Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

jeudi, 04 septembre 2014

ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”

 
ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”

By James F. Tracy
GlobalResearch.ca

In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes” and the “control over opinion” through “the manipulation of significant symbols.”[1] The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.

The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.

Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth.

A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or “ISIS.”

As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as “Al Qaeda,” and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities are—apparently by design—inadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison d’ểtre for America’s terminal “War on Terror.”

A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.[2]

With the above observations in mind, ISIS is well-financed, militarily proficient, and equipped with modern vehicles and weaponry. It also exhibits an uncanny degree of media savvy in terms of propagating its message in professional-looking videos and on platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. “Western intelligence services,” the New York Times reports, claim to be “worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones, and multilingual Twitter messages.”[3]

Along these lines, ISIS even received a largely sympathetic portrayal in a five-part series produced and aired by the Rupert Murdoch-backed Vice News.[4] Indeed, Vice News’ “The Spread of the Caliphate” is reminiscent of the public relations-style reportage produced via the “embedding” of corporate news media personnel with US and allied forces during the 2003 conquest of Iraq.

The overt support of ISIS, combined with the fact that it is battling the same Syrian government the Obama administration overtly sought to wage war against just one year ago, strongly suggest the organization’s sponsorship by Western intelligence and military interests.

ISIS’s curious features are readily apparent to non-Western news outlets and citizenries. For example, Iran’s PressTV recently asked its readership, “Why does the ISIL have such easy access to Twitter, Youtube and other social media to propagate its ideologies?” The answer choices are, “1) Because the ISIL has very capable technicians who can best use social media, or 2) Because the US and Britain have provided the ISIL with unrestricted social media platform[s].” Note that the first choice is the overarching assumption of Western media outlets. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent of PressTV readers selected choice two.[5]

No such queries are so much as alluded to by major corporate media, all of which are united in the notion that ISIS is an essentially indigenous phenomenon. Yet as coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent state-sponsored terrorism indicates, such media are essentially a component of the national security state, their reports and broadcast scripts all but overtly written by intelligence and military organizations.

In the wake of 9/11 US news media seldom asked about the origins of Al Qaeda—particularly how it was a product of US intelligence agencies. With the history of Al Qaeda omitted, the Bush administration was permitted to wage war on Afghanistan almost immediately following those staged attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Yet as is much the case with today’s manufactured ISIS phenomenon, that history was readily available, and its careful public examination might have implicated the United States intelligence community in the 9/11 attacks. “During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath,” Michel Chossudovsky observes,

the CIA—using Pakistan’s military intelligence apparatus as a “go between”—played a key role in training the Mujhadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently supported the “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.[6]

As the United States and world approach the thirteenth anniversary of the most momentous false flag in modern history, the American public would be well-served to remind itself that ISIS is the new Al Qaeda—in other words, the new pretext that will in all likelihood be used by to take police state measures at home and military aggression abroad to new, perhaps unprecedented, levels.

With the above in mind, it is telling that one of the US government’s greatest fears isn’t ISIS at all. “The FBI’s most recent threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats,” the Washington Free Beacon reports, “despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.”

Instead, the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency is preoccupied with what it deems “domestic extremism” exhibited by its own subjects.[7] A primary manifestation of such “extremism” is possessing the curiosity to discern and seek out truths and information amidst the barrage of manipulated symbols the government and corporate-controlled media use to undermine a potentially informed public.

Notes

[1] Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1927/1971.

[2] Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?” New Yorker, March 5, 2007; Tony Cartalucci, “Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007,” Land Destroyer Report, May 11, 2012.

[3] Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, “ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014.

[4] Joe Bercovici, “Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Vice is Worth $1.4 Billion. Could it be in Play Soon?” Forbes, August 19, 2014; Medyan Dairieh, “The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State,” Vice News, August 13, 2014.

[5] PressTV Poll, http://presstv.ir, retrieved on August 30, 2014.

[6] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism” Second Edition, Montreal CA: Global Research, 2005, 4.

[7] Bill Gertz, “FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism,” Washington Free Beacon, August 29, 2014.

Reprinted with permission from GlobalResearch.ca.

lundi, 25 août 2014

Amerika gaat IS gebruiken als excuus voor aanval op Syrië

‘Amerika gaat IS gebruiken als excuus voor aanval op Syrië’

Republikeinse senator: ‘IS zal proberen grote Amerikaanse stad op te blazen’

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl


Minister Defensie Chuck Hagel: ‘IS is grotere bedreiging voor VS en Europa dan 9/11.’

De Amerikaanse stafchef van de strijdkrachten, generaal Martin Dempsey, liet gisteren weten dat de islamitische terreurbeweging IS pas kan worden verslagen als er ook luchtaanvallen in Syrië worden uitgevoerd. Volgens de New York Times zal het Witte Huis daardoor dieper in het conflict in Syrië worden gezogen. Kritische analisten wijzen erop dat de in september 2013 dankzij de Russische president Putin op het laatste moment afgeblazen Amerikaanse aanval op Syrië zo alsnog op de agenda wordt gezet. (1)

Eén van de andere stappen die volgens de NYT kan worden genomen is het ‘trainen, adviseren en uitrusten van de gematigde oppositie in Syrië, en ook de Koerdische en regeringstroepen in Irak.’ Wat er niet bij werd gezegd is dat IS voor een groot deel bestaat uit door Turkije en de CIA getrainde en zwaar bewapende terroristen die uitsluitend tegen de Syrische president Assad hadden moeten vechten.

Putin voorkwam in september 2013 Amerikaanse aanval

Vorig jaar mislukte het om een Amerikaans-Turkse invasie van Syrië te rechtvaardigen. Aanvankelijk werd een aanval met chemische wapens in een buitenwijk van Damascus, waarbij honderden doden vielen, in de schoenen geschoven van de regeringtroepen van president Assad. Obama had zo’n aanval een ‘rode lijn’ genoemd, waarna Amerikaans ingrijpen zeker leek.

Twee zaken voorkwamen dat de Amerikaanse kruisraketten en bommenwerpers op Syrië werden afgestuurd. Allereerst was het de interventie van de Russische president Vladimir Putin, die een grote vloot tussen Syrië en de Amerikaanse aanvalsvloot posteerde, en dreigde alles wat de Amerikanen op Syrië zouden afsturen neer te schieten. Vervolgens kwam Putin met een briljante diplomatieke oplossing die het chemische arsenaal van Assad –althans op papier- verwijderde, maar de president wel in het zadel liet zitten.

Ten tweede waren het de boven tafel gekomen bewijzen dat de chemische aanval in Syrië niet door de regeringstroepen, maar door de rebellen was uitgevoerd, doelbewust om Assad daarvan de schuld te geven. Deze false-flag aanval bleek direct te zijn aangestuurd door Turkije. Tevens werd het bewijs geleverd dat de chemische bestanddelen van het gebruikte wapen afkomstig waren uit Saudi Arabië.

Turkije vormt met hulp VS neo-Ottomaans imperium

De Amerikaanse Pulitzer prijswinnende onafhankelijke journalist Seymour Hersh onthulde de directe betrokkenheid van Turkije en de samenwerking tussen de regering Erdogan en Al-Qaeda. Al in 2007 schreef hij in een uitgebreid artikel dat de regering Bush was begonnen met het steunen en trainen van aan Al-Qaeda gelieerde Soenitische terreurgroepen, met de bedoeling hen in te zetten tegen Syrië en de groeiende invloed van het Shi’itische Iran in Irak te stoppen.

Op deze wijze ontstond ook IS(IS). De Turken werkten samen met de Amerikanen bij het rekruteren, trainen en bewapenen van deze moslimterroristen, maar deels om geheel andere redenen. Turkije streeft weliswaar net als de VS naar het vervangen van Assad door een radicale Moslim Broederschap regering, maar met de achterliggende bedoeling om een grensoverschrijdend Islamitisch Kalifaat op te richten, dat later eenvoudig in het door Erdogan nagestreefde neo-Ottomaanse Rijk kan worden opgenomen.

