commerce, construction, energy, manufacturing, media, mining, ranching, insurance, transportation, and tourism. They have their own TV channels and radio stations, newspapers and established internet-web portals. Up to 80% of media outlets belong to the opponents of the government. To no avail Chavez and Maduro tried to reach a compromise with their owners. The anti-government slander campaign never stops. Time and again influential mass media outlets follow the CIA instructions. Maduro and Diosdado Cabello regularly come under attacks, even direct threats, as they are predicted to follow the fate of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. The threats are tainted with fascist ideology; they are addressed to the families of Bolivarians, including children. This information terrorism is directed against all the politicians, who have fallen out of favor with the Empire, including the post-Soviet space. There is a question in Spanish often asked by internet users – what country will Maduro find safe haven in when toppled by the people’s uprising? The very same question is asked now about Ukrainian President Yanukovych. 

The law enforcement agencies prevent many attempts to create hot beds using the «Maidan technology» and «relevant Ukrainian experience» of toppling the legal government. Specially trained groups of young people are used after they receive training in Miami, Costa-Rica, Panama and other countries. Scores of burnt cars and buses, roadblocks, barricades erected…More and more often police reports tell about the crimes committed without any motivation, random shots fired at passers-by to incite public discontent because the government is unable to stop the criminals going on a rampage. Before this kind of tactics had been used by Mexico and Mexico drug cartels, now it is honed further by the US Central Intelligence Agency… 

Finally, there is a coordination of activities aimed at overthrow of governments in Venezuela, Ukraine and Russia’s allies. Could it be an attempt to take revenge for the failure in Syria? 

Que devrait faire l'Europe face à un “Djihadistan” au Moyen-Orient?

Que devrait faire l'Europe face à un “Djihadistan” au Moyen-Orient?

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Appelons “Djihadistan” un nouvel Etat qui s'installerait, à cheval sur la Syrie (dans le nord-est du pays) et sur l'Irak (dans l'Ouest et le Nord). Il résulterait des succès que rencontre actuellement le groupe djihadiste dirigé par l'Irakien Abou Bakr Al-Baghdadi, nommé l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL). L'ambition de ces combattants est de mettre en place un véritable nouvel Etat dans ces régions, contrôlant les populations, les ressources (pétrolières) et les territoires. Il s'agirait d'un Etat appliquant une charia rigoureuse capable de lui donner une puissance offensive idéologique bien au delà de ses frontières. Or l'Europe ne peut rester indifférente : l'EIIL séduit des centaines, peut-être des milliers, de jeunes musulmans européens, venus se battre dans ses rangs, essentiellement en Syrie.

Que pourrions nous conseiller, si nous étions en charge d'une encore improbable diplomatie européenne ?

• Prier instamment les Américains de ne pas intervenir militairement. C'est pourtant semble-t-il ce qu'ils se préparent à faire, en se limitant d'ailleurs à des frappes aériennes, envois d'armes et autres mesures aux retombées plus catastrophiques les unes que les autres. Il faut rappeler aux Américains que si la situation est ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui, c'est dans la continuité des politiques belliqueuses inaugurées par Bush. La chute de Saddam Hussein, qu'ils avaient provoquée, principalement pour s'emparer de ses ressources en pétrole, a contribué à soulever le couvercle d'une marmite qui depuis ne s'est jamais refermée. Qu'ils se limitent dorénavant à défendre leurs intérêts directs, par exemple les voies de communication à travers les détroits.

• Consulter les principaux Etats directement menacés par le futur Djihadistan, afin de définir avec eux des politiques de prévention, à moduler au cas par cas, et que l'Europe pourrait appuyer. Ces Etats, concernés à des titres différents sont la Russie, l'Iran, la Turquie, l'Egypte et, un peu plus loin, les pays du Maghreb, notamment l'Algérie. Il conviendra par contre de déployer la plus grande prudence à l'égard des pays du Golfe, notamment l'Arabie saoudite et le Qatar. Ceux-ci jouent simultanément plusieurs jeu, dont ils se servent pour abuser le monde entier: le jeu de leurs intérêts pétroliers et de leurs investissements économiques dans le monde, le jeu de l'Amérique, le jeu des multiples djihadistes qu'ils financent partout. Des contacts devront évidemment aussi être pris avec le Pakistan, sans oublier cependant que celui-ci pourrait prochainement se radicaliser sous l'effet des groupes djihadistes qui l'attaqueront de plus en plus et pourraient y prendre le pouvoir un jour.