Minister Hagel: IS grotere bedreiging dan 9/11

Gisteren noemde de Amerikaanse minister van Defensie Chuck Hagel IS ‘een grotere bedreiging dan 9/11... .IS is meer dan enkel een terreurgroepering. Ze verbinden ideologie met een geraffineerde strategische en tactische militaire onversaagdheid, en ze worden onvoorstelbaar goed gefinancierd. Dit gaat veel verder dan we ooit hebben meegemaakt. We moeten ons op alles voorbereiden. Wees er klaar voor.’

‘Het bewijs is behoorlijk duidelijk. Als we kijken naar wat ze deden bij meneer Foley –de Amerikaanse fotojournalist die op video werd onthoofd- en dreigen te doen bij alle Amerikanen en Europeanen, dan kan dit alleen maar als barbaars worden omschreven. Ze vertonen geen enkel fatsoen of verantwoord menselijk gedrag. Ze zijn een onmiddellijke bedreiging voor al onze belangen.’ (2)

Dat IS een grote bedreiging vormt en een ware uitroeiingsoorlog voert tegen christenen, ‘afvallige’ moslims en alle andere ongelovigen staat buiten kijf. Deze oorlog had er echter nooit zonder Amerikaanse, Europese, Turkse en Saudische hulp kunnen komen. De VS lijkt de strijd tegen IS nu als voorwendsel te gaan gebruiken om alsnog een militaire aanval op Syrië te rechtvaardigen, wat Turkije direct in de kaart zal spelen.

‘IS zal proberen grote Amerikaanse stad op te blazen’

Om het Amerikaanse publiek op te warmen voor weer een nieuwe oorlog waarschuwde de Republikeinse senator James Inhofe, topman in het Comité voor de Gewapende Diensten, dat IS zal proberen om snel ‘een grote Amerikaanse stad op te blazen.’ Inhofe uitte kritiek op Obama en zei dat de president nog steeds geen strategie heeft om IS te verslaan (3).

Ook luitenant-kolonel Anthony Schaffer vindt Obama’s reactie op de opmars IS, dat hij de ‘Antichrist van alle terreurorganisaties’ noemt, veel te slap. De president zou mede verantwoordelijk zijn voor de onthoofding van James Foley, omdat hij een reddingsoperatie onnodig lang zou hebben uitgesteld.

Xander

(1) Infowars
(2) Zero Hedge
(3) The Hill
(4) YouTube via Washington Free Beacon

Zie ook o.a.:

21-08: Videobewijs van IS trainingskampen in Turkije
18-08: Overgrote deel van de wereld nu crisisgebied (1/3 IS strijders afkomstig uit Europa)
08-08: Succes ISIS dankzij Westerse ‘bondgenoten’Turkije en Saudi Arabië
26-07: Crisis Oekraïne: Backup-plan globalisten naar Derde Wereldoorlog (/ NAVO en Westen gevangen in Saudische-pan islamitische agenda / Syrië blijft het doelwit)
18-06: Onthutsend: ISIS-terroristen werden getraind door Amerika en Turkije
10-05: Syrië: Regering Obama wil alle macht overdragen aan Moslim Broederschap
08-04: Pulitzerprijs journalist: Turkije achter gifgasaanval Syrië, werkt samen met Al-Qaeda
30-03: VS steunt Erdogans misbruik van NAVO voor herstel Ottomaans Rijk (/ Vanuit Turkije zal het nieuwe islamitische Kalifaat worden opgericht)
29-03: Ingrijpen Syrië nabij? Turkije geeft Al-Qaeda militaire- en luchtsteun
27-03: Gelekt gesprek op YouTube: Turken plannen false-flag aanslag om Syrië aan te vallen

dimanche, 24 août 2014

Syria and Support of Al-Qaeda and FSA by Gulf and Western Powers: Kashmir and Bosnia

groupe-djihadiste-d-ei.jpg

Syria and Support of Al-Qaeda and FSA by Gulf and Western Powers: Kashmir and Bosnia

Jibril Khoury and Lee Jay Walker

Ex: http://moderntokyotimes.com

The conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Libya and in other parts of the mainly Islamic world, or where you have Muslim and non-Muslim fault-lines, appears to have one binding factor. This applies to Western backed support for Islamists alongside using proxy outside nations to fulfill geopolitical ambitions. On top of this are powerful factors in the mainly Muslim world in nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and other Gulf nation states which have either shared interests, or which encourage America, France and the United Kingdom to do their bidding – or to work collectively in order to spread Islamism and this is continuing in 2014 based on the continuing intrigues against Syria.

In all the above mentioned places you will have a host of various factors and each conflict will be seen differently through the prism of different ideas. Syria is currently facing this shared attack between powerful dominant Sunni Muslim nations and hostile Western nations including America, France and the United Kingdom. However, the one binding factor is that in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Libya and now Syria; is that outside nations instigated the delicate internal mechanisms in order to unleash Islamism, terrorism and attacks against the ruling power mechanisms.

It mattered not if Hindus were cleansed in Kashmir or Alawites are being hanged and beheaded in Syria. Likewise, it matters not one jot if international terrorism is united in order to do the bidding of Washington, Riyadh, London, Ankara, Paris, Doha and other nations involved in the terrorist and destabilization rat-lines.

Prem Shankar Jha, The Hindu newspaper in India, comments about the shared dualities of Kashmir and Syria. He states that But while nearly everyone wanted a change, almost no one wanted it at the cost of a violent disruption of their lives. In neither case, therefore, was the state the first to resort to violence: On the contrary, both insurgencies had to be stoked, so the first to pick up the gun were the insurgents. In Syria this was done by Salafi/Takfiri Islamists who crossed the border from Jordan in March 2011 and holed up in the Omari mosque in Dera’a before launching targeted provocations, and attacks on police stations and government offices.”

It is important to note that Kashmir and Syria were destabilized by Islamists using Pakistan and Jordan respectively. In the case of Syria, it is difficult to believe that America, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom intelligence agencies weren’t involved in the chain of events which took place in March 2011 in Syria. After all, Jordan is within the collective remit of all the above named nations. Similarly, in Kashmir it is clear that Pakistan stoked up the crisis and like usual the angle of America, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia pops up again.

Prem Shankar Jha also comments that another parallel with Kashmir “…is the intervention of hostile foreign powers bent on converting a domestic upsurge demanding political empowerment into a movement for secession or regime change. In Kashmir, Pakistan did this by disarming the JKLF cadres still in training in Muzaffarabad in 1990 and creating the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. In Syria, Turkey and Qatar are funneling money and battle hardened jihadis to start a sectarian war that will overwhelm the state.”

“Last and most important, like New Delhi, Damascus has been trying to prevent civil war by offering the insurgents the alternative of the ballot box. Mr. Assad began, on his own, by lifting all controls on the Internet in January 2011. Over the next six months, he first tried to negotiate peace with the Sunni zealots in Dera’a by sacking the governor and releasing 260 prisoners and 16 clerics, and promising to repeal the Emergency Laws and the ban on political parties that had been in place for 48 years. He fulfilled his first promise five days ahead of schedule on April 20 and his second three months later in July.”

However, while nations like the Russian Federation, Brazil, Iran, and others, supported a political solution to the crisis in Syria it is clear that the enemies of Syria upped the ante and began many terrorist rat-lines. Therefore, Turkey became a major player because the Erdogan government sensed an opportunity to install a compliant Sunni Muslim dominated Sharia state. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nations in the Gulf.

In Bosnia it was reported that over 8,000 international jihadists entered this nation in order to do the bidding of Washington, London, Riyadh, Tehran and Ankara. Turkey was once more dreaming about its historical legacy and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states were enticed by creating majority Muslim states in Europe. In Bosnia the Serbs were facing the might of NATO, international jihadists and the involvement of many hostile nations. America even allowed Iran to fly aircraft into the Balkans in order to support Islamist factions within the Bosnian Muslim forces. It somehow escaped the world that Yugoslavia was trying to preserve the mosaic of various different ethnic and religious groups while outside nations supported religious sectarianism and nationalism. Naturally, this in time spearheaded Serbian nationalism but just like Syria it was outside nations which began to carve up Yugoslavia.

Kosovo and Libya followed the same model because Libyan rebels and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) sprung up from virtually nothing. Likewise, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which is an amalgamation of many various factions came from nothing overnight. Yet clearly the speed of Islamist forces in Bosnia, developing a powerful Croatian military unit, the growth of the rebels in Libya, the rise of the KLA in Kosovo and the overnight creation of the FSA in Syria were well orchestrated – just like what happened in Kashmir when Pakistan was given the green light to create mayhem against democratic India.

The Council on Foreign Relations states that Militancy in the disputed region of Kashmir has been major fuel for discord between India and Pakistan since the 1980s. Attacks in the region began to increase in scale and intensity following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when foreign insurgents flooded the region to join the Afghan Mujahadeen. The majority Muslim region has its own local militant groups, but experts believe most of the recent Kashmir and Kashmir-based terrorism has been the work of foreign Islamists who seek to claim the region for Pakistan. A spate of Islamist cross-border attacks into Indian-held territory, the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament in New Delhi, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks have all reinforced Kashmir’s standing as the significant bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Both states have nuclear weapons, making Kashmir one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.”

Prem Shankar Jha in another article about the crisis in Syria in the early period of April 2011, states that “the U.S. has been fully aware of the presence of al-Qaeda in the so-called Free Syrian Army since April 20, 2011 when Jihadis captured a truck (or Armoured Personnel Carrier) near Dera’a, and killed all the 18 or 20 soldiers it was carrying not by shooting them but by cutting their throats in the approved Islamic manner. A few days later, the U.S. ambassador in Syria, Robert Ford, called some of his colleagues in Damascus, including the Indian ambassador, and told them that al-Qaeda had arrived in Syria.”

“April 20, however, was only the beginning. All through the summer and autumn of 2011, and throughout 2012, videos posted by the rebels themselves showed that the armed opposition in Syria has been sliding inexorably into the hands of radical Islamists. Thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Syria from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and places as far apart as Pakistan and Chechnya. Syrian television broadcast interviews with numerous young men captured in Homs and elsewhere, who gave graphic descriptions of how they had been recruited by al-Qaeda to fight for Islam against a heretical regime in Syria. The rebels themselves have posted YouTube videos showing them executing captured Syrian soldiers and civilians in the approved manner.”

“But the Obama administration has steadfastly chosen to believe that the jihadis make up only ‘a tiny fraction’ of the Free Syrian Army, and has continued to provide FSA with logistical support, that is, satellite-based information about Syrian troop and VIP movements, and look the other way while Qatar and Saudi Arabia have provided it with guns and mounted pick-up trucks, mortars and RPGs.”

Ironically, the main stumbling block for America is not supporting the Islamist sectarian side which includes Al-Qaeda, but it is history and the need to manipulate the media. After all, Al-Qaeda and the Saudi Arabia angle involving September 11 is clearly obvious and also in Libya this year several American personnel were killed by similar Islamist forces. Therefore, it is very difficult for the Obama administration to be seen to be working hand in hand with the same forces which killed thousands of American troops in Iraq, did September 11 and killed Americans in Libya. Likewise, American troops are being killed in Afghanistan by Islamist factions including the Taliban. This means that media manipulation and covert operations by America, France and the United Kingdom must be very delicate in order to achieve their collective goal of overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad.

In modern day Syria it is clear that the FSA and various Islamist factions working within the FSA or individually – have been, and continue to be, involved in horrendous massacres. Indeed, some Islamists are even teaching children to behead captured Syrian soldiers and then they circulate their evil crimes against humanity. The silence of the international community when terrorist attacks are killing civilians is shaming all the nations and media agencies which are siding with the objectives of Ankara, Doha, London, Paris, Riyadh and Washington.

The Syrian armed forces continue to remain loyal to the Syrian government and people of this nation. Therefore, despite all the barbaric realities being installed against this nation the military have somehow managed to preserve all major cities from being taken over by the FSA and various Islamist factions. However, outside nations which are hostile to Syria are still supporting sectarian, international jihadists and sedition against this nation. Indeed, it is clear that outside nations are intent on upping the ante despite the daily terrorist attacks, beheading individuals and hanging people openly in order to install terror in the hearts of Syrians.

Turning back to an earlier Modern Tokyo Times article about Bosnia it was stated that The Bill Clinton administration gave the “green light” for international Islamists to enter Bosnia and Kosovo. In time this would manifest itself with the brutal September 11 attacks against America and other international terrorist attacks like Madrid. Bill Clinton isn’t the only American leader to “support international terrorism from a distance” but clearly it is no coincidence that conflict in Libya, and now in Syria, bare all the same hallmarks of “a marriage of convenience.” This certainly leads to the suspicion that the Clinton family – this time Hillary Clinton along with the “dark shadows” of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski – are following the same ratlines in Syria which have been used in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya.”

Further down in the same article it was stated that The bottom line is simple. September 11, and the ratlines that did this, were the same individuals who were fighting on the same side of America in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – Simply put, no Bosnian Orthodox Christians and communists in Afghanistan did September 11. On the contrary, individuals involved in September 11 were on the same side in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo – yet this question remains unanswered. Likewise, no accountability! Put frankly, without past American administrations supporting Islamic terrorist ratlines either covertly or by doing nothing to stem the flow of Islamists, then September 11 would never have materialized.”

“It is dangerous therefore to see America once more moving in the same direction related to Syria. The Clinton family connection and the shadows of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski are very troubling because the same modus operandi is happening once more against the people of Syria. Therefore, the lessons learnt from September 11 have been lost and individuals within the chain that enabled this tragic event to happen have escaped their past deeds.”

Overall, Syria needs real support from friendly nations in order to stop the usual collusion between Islamists, Western powers and nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and several Gulf nations, from destroying an independent nation state. After all, look at modern day Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya because various factions exist and terrorism is a daily reality in Afghanistan and Iraq. Similarly, look at the reality for Hindu minorities in Kashmir and Orthodox Christian minorities in Kosovo because both can’t freely move around these entities. This means that it is imperative to stop the usual “failed domino system” from destroying secular Syria.

mtt

Modern Tokyo News is part of the Modern Tokyo Times group

http://moderntokyotimes.com Modern Tokyo Times – International News and Japan News

http://sawandjay.com Modern Tokyo Times – Fashion

https://moderntokyonews.com Modern Tokyo News – Tokyo News and International News

http://global-security-news.com Global Security News – Geopolitics and Terrorism

PLEASE JOIN ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/MTT_News Modern Tokyo Times

https://twitter.com/ModernTokyoNews Modern Tokyo News

PLEASE JOIN ON FACEBOOK

https://www.facebook.com/moderntokyotimes

Discurso de Hassan Nasrallah sobre los takfiris de “Estado Islámico”

 

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

El secretario general de Hezbolá, Sayyed Hassan Nasralá, ha asegurado que los norteamericanos están detrás de la creación de grupos terroristas en la región con el fin de dividir y destrozar a los países árabes y realizar su proyecto último, un proyecto que no ha podido ser implementado por las ofensivas israelíes.

En una alocución televisada de casi dos horas pronunciada este viernes en la cadena de televisión libanesa Al Manar con ocasión del aniversario de la victoria de la Guerra de Julio de 2006, Sayyed Nasralá puso en guardia contra minimizar el peligro de los takfiris que quieren eliminar a todo el mundo, comenzando por los sunníes.

Según él, la victoria sobre los grupos terroristas es posible a condición de que sea puesta en práctica una política nacional y se comprenda que se trata de un peligro existencial. Él puso también en guardia en contra de elegir opciones que no llevan a ninguna parte en la lucha contra el grupo takfiri Estado Islámico (EI).

He aquí las ideas principales del discurso de Sayyed Nasralá:

Mucho ha sido dicho sobre la Guerra de Julio. Libros e informes han sido escritos tanto por el enemigo como por los amigos para extraer conclusiones. Esa guerra fue más que un simple conflicto; fue una verdadera batalla de dimensiones históricas. Condolezza Rice (entonces secretaria de Estado de EEUU) habló de un nuevo Oriente Medio. Así pues, fue una guerra regional e incluso internacional. Expertos norteamericanos dijeron entonces que la guerra de Julio era un episodio en la eliminación definitiva de la Resistencia en el Líbano. No se buscaba el desarme de esta resistencia, sino aplastarla y acabar con ella.

Ellos elaboraron un plan para liquidar a los dirigentes de la Resistencia y prepararon colonias en el norte de Palestina para detener allí a miles de combatientes.