• Cesser de tenter, à la suite des Américains, de renverser Bashar al Assad. La politique de la Russie, récemment rappelée par Vladimir Poutine, est la bonne: sans approuver ses excès considérer qu'il est seul à pouvoir empêcher une extension de l'EIIL à toute la Syrie

• Pratiquer une politique de non-intervention active à l'égard des différentes composantes du Djihadistan. Celles-ci sont trop diverses pour s'entendre longtemps. On verra ressurgir les oppositions entre tribus, entre sunnites, chiites et Kurdes, entre émirs et combattants d'origines différentes voulant exploiter à leur seul profit les conquêtes pétrolières faites. Il y a tout lieu de penser qu'en quelques mois, la belle union espérée par l'EIIL se sera désagrégée, et que des modus vivendi redeviendront possibles avec les voisins et avec les Européens eux-mêmes. Il suffirait sans doute d'attendre un peu. Malheureusement l'attente n'est pas une vertu que pratiquent les excités et néo-cons occidentaux de tous bords.

• Renforcer sur le territoire européen les politiques et de contrôle et de défense à l'égard des djihadistes, extérieurs ou provenant de l'Europe elle-même, qui tenteraient de la déstabiliser. Sur ce plan, que nous n'aborderons pas ici, les Européens auront fort à faire. Ils ne pourront compter que sur eux-mêmes à cette fin.

A partir de cela, un point très difficile restera à résoudre: comment l'Europe devrait-elle se comporter pour tenter de limiter les aventures de toutes sortes auxquelles pousse actuellement Israël, fort de l'appui américain - tout en assurant le cas échéant à l'Etat juif la nécessaire protection qu'il serait en droit d'attendre de l'Europe en cas d'embrasement de la région ?

Il semble que, pour Vladimir Poutine, se pose une question de même nature. Ce serait une raison de plus pour que les Européens se concertent avec les Russes afin de définir des politiques communes au Moyen Orient.

Jean-Paul Baquiast

Le monde arabe déstabilisé par les erreurs américaines

Irak : l’Iran allié des Usa… cherchez l’erreur

 

Le monde arabe déstabilisé par les erreurs américaines

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

L’Iran, pays que les Usa envisageaient de bombarder hier aux cotés des israéliens se porte en Irak au secours des protégés des américains en grave difficultés militaires. On ne peut mieux illustrer une situation ubuesque et terrifiante qui a complètement échappé aux scénarios élaborés par les stratèges de l'impérialisme démocratique.

Les américains n’ont jamais eu la bonne lecture. Derrière le terrorisme du 11 septembre, derrière la guerre de l’islamisme radical mené par la haine de la « civilisation occidentale » , il y a une guerre mondiale entre musulmans, entre chiites et sunnites. Les américains, en détruisant l’Irak de Saddam Hussein dominé par les sunnites, ont donné le pays à des chiites incapables de maintenir une unité entre les composantes irakiennes. Allié des chiites en Irak, Washington a tenté de les chasser du pouvoir en s’appuyant un  temps sur les islamistes sunnites en Syrie. Ces islamistes tentent aujourd’hui de reconstruire un califat sur les deux pays pour effacer les frontières tracées par les européens en fonctions de leurs intérêts de l'époque. C’est une menace que l'Iran ne peut accepter.

Quant à la démocratie qui devait tout régler, inutile de la chercher, elle n’est nulle part. L’Iran des gardiens de la révolution islamique aux cotés des Usa contre l’armée islamique du levant, difficile tout de même d’expliquer cela aux opinions publiques. L’incohérence politique et l’aveuglement idéologique est en train de présenter la note, elle sera lourde pour tout le monde.

Le président américain, qui ne cesse de proclamer que la page des guerres est tournée, s'est une nouvelle fois retrouvé brusquement confronté aux conséquences des interventions passées. Personne n'imaginerait revoir des soldats américains à Fallouja ou à Tikrit, sauf dans une mission de guidage de drones. Le vice-président Joe Biden, qui est chargé de la gestion des relations avec le gouvernement chiite de Bagdad, a appelé Nouri Al-Maliki pour lui faire savoir que les Etats-Unis sont « prêts à accélérer et intensifier leur soutien ». Lorsqu'il était candidat à la Maison Blanche, M. Biden avait été critiqué pour avoir suggéré la partition de l'Irak en décembre 2006. Depuis la prise de Kirkouk par les Kurdes, dans le nord du pays, l'idée est réapparue dans les médias américains. Les « faucons » sont persuadés que tout cela aurait pu être évité, avec une petite force résiduelle et que Barack Obama a choisi le retrait complet pour des raisons électorales. John McCain a « supplié » son ancien rival de revoir sa décision sur le retrait d'Afghanistan. « Les Afghans n'ont pas de capacités aériennes. S'il vous plaît, conservez une petite force en Afghanistan ! ». Les spécialistes de politique étrangère ont reproché au président d'avoir, par son inaction en Syrie, créé un vide qui a profité à l'EIIL.

En attendant une décision de Barack Obama, le secrétaire américain à la Défense Chuck Hagel a ordonné l'envoi d'un porte-avions dans le Golfe au cas où une intervention militaire serait nécessaire en Irak, où les djihadistes de l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant menacent Bagdad. Barack Obama doit désormais faire face à trois défis en Irak. Le premier est de prendre des mesures rapides pour stopper l'avancée des djihadistes sunnites de l'EIIL afin de les empêcher de s'emparer de l'Irak et d'en faire une base arrière d'où partiront des attaques vers l'extérieur qui pourraient cibler des intérêts américains. De telles mesures s'inscriraient dans la ligne définie le mois dernier par le président américain à l'académie militaire de West Point où il a expliqué que les Etats-Unis emploieraient la force lorsque leurs intérêts seront menacés.

A moyen-terme, les Etats-Unis doivent également s'assurer que l'Irak ne replonge pas dans une guerre civile opposant chiites et sunnites. A plus long terme, ils doivent enfin convaincre les alliés de l'Irak de s'inscrire dans un processus visant à maintenir l'unité du pays et persuader le Congrès de voter en faveur d'un plan de 5 milliards de dollars pour financer la lutte contre le terrorisme.

L'ancien émissaire international pour la Syrie, Lakhdar Brahimi, a estimé dans un entretien à l'AFP que l'offensive djihadiste en Irak résultait de l'inertie de la communauté internationale face au conflit qui fait rage en Syrie voisine depuis 2011. « C'est une règle bien connue : un conflit de ce genre ( en Syrie ) ne peut pas rester enfermé dans les frontières d'un seul pays. Malheureusement on a négligé le problème syrien et on n'a pas aidé à le résoudre. Voilà le résultat ». « Une personnalité irakienne m'a dit en novembre que l'EIIL était dix fois plus actif en Irak qu'en Syrie. J'ai mentionné cela au Conseil de sécurité et dans mes entretiens », raconte ce diplomate chevronné. Voisin de la Syrie, avec laquelle il partage une longue et poreuse frontière, « l'Irak a été comme une grosse blessure qui s'est infectée » avec le conflit syrien, souligne-t-il. 

Mais qui a créé la blessure et n’a jamais été capable de la soigner ?

The ISIS Crisis

The ISIS Crisis: Have The Sunnis Unleashed an Uncontrollable Genie?

by Gwenyth Todd

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The sudden, successful attack by the Islamic State Of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) caught many states off-guard.  While international attention has been diverted by the situation in the Ukraine, and to a lesser extent by the internal conflict in Syria, the wealthy Sunni states have been acting quickly and effectively to build a Sunni army made up of extremists militants from around the globe.

ISIS has been growing for the past decade.  Initially, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan seemed to welcome the support of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) into the fray of the Syrian civil war.  ISI was originally a group composed of dispossessed Iraqi Sunnis, bolstered by extremist Sunnis from other countries, to seek redress for those have lost family, influence and property as a result of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Many Iraqi Sunnis were forced to flee into Eastern Syria.  There they became increasingly radicalized against both the West and the Shi’a branch of Islam, represented in national form by the Government of Iran and, more recently, in the Government of post-2003 Iraq.

When Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan decided to try to unseat the Syrian political regime led by President Bashar Al-Assad, Turkey and others offered full support to ISI and other Sunni Muslim rebel groups with varying agendas.  In the process, an untold amount of arms and funds were provided to shadowy extremists.

It was only early in 2014 that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan seemed to realize that the ISI fighters would not make good allies in Syria, as it became clear that they included violent extremists.  By then, it was too late.  ISI now added another letter “S” for “Sham (meaning “Levant” or “Greater Syria”).  ISIS thus became officially a militia-style, angry, Islamic fundamentalist group,with a transnational,agenda.  A monster was maturing.

While Turkey pulled its support for ISIS in 2014, Gulf Arab states appear to have allowed their citizens to step into the breach and arm and fund ISIS.  The goal seems to be to accomplish what the US and the West refused to do: force the Shi’a from power in Syria and Iran while creating a new, credible threat to Israeli expansion into the occupied territories.  Members of ISIS are ready to die for their fundamentalist Sunni beliefs, something that most wealthy Gulf Arab states appreciate but want someone else to actually carry out.

The result is becoming increasingly clear.  ISIS militants, armed to the teeth with US military hardware, have mounted a thus successful, brutally violent and cruel attack on the Iraqi city of Mosul and beyond.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is begging the US for military assistance which Obama is loath to provide.  Iranian military units are reportedly already deployed within Iraq and may be all that stands between Baghdad surviving or falling to ISIS forces.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Arab states do not appear to comprehend just how existential a threat ISIS could pose to the monarchies of the Gulf, whom ISIS views as completely corrupt.  ISIS will accept Gulf Sunni money for now but will turn on them as soon as practical.  ISIS first wants to take back Iraq, topple the Iranian regime, topple the Syrian regime and then focus on bringing a more Islamic lifestyle to those Sunni states left standing. This lifestyle would be unacceptable to most Gulf businessmen and leaders, even in conservative countries like Saudi Arabia, but the Gulf states do not seem to understand the danger ISIS may pose in the long-term.