Proyecto de dominación estadounidense

Este proyecto fue elaborado después de la ocupación estadounidense de Iraq. George W. Bush y su administración querían decapitar la resistencia en el Líbano y en Palestina y acabar con el régimen de Siria antes incluso de 2006. Él quería presentarse al público estadounidense como el presidente que venció al terrorismo internacional para ser reelegido. Y después de alcanzados estos logros, la administración norteamericana contaba con desencadenar una guerra contra Irán.

El primer objetivo de EEUU es el de controlar todas las reservas de petróleo y gas en la región.

El segundo objetivo es liquidar la causa palestina. Israel estaba a cargo de eliminar la resistencia en el Líbano y Palestina. Sin embargo, la tenacidad legendaria de la resistencia en el Líbano saboteó este proyecto.

Los combates sobre el terreno obligaron a Israel a reclamar un cese el fuego, como fue el caso más reciente de Gaza. Los dirigentes árabes que participan en negociaciones en Nueva York confirman que la tenacidad de la resistencia, del pueblo libanés y de la política oficial libanesa llevaron a la comunidad internacional a poner fin a la agresión israelí.

El fracaso de los objetivos de la Guerra de Julio

¿Cuáles fueron los resultados de la guerra de 2006?

1 –  Las capacidades de la resistencia se reforzaron.
2 – La guerra no golpeó a Siria en aquel momento.
3 – La guerra contra Gaza fue atrasada para después de 2006.
4 – La resistencia en Iraq contra la ocupación estadounidense se reforzó.
5 – El fracaso de los neoconservadores en las elecciones estadounidenses.

Cambio de táctica estadounidense

Sin embargo, la política belicosa estadounidense en la región continúa en vigor. Si los norteamericanos fracasan en conseguir sus objetivos cambian de política y de táctica.

Es, pues, necesario evocar la importancia de este éxito político, histórico, moral y humanitario conseguido por la Resistencia en el Líbano en 2006 y asegurar que somos capaces de hacer fracasar todo proyecto y todo complot contra nuestra región.

Después de 2001, los norteamericanos estaban en el apogeo de su fuerza. En contraposición, el mundo soviético y el mundo árabe estaban muy debilitados. Sin embargo, en el Líbano, Palestina, Iraq y Siria los grupos de la resistencia abortaron los proyectos estadounidenses y serán siempre capaces de hacerlo.

 

politique internationale, géopolitique, hassan nasrallah, hizbollah, liban, proche orient, levant, islamisme, monde arabe, monde arabo-musulman, fondamentalisme islamique,

 

Hoy en día, lo que pasa en Gaza ha llevado a la región árabe a una nueva situación. Una nueva estrategia está siendo seguida por los enemigos para alcanzar sus objetivos. Su nueva vía es la de imponer un proceso de paz a los palestinos.

En el pasado, los norteamericanos llevaron a cabo guerras contra Iraq y pusieron la mano sobre el Golfo y los israelíes lanzaron ofensivas contra los países fronterizos.

La estrategia de la destrucción de los países

Dos factores son utilizados en la nueva estrategia adoptada por los estadounidenses.

Esta nueva estrategia es más difícil y peligrosa que la anterior. Ya no es cuestión de derribar a un régimen y colocar otro. Esta nueva vía norteamericana e israelí consiste en destruir países y ejércitos. El enemigo busca diseñar un nuevo mapa en la región sobre las ruinas de los países, de los pueblos y de las sociedades de la región.

Ellos quieren lograr su objetivo sembrando el terror y la confusión y destruyendo los tejidos sociales de las poblaciones.

El enemigo busca ahora ablandarnos para que pidamos una solución. Frente a las nuevas condiciones difíciles, EEUU se convertiría así a los ojos de los pueblos en el salvador último de la región.

La corriente takfiri, representada especialmente por el Estado Islámico, es utilizada en este sentido.

Vencer al EI es posible

¿Podemos derrotar a esta nueva estrategia? Sí. Yo digo a todos los pueblos de la región que somos capaces de abortar esta nueva estrategia, como hicimos con la anterior.

Debemos comprender que existe una amenaza existencial contra todos nosotros y cuales son sus dimensiones. No debemos minimizar el peligro que nos acecha y debemos preparar los medios necesarios para hacerle frente. No hay, sin embargo, que exagerar esta amenaza.

Debemos buscar medios reales y serios para luchar contra ella sin recurrir a opciones que han demostrado ya ser ineficaces. Debemos elaborar un plan adecuado y seguirlo.

Desde 1948 hemos conocido una experiencia dura a través del proyecto de expansión sionista. Cuando los israelíes comenzaron a buscar a familias judías para crear un estado sionista en Palestina, muchos árabes minimizaron el alcance de esta medida sionista. Desde el principio, estas familias fueron repartidas de forma que cumplieran funciones militares y de seguridad. Nada era casual. La mayoría de los árabes no prestaban atención a lo que pasaba. Y de este modo, fue establecida la entidad sionista.

Incluso en 1967, algunos árabes desmentían que Israel tuviera proyectos expansionistas. Hoy en día, Israel se ha convertido en un estado usurpador, expansionista, hegemonista y que lanza guerras y ofensivas para a continuación reclamar un cese el fuego de la comunidad internacional.

Algunos árabes han apostado siempre por una intervención internacional a la espera de una política árabe. Han esperado varias décadas y ninguna solución ha sido hallada.

De este modo, el hecho de apostar por la comunidad internacional no ha llevado a ninguna parte.

Sólo la lucha armada ha demostrado ser la buena opción. Después de que el pueblo palestino fue expulsado de su tierra, hizo falta que los pueblos árabes se movilizaran, formaran brigadas y comenzaran la lucha contra el ocupante.

Los movimientos de resistencia en el Líbano y Palestina han logrado avances y las victorias frente al enemigo. A pesar de todos los sacrificios, los palestinos han comprendido que la resistencia es la mejor opción para sabotear el proyecto sionista.

En la actualidad, debemos buscar los medios de afrontar un peligro real que nos amenaza a todos. Hoy en día, la organización del EI ocupa grandes partes de Iraq y Siria. Este grupo se ha convertido en todo un país que controla recursos petrolíferos y presas. Posee enormes cantidades de armas y munciones. Vende petróleo y mantiene relaciones comerciales con varios países.

El EI ha cometido masacres, asesinado a prisioneros, liquidado a personas inocentes y se ha enfrentado con otros grupos armados en Alepo, Idleb y Deir Ezzor.

En Iraq, el EI mata también a todo aquel que difiere con él en el plano político o religioso. El objetivo es sembrar el terror. Masacres fueron cometidas desde el principio por el EI contra los sunníes que son a sus ojos apóstatas. En la última guerra contra los kurdos, casi un millón de sunníes han sido desplazados. El EI no respeta a nadie. Mata a árabes, kurdos, turkmenos… Destruye mezquitas, iglesias, santuarios. Este comportamiento no tiene nada que ver con el Islam.

Apoyo exterior al EI

Algunos países árabes y occidentales han apoyado al EI. Los norteamericanos han abierto la puerta a esta organización. Llamo a todos los libaneses, sirios, palestinos y árabes del Golfo a dejar de lado sus cálculos personales y a pensar en que este peligro amenaza a todos: sunníes, shiíes, drusos, cristianos, yazidis y otros.

Que nadie pretenda que se trata de una guerra confesional en la región. Es la guerra del espíritu takfiri contra el Otro. El EI busca eliminar y matar a todo el mundo, filmando además sus masacres para sembrar el máximo de terror entre las poblaciones. Hay que tener en cuenta que una buena parte de la causa del avance del EI es mediática.

Combatir al EI

¿Qué hacer pues? ¿Cómo reaccionar? ¿Vamos a pedir ayuda extranjera? Cabe recordar, en este sentido, que cuando el EI invadió la ciudad de Mosul y las provincias de Nínive, Salahuddin y Diyala la comunidad internacional y la Administración estadounidense no reaccionaron.

Los cristianos del Líbano deben saber que en caso de amenaza para ellos, EEUU hará lo mismo que Francia con los cristianos de Iraq. Francia ha abierto sus puertas a los refugiados cristianos.