This is one conflict where both Israel and the US can sit back and observe, at least for now.  It is flushing out extremists on all sides and, in the short term, this is not seen as a bad thing by outsiders.  Similarly, the Gulf Arabs are basking in the glow of victory emanating from the fall of Mosul and the reported massacre of Shi’a residents, and are not looking ahead.

What can be done to avert further disaster?

The first step is to convince the Gulf Sunnis that ISIS is dangerous to them as well as everyone else.  This will not be easy.  The Gulf Sunnis have lived in fear since the toppling of Saddam in 2003 brought Iran to their borders.  The perceived betrayal by the US suggests that the Gulf Sunnis are not going to trust the US to advise them objectively.  Still, as more footage is released of the atrocities committed by ISIS, the Gulf Sunnis may become more open to dialogue.

The second step is to find out precisely how much support has already been provided to ISIS by regional actors so the international community can assess the scope of the military threat.  This is a delicate task.  Ensuring the Arabs do not “lose face” for having backed the extremists in ISIS since its inception may be impossible, but unless the Gulf Sunnis address the matter, the supply chain to ISIS of funds and armaments will continue unchecked.

Thirdly, if the Gulf Sunnis can accept that this ISIS monster must be destroyed, the reality that Iran is likely to be part of the effort will be very painful for them to accept.  It is a dangerous proposition for Sunni monarchies to cooperate with Shi’a groups when the Sunnis continue to treat their own Shi’a populations as second-class, unwelcome heretics.  That said, cooperation between Sunni and Shi’a will likely be critical in stopping the spread of the ISIS militia’s campaign.

For once, this is truly a regional war that the West, East and even Israel can likely watch play out as Sunnis and Shi’a fight each other to the death.  Yet from a Western and Israeli perspective ISIS cannot be allowed to actually win, any more than Iran can be allowed to win. Still, as long as oil continues to flow, it is unlikely the West will intervene in a meaningful, military manner, even though the civilian casualties are mounting exponentially.  The West would prefer to let Iran bear the burden of fighting ISIS, trusting that eventually the Gulf Sunni states will panic and stop supporting ISIS.  Until then, there will likely be a lot of sitting back and observing the conflict unfold.

Clearly, the ISIS genie is out of its bottle and its masters have yet to order it back inside. The question is, do its masters still have the authority to contain it if the situation worsens? At this point, it seems highly doubtful that the key Sunni players in the region are thinking that far ahead.

Gwenyth Todd a former Adviser to President Clinton, expert in international security policy, she hold M.A from Georgetown University, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“ 

Russia’s Gazprom signs Agreement to Abandon the Dollar

Grand Geopolitical Project: Russia’s Gazprom signs Agreement to Abandon the Dollar

By Umberto Pascali

Global Research, June 07, 2014

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/grand-geopolitical-project-russias-gazprom-signs-agreement-to-abandon-the-dollar/5386045

“It’s only the tip of the iceberg. A grand geopolitical project is beginning to materialize…”

 On June 6 2014, the official Russian news agency Itar Tass announced what many were expecting since at least the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis: Russian main energy company, Gazprom Neft has finally “signed agreements with its consumers” to switch from Dollars to Euros (as transition to the ruble) “for payments under contracts”.

The announcement that the agreement has been actually signed and not just discussed was made by Gazprom’s Chief Executive Officer, Alexander Dyukov.

Despite the pressures from Wall Street and its military, propaganda and political apparatus, 9 out of 10 consumers of Gazprom’s oil and gas agreed to pay in Euros. Of course, the big watershed was the Gazprom unprecedented 30-years $400Bl natural gas supply to China signed in Shanghai last May 21 in the presence of President Putin and President Xi Jinping in the middle of the Anglo-american sponsored violent destabilization of Ukraine. In fact it is improper to talk a dollar denominated $400Bl, because this “biggest deal” will not be using dollars but the Renminbi (or Yuan) and the Russian Ruble. It links China and Russia economically and strategically for three decades, de facto (and maybe later also de jure) creating an unshakable symbiotic alliance that necessarily will involve the military aspect.

The Russia-China agreement is a clear defeat of the obsessive geopolitical attempts by Wall Street to keep the two country in a situation of competition or, ideally, war-like confrontation. It changes the structure of alliances. It strikes at the historical foundations of British colonial geopolitics (Divide and Rule). Under escalating pressures and threats to their national security, Russia and China overcame brilliantly historical, ideological, cultural differences which had previously been been by the colonial powers (and their financial heirs in Wall Street and the London’s city) for their “Divide & Conquer” strategy.

Furthermore, to the horror of London and Washington, China and Russia concluded an agreement with India (the BRICS!) breaking the other holy tenet of British colonial geopolitics: The secret to controlling Asia, and thus Eurasia has always been to instigate a perennial rivalry between India, China, and Russia. This was the formula for the 19^th century “Great Game”. This was why Obama was selected to succeed George W Bush. The then vice Presidential candidate Joseph Biden announced it very openly on Aug 27 2008 at the Democratic Convention in Denver, explaining why the Obama-Biden duo had been chosen to take over the White House. The greatest mistake of the Bush administration and the Republicans, he said, was not their atrocious unchained warmongering, but their failure

“to face the biggest forces shaping this century. The emergence of Russia, China and India’s great powers”. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s protégé Barack Obama was to defeat this “threat”. Obviously they failed! But this explains the dogged, irrational, King Canute-style self-destructive arrogance that has taken over the present Administration.

The significance of these developments should be emphasized in relation to both the real economy and  the underlying financial structures. These developments in Eurasia are likely to have weaken on “the chains that have tied the European Union to Wall Street and the City of London”.  The end of the dollar payment system (Aka Petro-dollar) does not concern the currency of the United States or the United States as such. In fact overcoming this system could mean  the restoration of a rational and prosperous economy in the United States itself. What is known as “dollar system” has been just an instrument of feudal financial centers to loot the economy of the world. These centers are ready to do anything to save their right to loot. It is well known that whoever tried, until now, to create an alternative to the dollar system, met a ferocious reaction.

It is fitting to remember in this moment of great hope, the words of one of the very few great living strategists, Gen. Leonid Ivashov. On June 15 2011, reflecting on the savage destruction of Libya, the general who is an unofficial spokesman of the Russian armed forces and has been Russia’s representative in NATO, wrote

“BRICS and the Mission of Reconfiguring the World.”

Whoever challenges the dollar hegemony, explained Ivashov, becomes a target. 

He gave precise examples: Iraq, Libya, Iran:

“the countries which defied dollar dominance invariably came under heavy pressure and in a number of cases – under devastating attacks.” But the “the financial empires built by Rothschilds and Rockefellers are powerless against the five largest civilizations represented by the BRICS.”

Thus, Ivashov advocated a coordinated strategy by countries representing half of the world population to win their independence using their own currency.

“The shift to national currencies in the financial transactions between the BRICS countries should guarantee an unprecedented level of their independence…”

Since the collapse of the USSR, the countries which defied dollar dominance invariably came under heavy pressure and in a number of cases – under devastating attacks. Saddam Hussein –who banned dollar circulation in all spheres of Iraq’s economy including oil trade– was displaced and executed and his country was left in ruins. M. Gaddafi started switching Libya’s oil and gas business to gold-backed Arab currencies and air raids against the country followed almost immediately… Tehran had to put its plan to stay dollar-free on hold to avoid falling victim to aggression.

Still, even enjoying unlimited US support, the financial empires built by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are powerless against the five largest civilizations represented by countries accounting for nearly half of the world’s population. BRICS is clearly immune to forceful pressure, its member countries do not appear vulnerable to color revolutions, and the strategy of provoking and exporting financial crises may easily backfire.

In contrast to the US and the EU, BRICS countries altogether own natural resources sufficient not only to keep their economies afloat in the settings of contracting availability of hydrocarbon fuels, food, potable water, and electric power but also to sustain vigorous economic growth. The shift to national currencies in the financial transactions between the BRICS countries should guarantee an unprecedented level of their independence from the US and from the West in general, but even that is only the tip of the iceberg. A grand geopolitical project is beginning to materialize

Now it’s the moment for Europe to decide the big step. The Ukrainian crisis is in reality a Battle for Europe.

The elites of Continental Europe — The Germany of Alfred Herrausen, the France of Charles De Gaulle, the Italy of Enrico Mattei and Aldo Moro, the Europe that tried to road of sovereignty and independence … have been until now terrorized and threatened exactly in the terms explained by Gen Ivashov. Now the Battle for Europe is raging. We will look in a coming article at the great European forces, the silent partners, still traumatized and scared, who are looking with trepidation and painful memories of the past defeats at the firm stand of Russia.

www.globalresearch.ca/grand-geopolitical-project-russias-gazprom-signs-agreement-to-abandon-the-dollar/5386045" data-title="Grand Geopolitical Project: Russia’s Gazprom signs Agreement to Abandon the Dollar">

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Putin steunt Maliki

Putin steunt Maliki: Rusland en VS nu ook in Irak tegenover elkaar

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

Chaos in het Midden Oosten steeds groter

Irak beschuldigt Saudi Arabië van genocide

Irak dreigt in drie delen uiteen te vallen

Om te voorkomen dat Irak opnieuw in vlammen opgaat is de Russische premier Putin achter premier Al-Maliki (inzet) gaan staan, die gisteren gedumpt werd door Amerika (2).