Fue sólo cuando el EI llegó a las puertas de Erbil, de este Kurdistán que significa mucho para los norteamericanos y los israelíes, que la comunidad internacional se movilizó.

¿Esperáis una acción de éstos? ¿O bien de la Liga Árabe? ¿Esperáis una unanimidad nacional para hacer frente a este peligro?

 

politique internationale, géopolitique, hassan nasrallah, hizbollah, liban, proche orient, levant, islamisme, monde arabe, monde arabo-musulman, fondamentalisme islamique,

 

Los pueblos de la región están interesados en la lucha contra el EI. Nosotros, en tanto que libaneses, debemos admitir que esta amenaza es inminente. De un día a otro, la situación en Iraq ha cambiado. El EI es una amenaza para Iraq y Siria, pero también es un peligro para todos los demás países de la región.

La retirada de Hezbolá: un pretexto ilógico

Algunos afirman que la solución a esta amenaza reside en la retirada de Hezbolá de Siria. ¿Acaso la amenaza del EI será eliminada si Hezbolá se retira de Siria? Este debate no lleva a ninguna parte. Es toda la región la que está en peligro.

La responsabilidad nacional de movilizarnos y proteger las regiones libanesas nos incumbe a todos.

Despliegue de la FINUL: una propuesta incoherente

Otros proponen la ampliación de la Resolución de la ONU 1701. Sin embargo, esto es una burla. Sabed que la FINUL tiene necesidad de la protección de la población. ¿Son ellos capaces de protegernos?

Son la Resistencia y el Ejército los que protegen el Sur del Líbano. ¿Cómo creer, pues, que las fuerzas de la ONU son capaces de asegurar la protección de la Bekaa y el norte del Líbano?

El distanciamiento, una política errónea

Otros han planteado la política de distanciamiento del Líbano. Si el EI llega a la frontera del país ¿Acaso estaremos al abrigo de sus ataques a causa de la política de distanciamiento? Se conspira contra el Ejército libanés y las autoridades libanesas rehúsan hablar con las autoridades sirias. Justo porque se aplica esta política.

La lógica es que cuando un peligro existencial amenaza un país o una entidad, la proridad es entonces la lucha contra ese peligro y no exponer al pueblo a un genocidio.

Llamamiento a los libaneses

Llamo a todos los libaneses a comprender que vuestro país hace frente a una amenaza existencial. Para hacer frente a la misma hace falta dar prueba de seriedad, fidelidad y sacrificio.

He aquí algunos puntos fuertes para hacer frente a este peligro:

1 – El Ejército y las fuerzas de seguridad. Hezbolá saluda toda ayuda y oferta de ayuda al Ejército. Un apoyo popular, moral y financiero es necesario para fortalecerlo. El Estado debe ponerse al lado del Ejército para recuperar a nuestros soldados secuestrados.

2 – El gobierno actual es la única institución activa hoy. Este gobierno es uno de los factores de fuerza.

3 – Es necesario detener las provocaciones confesionales, como en el caso de Ersal. Cesad los ataques contra Hezbolá por el tema de Ersal. Los que llevan a cabo provocaciones confesionales en el Líbano deben ser juzgados porque es su efecto es el mismo que el de los coches bomba.

4 – Reconciliaciones regionales. La población de Ersal no tiene nada que ver con el Frente al Nusra o el EI. La población de Ersal, Labweh y Nabi Uzman deben reconciliarse.

5 – El tratamiento del tema de los desplazados sirios. El Líbano y Siria deben tratar el tema de los refugiados sirios y su regreso a su país. En Siria hay muchas regiones a las que los desplazados pueden regresar.

6 – Ambos países deben tratar el tema del fortalecimiento de la frontera común.

7 – La elección presidencial es importante porque el nombramiento de un presidente y la reactivación de las instituciones del Estado refuerzan al Líbano. El campo del 8 de Marzo posee un candidato y uno solo. Cesad de perder el tiempo. Que nadie espere una decisión exterior en el tema del presidente libanés.

He aquí una lista de ideas propuestas para proteger al Líbano. Vamos a debatirlas. Estamos dispuestos a sacrificarnos por nuestro país. Es una batalla existencial y estamos dispuestos a afrontarla. Si la resistencia hubiera esperado a una unanimidad nacional para actuar, Israel habría llegado hasta el norte del Líbano.

Es fácil vencer al EI. El combate contra Israel es más difícil. Somos capaces de hacerle frente con éxito. Este grupo no tiene futuro en la región si los iraquíes, los sirios, los libaneses y otros asumen su responsabilidad.

Con ocasión de la victoria de Julio, llamo a una posición nacional, institucional y popular. Sabed que tenemos los medios para lograr una victoria sobre el EI.

Cabe señalar que si todo el mundo rehúsa hacer frente a sus responsabilidades, Hezbolá asumirá las suyas. Estamos dispuestos a cooperar con todas las fuerzas libanesas que estén dispuestos a hacer frente a esta amenaza.

Nosotros no pensamos hacer las maletas y abandonar el Líbano. Es aquí donde hemos nacido y cuando las circunstancias nos llaman al combate, estamos dispuestos a luchar. Y sólo en ese caso saldremos victoriosos.

Fuente: Al-Manar

Extraído de: Tribulaciones Metapolíticas

jeudi, 24 juillet 2014

L`Isis? Un boomerang in faccia agli Usa

EIIL.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L`Isis? Un boomerang in faccia agli Usa

L`avanzata del fondamentalismo sunnita da Mosul alle porte di Baghdad per formare un`entità statale islamica in Iraq e in parte della Siria

Lorenzo Moore

In una decina di giorni appena la marcia degli integralisti sunniti dell’Isis - il gruppo che si batte appunto per insediare sui territori dello storico califfato di Baghdad (dal Mediterraneo al Golfo, Kuwait incluso) uno “Stato islamico dell’Iraq e della Siria” – è giunta a ridosso della capitale irachena dopo aver operato assedi e conquiste di intere provincie dell’Iraq del nord, a stento contenuta nelle regioni più periferiche settentrionali dalle milizie curde, da tempo allineate ai desiderata di Washington.
Non è peregrino qui ricordare che per abbattere il regime ba’athista di Saddam Hussein (con la scusa di inesistenti armi di distruzione di massa) le forze di invasione angloamericane, per giungere da Bassora a Baghdad ci misero 22 giorni.
Né è inutile rammentare che di fatto, nel concreto, l’Isis non sia altro che l’ennesimo gruppo integralista sunnita utilizzato dai regimi feudali del Golfo – e indirettamente dagli statunitensi – per  raggiungere lo scopo di “federalizzare” l’Iraq già ba’athista in tre macroregioni nazionali-religiose,  curda a nord, sunnita al centronord e sciita al centrosud. Un obiettivo, diciamo così, allargato due anni fa al finanziamento e all’innesco della guerra civile contro la Siria, l’ultimo bastione sociale e nazionalista arabo ba’athista.
L’Isis, che è attualmente egemone tra i gruppi terroristi islamici più radicali, avendo sul terreno spazzato via o comunque reso inoffensivo l’altro gruppo inizialmente più attivo nella Siria del nord, al Nusra, appare, secondo fonti di intelligence statunitensi, e in particolare nell’analisi del think-tank Usa, Institute for the Study of War (ISW), che ha documentato lo sviluppo decennale (dal 2004, dopo il caos seguito all’invasione atlantica) del gruppo islamico, che pretende rifondare un califfato basato sui canoni della Sharia, inizialmente formato da quadri medi sunniti già ba’athisti. Nel rapporto dell’ISW viene tra l’altro messa in rilievo la potente capacità di “relazioni” e di “stampa e propaganda” dell’Isis e viene ripresa e pubblicizzata una sua ponderosa “nota” che riepiloga la sua forza, la sua organizzazione, le sue azioni sul terreno vantate e presumibilmente reali.
In sintesi l’Isis auto dichiara di avere una forza, attuale, di 15.000 combattenti, dei quali la gran parte arruolati nella jihad non solo in Iraq o Siria, ma nei diversi Paesi mediorientali ed europei (2000 circa , secondo una stima, quelli arruolati nel nostro continente).
Nella nota dell’Isis estratta dal centro studi Usa, si focalizza il periodo tra il novembre 2012 e lo stesso mese del 2013.
L’Isis si attribuisce 9540 attacchi in Iraq, 1083 assassinii, 4000 attentati circa, la liberazione di centinaia di prigionieri reclutati dai fondamentalisti dalle carceri irachene.
 