Nadat Amerika gisteren Maliki –niet langer een gehoorzame pion van Washington- openlijk liet vallen, bevestigde Putin per telefoon snel zijn ‘volledige steun voor de Iraakse acties om het grondgebied snel te bevrijden van terroristen.’ Het Kremlin voegde daaraan toe dat beide leiders bilaterale samenwerking hebben besproken.

De complexe, chaotische situatie in het Midden Oosten is nauwelijks meer te ontrafelen. De belangrijkste situaties en ontwikkelingen in en rond Irak op een rijtje:

* ISIS in Irak bestaat feitelijk uit twee legers, waarvan één wordt gedomineerd door Al-Qaeda. Bij dat leger hebben diverse Soefistische groeperingen, Saddam Husseins oude Baath Partij en door Amerika getrainde stammen van de ‘Soenitische Ontwaking Raad’ zich aangesloten. Inmiddels lijkt ook de hoofdstad Baghdad aan hen te prooi te kunnen gaan vallen. (4)

* Amerika stuurt geen troepen, maar slechts 300 ‘militaire adviseurs’ naar Irak (4), en steunt nu stilzwijgend de Iraanse militaire interventie. Tegelijkertijd wordt Teheran onder druk gezet om concessies te doen aangaande het omstreden nucleaire programma van het land.

* Saudi Arabië wil op goede voet blijven staan met de VS, maar staat vijandig tegenover het Iraakse regime en steunt ISIS met onder andere wapenleveranties. In tegenstelling tot Amerika zijn de Saudi’s mordicus tegen Iraanse inmenging in Irak. Vanwege de Saudische steun voor ISIS beschuldigde de Iraakse regering de Saudiërs van ‘genocide’ en ‘de vernietiging van de Iraakse staatsinstellingen en historische en religieuze locaties.’

* Iran stelt zich wat Irak betreft plotseling op als Amerika’s beste vriend in de regio, en lijkt bereid meer troepen te sturen om te voorkomen dat het land compleet ten prooi valt aan ISIS.

* In Syrië kan president Bashar Assad kan rustig achterover leunen en glimlachend constateren dat het de regering Obama ondanks diens steun voor de Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda rebellen niet is gelukt om hem te verdrijven. Zijn eigen leger blijft het echter heel moeilijk hebben met deze rebellen, die nog lang niet verslagen zijn.

* Qatar steunt de Syrische rebellen, maar stelt zich vooralsnog terughoudend op over Irak. Vermoed wordt dat het land direct of indirect ISIS steunt.

* Jordanië, een goede vriend van de VS, heeft op een geheime basis ISIS-terroristen laten trainen door Amerikaanse instructeurs. Amerikaanse troepen en vliegtuigen moeten Jordanië beschermen tegen eventuele vergeldingsaanvallen uit Syrië.

* In Turkije, NAVO-lid, is met Turkse militaire steun op een basis bij de luchtmachtbasis Incirlik hetzelfde gebeurd. De Turken steunen openlijk de Syrische rebellen en heimelijk ISIS, maar zouden die steun kunnen loslaten vanwege de politieke en ideologische toenadering tussen de regering Erdogan en de Iraanse president Hassan Rouhani.

* De Koerden lijken daardoor meer speelruimte te hebben in Noord Irak. Volgens Veysel Ayhan, directeur van het International Middel East Peace Research Center (IMPR) in Ankara, begint premier Erdogan te accepteren dat Irak in drie delen uiteen zou kunnen vallen: een Shi’itische deel in het Oosten en Zuiden, een Soennitische deel in het Westen, en een Koerdisch deel in het Noorden. (5)

* Rusland, dat in Syrië van meet af aan bondgenoot Assad is blijven steunen, heeft nu ook in Irak partij gekozen tegen Amerika. Tegelijkertijd profiteert het Kremlin van de stijgende olieprijzen. Het Russische Lukoil investeert fors in het enorme Iraakse West-Qurna-2 olieveld, dat in handen van ISIS zou kunnen vallen. Dat wil Putin ten koste van alles voorkomen.

* Israël, waar de massale zoektocht naar de drie door Hamas ontvoerde tieners nog altijd voortduurt, kijkt met gemengde gevoelens naar de almaar groter wordende chaos over de grenzen. Aan de ene kant leidt het de moslimlanden af van hun haat tegen de Joodse staat; aan de andere kant dreigen veel landen in handen te vallen van extremistische islamisten, die zich later zouden kunnen verenigen in een nieuwe oorlog tegen Israël.

En dan hebben we ook nog Libanon (Hezbollah, het Iraanse proxy-leger dat Assad steunt), Egypte, waar het leger probeert de Moslim Broederschap te verpletteren, Libië, dat nog altijd wordt verscheurd door islamistische krachten zoals Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, waar de Taliban nog steeds niet is verslagen en 1,5 miljoen mensen op de vlucht zijn geslagen, en natuurlijk Pakistan, dat eveneens moet blijven vechten tegen terroristen. Ook in Soedan, Somalië en Nigeria zaaien moslimgroepen dood en verderf.

Niet voor niets waarschuwde de VN eerder deze week voor een nieuwe regionale oorlog. Gezien de talloze brandhaarden lijkt slechts een klein vonkje al voldoende.

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge
(2) Zero Hedge
(3) Zero Hedge
(4) DEBKA
(5) Shoebat

Enkele zinnen Koerdische geschiedenis

De derde partij

Door de mediagekte rond de Amerikaanse aanval op Syrië en door de aanhoudende burgeroorlog in en rond Damaskus, zouden we wel eens kunnen vergeten dat er intussen nieuwe frontlijnen aan het ontstaan zijn. Natuurlijk is in de meeste landen waar de zogenaamde Arabische Lente is door- of overgetrokken, de frontlijn er dikwijls één van een strijd – op leven en dood – tussen Soennieten en Sjiieten, maar de burgeroorlog in Syrië heeft in elk geval een nieuwe, bijkomende dynamiek op gang gebracht. Ik heb het over de Koerdische kwestie. Door de burgeroorlog slagen de Koerden er met naam in zich steeds duidelijker te onttrekken aan het centrale Syrische gezag.

De Koerden: het woord is gevallen.

Enkele zinnen Koerdische geschiedenis

Peter Logghe

Ex: Nieuwsbrief Deltapers nr. 75 - September 2013

De Koerden zijn een unieke etnische bevolkingsgroep die een eigen taal spreken. Ze zouden mogelijk verwant kunnen zijn met de oud-antieke Meden.  In totaal gaat het om zo’n 30 tot 50 miljoen mensen, die buiten het Europees grondgebied de grootste slachtoffers werden van het einde van de Eerste Wereldoorlog. Op dat moment viel namelijk ook het grote Ottomaanse Rijk uiteen en de Koerden werden als volk – zonder eigen staat – verdeeld over 4 staten: Turkije, Syrië, Iran en Irak. Nochtans was in de “Vrede van Sèvres” in 1920 uitdrukkelijk het bestaan van een onafhankelijk Koerdistan in het vooruitzicht gesteld, maar de Turken onder leiding van Atatürk beslisten er anders over. In de verdragstekst van de “Vrede van Lausanne”, een nieuw verdrag van 1923, kwam Koerdistan niet meer voor.

De PKK van Ocalan is natuurlijk bij het brede publiek bekend, en ook de onderdrukking van de Koerden in Turkije – met de vernieling van minstens 3.000 dorpen en tienduizenden doden – spreekt tot de verbeelding. Maar veel beter verging het de Koerden niet in Irak en Iran. In Irak werd er wel officieel een autonome regio voor de Iraakse Koerden opgericht, mét een eigen parlement, maar in feite bleef het grondgebied gecontroleerd door Saddam Hoessein. De Koerden zijn eigenlijk al eeuwen de speelbal van verschillende regionale machten en niet van de minste.

In Syrië bijvoorbeeld hadden de Koerden tot voor kort geen gelijke rechten en was hun taal ook niet erkend. Ze werden uitgesloten van het Syrische staatsburgerschap, alhoewel Assad de Koerden sinds kort hun staatsburgerschap terug had gegeven, allicht om hun positiever te stemmen. De Syrische troepen werden uit het gebied teruggehaald en het zal allicht niemand verwonderen dat de Koerden in Syrië niet stonden te trappelen om het regime van Assad omver te werpen.

Komt er een algemene Koerdische opstand?

De tegenstanders van Assad maken het de Koerden die toch in opstand zouden willen komen tegen Assad, niet gemakkelijk. Zo stelde de overkoepelende organisatie van de Syrisch-Arabische oppositie, de SNC, aldus het Duits-conservatieve weekblad Junge Freiheit (nr. 36/13, 30 augustus 2013) dat Syrië “een Arabische identiteit” heeft. En met radicaal-islamitische organisaties, die de SNC grotendeels bevolken, kunnen de Koerden al helemaal niet om. Die radicale islamieten focussen op godsdienst als identiteit, etnische discussies interesseert ze geen moer.

In het noorden van Syrië ontwikkelt zich dus een nieuwe, minder bekende frontlijn: de Koerdische “partij van de democratische unie” met haar gewapende arm staat er tegenover het “al-Noesra-front” en de “Islamitische staat in Irak en Syrië”, eigenlijk Al Qaida-organisaties. Bepaalde Koerdische dorpen zijn ondertussen door de radicaal-islamieten bezet en de invoering van de strenge sharia-rechtspraak zorgt er – mede met het geweld – voor een leegloop van de streek.

Eind 2011 werd in Kamishli in het noorden van Syrië een “Koerdische Nationale Raad” opgericht door tientallen Koerdische organisaties en ondersteund door verschillende gekende figuren uit de Koerdische maatschappelijke elite. Zij wil ervoor zorgen dat in het nieuwe Syrië – welk Syrië het dan ook wordt! – de stem van de Koerden luid zal weerklinken en dat hun belangen zullen gewaarborgd worden.