L’ISW statunitense riporta un commento di Nigel Inkster, già vicecomandante del MI6 britannico che sottolinea l’importanza e la solidità organizzativa, militare e politica, e finanziaria del gruppo jihadista sunnita. Negli Usa il parlamentare Michael McCaul, presidente del comitato congressuale di Sicurezza Nazionale, ha definito l’emergere dell’Isis – che controlla ormai sia Mosul (seconda città irachena) che Tikrit, “la più grave minaccia dopo l’11 settembre 2001”. Non a caso un pastore-missionario evangelico, Elijak Abraham, dal canto suo ha dichiarato che l’Isis “è un’estensione di al Qaida). C’è da notare che con la sua brutale avanzata in Iraq (lo stesso Isis ha infatti diffuso ferocissimi immagini e filmati, con atrocità commesse ai danni, in particolare, delle minoranze religiose: è ormai generale, ad esempio, il doppio esodo dei cristiani caldei nell’enclave di Ninive e degli sciiti nei quartieri di Baghdad) il gruppo terrorista radicale ha comunque indebolito il suo dominio nella provincia siriana a ridosso della frontiera irachena.
Al contrario di quanto  appare dalle reazioni “stupite” delle istituzioni di sicurezza nazionale statunitensi e britanniche, di fatto e in realtà l’Isis appare dunque il risultato-boomerang della vergognosa aggressione angloamericana.
Il cosiddetto Stato Islamico di Iraq e Siria è infatti una fedele “trasposizione” sul terreno del progetto Usa di trasformazione degli Stati nazionali siriano e iracheno nelle tre diverse identità statali territoriali sunnita, sciita e curda.
Un divide et impera geopolitico immaginato dagli Usa su diretto “consiglio” di Israele.
 


19 Giugno 2014 12:00:00 - http://rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=23506

mercredi, 23 juillet 2014

Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

tchetchenie.jpg

Chechnya and the wars in the nineties: Geostrategic Battles for control of the Heartland

Chechen separatism and Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2000) are part of the process of anti-Eurasian  dissolution developed by Atlanticist strategists in the post- Soviet period. The Russian Federation is historically since Tsarist times a large-continental, integrating and tellurocratic state, an imperial power ... and a multi-ethnic state. In addition to the Slavic Russians, there are many other peoples living in the Russian Federation, and each enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy in their respective republic or oblast (region), with the absolute freedom to practice their religion or to use their language at an institutional level. 
 
Turkic people like the Tatars or Bashkirs, Mongol peoples like the Tuvans or Yakut, Caucasian like Chechen or Ingush... Christians, Muslims , Buddhists or adherents of ancient shamanism. There is even a Jewish Oblast near the Chinese border, whose capital is Birobidzhan .
 
Shortly after the final collapse of the USSR in 1991, not still satisfied with having achieved the breakup of the Soviet republics, the international Atlanticist thalassocracratic conspirators also attempted to dismember the Russian Federation, starting with the destabilization of the Caucasus. While in the Balkans they were destroying Yugoslavia, and while Russia was being sacked by massive capital evasions to the "west" and was being vampirically weakened by cosmopolitan oligarchs that privatized large national industries and by the implementation of ultra-liberal reforms to establish parasitism, a separatist subversion began in Chechnya, which later should (according to the  thalassocratic - globalist plans) then also extend to other republics, especially those with a Muslim majority, by the infiltration of Saudi Wahhabism. The goal was not only to dismantle the USSR, but also the Russian Federation.
 
The Chechen people
 
The Chechens are an ancient people located in the North Caucasus since at least 5000 years. The Caucasus has always been a region of great geostrategic importance because historically in this region three rivalizing Empires had their borders: Russia, Ottoman Turkey and Persia.
 
Being a mountain people (like the Basques in Spain, the Albanians in the Balkans or the Kurds in the Middle East) Chechens as well as other peoples of the North Caucasus (mainly Ingush and Dagestani) remained isolated for centuries and developed without foreign interference their particular idiosyncrasy, which includes a language of unknown origin without any apparent relationship with other languages spoken outside that area. They had contact with neighboring peoples such as the Alans (Ossetians), Georgians and with Byzantine culture and with the Terek Cossacks. 
They were lately Islamized and kept syncretistically in Islam particularities of their ancestral religion. Therefore, the traditional Caucasian Islam, although formally adhering to the Sunni  Hanafi school, incorporates ethnic elements that differentiate it from the mainstream Arab Sunnism.
 
Sufism is also extremely popular in the Caucasus. The two main tariqas (brotherhoods) are present: Naqshbandiyya is mostly in eastern Chechnya and Daghestan, while Qadiriyya has more adherents in western Chechnya and Ingushetia. One of the ritualistic differences between the two streams is the way to do the zikr; "Memory (of  the name of Allah)" a mystical practice of pronouncing the shahada - "la illah has illa'Allah " - , ritually , in a rhythmic and repetitive way until reaching a state of trance; this practice is analogous to the recitation of mantras of Hinduism and Buddhism; or to the Hesychasm in Orthodox Christianity.
 
While the Naqshbandi Sufis practice the zikr sitting in a state of stillness, the qadiris move rhythmically and sometimes run in a circle around an imaginary axis. (The Black Stone of the Kaaba?). In Chechnya there are 5% of Christians, most of them of Cossack origin.
 
The Chechens call themselves "Vainakh " or "nokhchiy" , which means "our people". Their language belongs together with the Ingush and Dagestani , to the nakh (Ibero-Caucasian) languages. Throughout history they have used Georgian, Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Ethnically they are of Caucasoid type, and they have societal similarities to the Avars and Alans.
 
The Alans, ancestors of today's Ossetians, are an ethnic group of Iranian origin that partially moved westwards after the invasions of the Huns,  reaching the Iberian Peninsula, after joining on the way Germanic tribes such as the Vandals and the Swabians. According to the Encyclop?dia Iranica, Alans contributed along with the Goths to name Catalonia (Got- Alania).
 
The Chechens have the haplogroup J2, mainly associated with the Mediterranean and the Fertile Crescent. They are genetically closer to the Basques or Britons than to the Slavs. In fact, they are by blood as close to the Basques as to the Ingush. Apparently, they are also associated with the mythical Cimmerians (equestrian nomads of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea region, in which the writer Robert E. Howard found inspiration to create his character Conan the Barbarian), with the Sarmatians and the Assyrian-Hittite Kingdom of Urartu (cradle of the Armenian people).
 
After World War II, they were deported en masse to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on Beria's orders; on accusations of having collaborated with the Axis.
 
The Chechens are historically a martial society organized in teips (clans), with a significant agrarian culture and attachment to the land.
 
The social structure is made based on nekye (families) integrated into gar (branches), which form the teip (clans), organized  in tukhum (web or union of clans).
 
They have a social code of honor: the nokhchallah (whose core values are morals, ethics, generosity, hospitality and protect women).
 
They all mythically descended from the same man, the Turpalo - Nokhchuo. The wolf is the national animal.
 
Religion
 
Religion is very much influenced by the Caucasian ethnic idiosyncrasies, so the traditional Chechen Islam syncretistically integrates elements of their ancestral spirituality.
 
Many Chechens and Ingush refer to God as Dela (instead of Allah), which is the supreme god of the Pantheon in the pre-Islamic period, comparable to the Greek Zeus or Wotan for the Germans.
 
There is a popular saying: "The Prophet Mohammad may have been an Arab, but God is a Chechen for sure".
 
The Wahhabism which was infiltrated during the '90s sought to "de- chechenize" Islam in Chechnya, imposing their demented satanic/globalist ideology of a Saudi-kind "universal caliphate". In addition, the emergence of Wahhabi separatism caused that secular nationalist idea was abandoned for the pan-Islamism (from "Republic of Ichkeria" to "Caucasus Emirate"). This caused many former secessionist militants (including Ahmad Kadyrov himself, father of Ramzan) to switch to the side of the Russian Federation after realizing what "independence" actually meant.
 
Post-Soviet separatism in the North Caucasus region
 
The idea of Chechen separatism (using subversive Islamic extremism and foreign mercenaries) was resurrected in the early '90s in the process of Soviet disintegration. The international plutocracy with the geopolitical goal of dominating the Eurasian Heartland, wanted to promote not only the dissolution of the tellurocratic, bi-continental and imperial power of the USSR, but also the dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Chechnya thus became the scene of a global battle between the two opposing geopolitical conceptions; corrosive globalism against the multipolarity of the large blocks; imperialism ("divide and conquer") against the Empire (federal autarky and integration).
 
In October 1991; Soviet ex - general and president of the Chechen Republic Dzhokhar Dudayev made a unilateral declaration of "independence", proclaiming the "Republic of Ichkeria ". His intention was to turn Chechnya into his personal feud, and to do so he was helped with covert CIA support.
 
For centuries, Chechens traditionally always devoted to the profession of soldier. The demobilization of the Red Army in the post- Soviet years led many to unemployment.
 
With Dudayev, who as a Soviet military man had never resided in the land of his ancestors, Chechnya became a haven for organized crime as it would later became Kosovo. The oligarchs were very involved in the illegal business with Chechnya, especially Boris Berezovsky. Dudayev came to threaten Russia with a terrorist campaign against its nuclear plants. Grozny's airport became a transit point for world heroin trade. 
 
In the previous decade, Dudayev had participated in the war in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, but paradoxically he and his successors would later use them in Chechnya. He was not an Islamist as Basayev and Umarov, but he lacked scruples and in order to realize his aspirations of "independence", he allied with Saudi Arabia (soon establishing in Chechnya a network of mercenaries through Prince Bandar) and Turkey (member country of NATO). He is the Izetbegovic or Thaci of the Caucasus. 
 
He was an ally of the anti-Soviet Estonian nationalists (while his successor Aslan Maskhadov repressed them). In summer 1992, Dudayev made trips to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for support. Also to Turkey and Bosnia.
 
Berezovsky was an associate of Chechen gangsters. In 1993 he flew to Tel Aviv, and acquired Israeli citizenship without having to give up the Russian one.
 
General Alexander Lebed (who died in a mysterious "plane crash") stated that Berezovsky was responsible for the "peace negotiations" in Chechnya doing everything possible to make them fail.
 
Lebed : "After the signing of the peace accords of Khassaviurt [ ... ] Berezovsky came to see me and tried to intimidate me. When he realized that it was not possible to scare me, he simply said, "you have spoiled an amazing business. Everything was going so well. Were they killing each other? So what? They always have and will continue to do so anyway."
 
Salman Raduyev was a friend of Berezovsky. Ramzan Kadyrov declared years later that Berezovsky financed terrorists back in 1996 and 1997: "He could not afford to just give them the money, so (Berezovsky) invented the following mechanism: He asked (Raduyev and Basayev ) to kidnap people and he would pay the ransom: "I will receive good publicity and you will have the money". (Source: http://rt.com/politics/berezovsky-financed-terrorists-by-paying-ransoms-chechen-prez/)
 
Looter oligarchs like Berezovsky or Gusinsky, in those turbulent years, contributed to emphasize the precariousness of the Russian people and to spread misery; these plutocrats also collaborated with international high finance that sought to dissolve not only the USSR but also the Russian Federation.
 
Geoenergetic Question: There are not the natural resources of Chechnya which matters most to the Russians, but the network of oil pipelines in the Caspian sea. USrael steals oil from Russia through Georgia and Azerbaijan. Baku- Novorossiysk.
 
In 1993 Dudayev announced that Chechen language would stop using the Cyrillic alphabet and would begin to use the Latin one; also they stopped teaching Russian in schools.
 
Meanwhile, Chechen political groups from within the republic opposed his regime and decided to ally with Russia.
 
The first war to regain Chechnya took place between 1994 and 1996, ending with a ceasefire. Dudayev died in 1996 after being hit by a missile during the war.
 
Aslan Maskhadov came to power in 1997, he wanted to maintain the "sovereignty" and continue pressuring Moscow (which had enough economic problems on their own because of the parasitical oligarchs) to rebuild the country. Russia continued to send money for the rehabilitation of the republic, to build schools and hospitals, but most of the money was taken by the separatist authorities and the warlords who keep the money for themselves.
 
Formally, "Ichkeria" was still part of Russia, and enjoyed government subsidies and participation in the Russian financial system (their "independence " was UNILATERAL), but it did not contribute at all to the Federation. It was beyond the control of the customs bodies and of the Russian security forces. In a concession to the Islamists, Maskhadov decreed the imposition of Sharia in 1999. Chechnya began increasingly to become a Caucasian version of Taliban Afghanistan.
 
The second war began in July 1999 with the invasion launched by Basayev and Arab mercenary Khattab against Dagestan from Chechnya; with the complicity of Maskhadov, with the scope of also separating Dagestan from Russia and integrate it into the "Republic of Ichkeria" as a potential " Islamic emirate". In September, terrorist acts in Moscow apartment caused over 300 deaths.
 
Proponents of the conspiranoic theory that the bombs in the apartment were a "false flag" of the FSB, have connections with Berezovsky (Litvinenko, Kasparov, etc). The most rabid Zionist neocon hawks in Washington are also adherents of this real "conspiracy theory". A major case of PROJECTION (attributing to the crimes they themselves commit or the own ways of doing things to the adversary) is seen here: The same ones who affirm that after the bombings in Moscow apartments were Russian secret services to have an excuse to intervene in Chechnya, are the ones defending tooth and nail the "official version" of 9/11.
 
The Russian intervention in Chechnya in 1999 drew criticism (and even economic sanctions) from Washington, accusing Moscow of "violating human rights", urging the Russian government to "engage in dialogue" with the "moderate" Maskhadov. The State Department of the U.S. received in January 2000 none other than Ilyas Akhmadov, cabinet member of the separatist regime of "Ichkeria". Meanwhile, oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky (like Berezovsky also an Israeli citizen), owner of Media -Most and NTV channel, performed in Russia itself a media campaign in line with the Atlanticist view, attacking the "barbarism" of the Russian Army and the "war crimes" (obviously only the ones of the pro - Federation forces, systematically ignoring the atrocities perpetrated by the Chechen "rebels" - In Chechnya, as today in Syria, there were also two types of "combatants" : the "extremists" of  "Al Qaeda" (of which nobody was still speaking in the West, because this was before 9/11) and the "moderate" Maskhadov (analogous to current members of the "FSA"). 
 
Instead, the pro-Federation Chechens (which were increasing in numbers) were systematically ignored by the media (both Western and "Russian" - ie oligarchic - media, as the aforementioned Media-Most of Gusinsky). It was thus intended to give the public the wrong perception that it was a conflict of "Russians against Chechens" (of "evil imperialist Russians against poor Chechens who just wanted freedom"); when in fact it was a geopolitical conflict between supporters of the Federation and sympathizers of secessionism (among them less and less civilians and increasingly more militant Wahhabis - many of them foreigners - as well as organized crime figures and, of course, those who always benefit from the "divide and conquer".
 
Political analyst F. William Engdahl said that if Russia had not intervened in Chechnya between 1999 and 2000; the US would have had the excuse after the attacks of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, to directly interfere in the North Caucasus (ie in the Russian Federation) alleging that the region could serve as a refuge to Bin Laden and Taliban leaders, after "not having found" them in Afghanistan.
 
Raduyev mantained that Dudayev (officially dead since 1996) was still alive, and gave orders for the "liberation of the Caucasus" from a secret NATO base in Turkey ( ! ). In 1999 Raduyev , whom the effects of an explosion had deformed the face, went to get plastic surgery to Germany (!) He got titanium implants, so they nicknamed him "Titanic" and "Michael Jackson". In 2000 he tried to assassinate Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, who a few years later was to be overthrowed by one of those colored revolutions of the post -Soviet space, and replaced with the more “cooperative” puppet Saakashvili.
 
In retaliation for the terrorist bombing of the Moscow apartments in September 1999, air strikes were carried out by Russia against the regime of "Ichkeria", and ground attacks in October. The Russian reaction, coordinated by Putin, was much better planned and executed than in the first war in 1994.
 