Intussen zijn tienduizenden Koerdische vluchtelingen de Iraakse grens overgestoken – volgens gegevens van het internationale UNHCR zou het gaan om minstens 200.000 vluchtelingen – die ook daar de Koerdische invloed zullen versterken. Iraaks Koerdistan gedoogt ook de aanwezigheid van de Turks-Koerdische PKK met bases op haar grondgebied.

Het Koerdisch gebied en het Koerdisch volk groeien onder druk van buitenlandse oorlogen, bezettingen en militaire operaties steeds verder naar elkaar toe. Turkije heeft al enkele keren het Iraaks-Koerdisch grondgebied - eigenlijk de voortzetting én uitbreiding van de vroegere zogenaamde Koerdische Autonome Regio – gebombardeerd. Het olierijke Kirkuk, waarvan de bevolking grotendeels Koerdisch is, wordt door alle partijen in de regio opgeëist. Amerika vreest tot slot dat een mogelijke deal tussen Koerdistan en Turkije de eenheid van Irak wel eens in gevaar zou kunnen brengen.

Voor de Koerden is de strijd nog lang niet gestreden. Koerdistan bevindt zich in het midden van een geopolitiek, economisch en militair zeer belangrijk en onrustig gebied en zal alle opportuniteiten moeten open houden, wil het zijn prille aanzetten tot een groter autonoom Koerdische natie niet vernietigd zien onder de grote pletwals van de internationale grootmachten.

 

Peter Logghe

LIBIA: El descrédito de la democracia

LIBIA

El descrédito de la democracia

 

POR EDUARDO VELASCO

 

Prólogo de Manuel Galiana

 

Diseño: Fernando Lutz
Maquetación: Manuel Q.
Colección: Helénica
Papel blanco 90gr.

Páginas: 146

Tamaño: 21 x 13’5 cm

Edición en rústica (cosido) con solapas de 8 cm

P.V.P.: 14’5 €

(Gastos de envío no incluidos)

 

ISBN: 978-84-940846-7-6 

 

www.edicionescamzo.com

http://edicionescamzo.blogspot.com.es/

Pedidos a: [e-mail]

 

Sabadell-CAM: 0081 3176 22 0006048819

 

 

La Primavera Árabe en general y la Guerra de Libia en particular, son los acontecimientos estelares del 2011, junto con los movimientos de protesta supuestamente espontáneos que están teniendo lugar en todo Occidente. A diferencia de Iraq, con Libia no se han visto a las masas populares gritando "No a la guerra". Existen varios motivos. Uno de los más importantes es que la Guerra de Libia no ataca a los intereses de la oligarquía capitalista de Francia, sino que los defiende. El otro es la desinformación: según nuestros medios de comunicación, el mundo árabe ha decidido "perrofláuticamente" que quiere ser demócrata como sus "admirados" prohombres de Occidente, y Gadafi era simplemente un "sátrapa" que había que derribar. Pero ¿acaso no lo era Saddam Hussein? ¿Y no lo siguen siendo Mohamed VI (…) y el rey saudí Abdulá? ¿Y qué pasa con las dictaduras de Qatar, Kuwait, Emiratos Árabes Unidos y Bahréin? ¿Por qué ha atacado la OTAN a Libia y por qué se ha armado, en tiempo récord, un extraño movimiento "rebelde", que en buena parte no es ni siquiera libio?

 

(Eduardo Velasco, extracto introducción)

 

ÍNDICE

                                              

I – Tragedia en el Mare Nostrum                                   

II – Proyectos coloniales en África: Italia y Rusia                

III – El rey Idris y la Revolución Verde                       

IV – Poderoso caballero es don petróleo: La política petrolera de Gadafi

V – Nivel de vida en Libia y políticas sociales de Gadafi      

VI – El problema del Agua: resuelto                             

VII – La cuestión identitaria: Gadafi y las tribus libias         

VIII – Gadafi y la religión                                    

IX – Terrorismo patrocinado por Libia                        

X – El fracaso del panarabismo y el éxito del Panafricanismo: Los Estados Unidos de África

XI – El Dinar-Oro y el dominio de África : La conexión Strauss-Kahn y Libia “Des-gadafización” del sistema financiero Libio y rentabilidad de la guerra.

XII – Quienes están detrás de la guerra de Libia                    

XIII - ¿Quiénes son “los rebeldes libios”?                                

XIV – Comienza la guerra                                    

XV – Organización Terrorista del Atlántico Norte: Crímenes de guerra de la OTAN en Libia            

XVI – Libia en el gran tablero: La atlantización del Mediterraneo                        

XVII – Futuro de Libia y próximos pasos del atlantismo en África: España y Argelia                          

XVIII – Africom y el proyecto atlantista para África 

XIX – Conclusiones