Since 2000, the separatists had access to sophisticated radars and anti-aircraft batteries (made in USA) . Georgia 's border with Chechnya was used to smuggle weapons and mercenaries for the CIA (perhaps the attempt to assassinate Shevardnadze in 2000 had something to do with his refusal or resistance to it?). In Taliban Afghanistan (with which "Ichkeria" had optimal contacts) there were trained terrorists for the " jihad" in Chechnya , with the help of the Pakistani ISI. Among them was Basayev, possible CIA agent.
 
Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Pipes cynically criticed the "invasion" and "genocidal atrocities" supposedly committed by Russia in Chechnya (while, at the same time, the U.S. was planning and executing a TRUE invasion, that of Iraq) , and demanded  through the "American Comitee for Peace in Chechnya " (ACPC ) and other globalist organizations such as the "National Endowment for Democracy" (NED ) that Moscow should "negotiate" with the "moderate" Maskhadov government, even to the point of proposing to Chechnya "formal independence" under international supervision ( ! ) - see for example the article "Give Chechens a land of Their Own" (The New York Times, 9.9.2004 ) or "The Great Chessboard" (p. 88-89) of Z. Brzezinski.
 
In 2005, the U.S. television network ABC aired an interview with the head of the Chechen terrorists Shamil Basayev, one of the main responsibles for the slaughter of children in school in Beslan (North Ossetia) in September 2004. When the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed outrage about it, the US State Department said that the TV channel is backed by the "freedom of expression".
 
On March 7, 2006 a group of prominent characters of high finance and Western politics published an open letter in the media where they continued the anti-Russian hysteria, comparing the take of Grozny with Hitler's attack against Warsaw in 1944, condemning the "neo -colonial" behavior of Russia and urging to take "drastic measures" against the Russian government. The letter was entitled "End the Silence over Chechnya" and was signed, among others, by none other than the founder of the Open Society Institute George Soros, the French Zionist Andre Glucksmann or Saudi Prince Hassan Bin Talal .
 
At events like the G-8 conference in St. Petersburg in June 2006 or during the parliamentary elections of 2007, the Atlanticist lobby continued hostile anti-Russian statements and media campaigns through individuals like John McCain, Tom Lantos (one of the largest media agitators for the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, propagandist of the incubators-myth) or Ileana Rose-Lethinen, who accused Putin of "authoritarianism" , "corruption", "mysterious explosions in Moscow apartments " and "invasion of Chechnya".
 
Afghan Taliban recognized Ichkeria in 2000; also "Ukrainian nationalists" and Poland. Because of the Ukrainian conflict, it is now common knowledge that criminals of "Pravy Sektor" ( UNA / UNSO ) had ( and have) excellent connections with Wahhabi terrorists in the Caucasus; and that there even were Ukrainian fighters on the side of Dudayev?s separatists, such as Alexander Muzichko a.k.a. Sashko Biliy, while Pravy Sektor?s chief Dimitri Yarosh called for help from Doku Umarov. Ukrainian chauvinists are also fiercely anti -Serb ; recently it came to light that Croatian war criminals "coincidentally" acquitted at The Hague like Ante Gotovina have traveled to western Ukraine to train and advise the anti - Russian militias. (See: http://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-bloody-croatian-generals-acquitted-by-the-hague-tribunal-took-over-the-ukrainian-land-forces/ )
 
In June 2000, Putin appointed former chief mufti Ahmad Kadyrov head of the Chechen government, and the reconstruction of the Republic from the ashes began. Kadyrov had initially supported the secessionists in the early '90s, but stopped after discovering how talassocracy was instrumentalizing Chechen nationalism, and especially seeing the rise of insane Saudi Wahhabi ideology and the havoc it caused in the Caucasus - also after realizing that protecting ethnic idiosyncrasy and self-determination of the Chechen people were not at all incompatible with integration into the Russian Federation, a great continental power composed of diverse peoples and that had nothing to do with the oppression of the Soviet past. What was bad in the USSR has been reincarnated in (or transferred to) the "EU" and not to the New Russia - that's what many "nationalist" (especially Ukrainians, but also Baltic and Western) do not understand.
 
Following the takeover of Kadyrov and the beginning of the rebuilding of the country, about 7,000 former separatist passed to the federal side.
 
In 2003 it was approved a new Chechen constitution after a referendum; which gave the Republic a significant degree of autonomy.
 
In March 2004 Ahmad Kadyrov was murdered; the "moderate" Maskhadov said "he got what he deserved". Alu Alkhanov succeeded him as the head of the Chechen government, and the following year, in December 2005, he was replaced by Kadyrov 's son Ramzan, who continues to lead the Republic until today.
 
Beslan massacre
 
September 2004: Beslan, North Ossetia , 1100 hostages,  331 killed (186 of them children). The terrorists were drug-addicts used by Basayev. ( Basayev fought on the side of the Azeris against Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 92 , where he met Khattab. From that time - which coincides with the visit of Dudayev to Saudi Arabia - Wahhabism began to infiltrate in Chechnya . According to LITVINENKO and Berezovsky ( big " credibility ..."!) Basayev was conspiring with Putin against "moderate" Maskhadov - again we see the PROJECTION scheme, as what happened in reality was Bin Laden working with USA secret services.
 
By the way, Basayev 's brother, Shirvani, lives in Erdogan's Turkey.
 
Another Arab mercenary like Khattab is Muhannad, trained in the U.S., brought Wahhabism to the Kists of Pankisi (Chechens in Georgia) .
 
Spokesman of the separatist Ichkeria government  Ahmed Zakayev, exiled in London (!), said that Basayev "does not represent the Chechen cause" and that he is "an agent of Moscow trying to discredit it". But at the same time, despite the attack in Beslan, Zakayev named Basayev "Deputy Minister"  in 2005.
 
The "moderates " (Maskhadov) and the "extremists" (Basayev), as in Syria the "moderate FSA" and "extremist Al Qaeda / ISIS" etc. - the same false dichotomy as "Democrats vs. Republicans " in the USA .
 
In 2007; Anzor Astemirov (who studied Islamic theology in Saudi Arabia) officially requested U.S. help against "Russian aggression". Thereafter, "rebel" websites took out the phrase that read that Western countries were enemies of the "Caucasus Emirate".
 
Maskhadov
 
On March 8, 2005 Maskhadov was liquidated in a Russian special operation (an Ex-Soviet military commander like Dudayev, Maskhadov had paradoxically suppressed the Baltic independentists by orders of Gorbachev in 1991) Ramzan Kadyrov said in the Komsomolskaya Pravda that the death of Maskhadov on March the 8 was a sign of destiny in honor of all the women who were opressed in the obscurantist Maskhadov republic. Meanwhile, for the French Zionist Glucksmann, Maskhadov is a "hero of freedom".
 
In 2006 also Maskhadov 's successor Abdul Khalim Sadulayev was liquidated and shortly after also Shamil Basayev, mastermind of the Beslan massacre. In 2009 the Russian army withdrew from the Chechen Republic that had been  pacified and reconstructed and where the pro - Federation Chechens headed by Ramzan Kadyrov had managed to consolidate stability.
Interestingly, the same year of 2009 (when terrorists Maskhadov and Basayev had been eliminated and peace had returned to the region), the "Freedom House" placed Chechnya on its list of "most repressive societies in the world" along with North Korea or Burma (Coming from the Freedom House, that was actually a compliment) - It didn?t suit to  Atlanticism that the destabilizing poison had been crushed.
 
Meanwhile, Doku Umarov (successor of Basayev) abolished the "Republic of Ichkeria" and proclaimed the "Caucasus Emirate" calling himself  "emir".
 
Nationalism and Geopolitics
 
For a deeper understanding of the Caucasian conflicts (or the Balkanic one, or the current Ukrainian crisis), it is necessary to emphasize once again that there are only TWO geopolitical models, and in the continental tellurocratic dimension of Russia (or rather the Russias -in plural- analogously to the Spains of Carlist traditionalists) as integrative power of Eurasia and champion of multipolarity. The Russias are comprised of many peoples, that are integrated (not fused !) in the Federation. There is an absolute difference between this idea of federated, integrative union (the idea of Eurasia, whose core is Russia, Haushofer?s Kontinentalblock) and the "EU" a prison of nations that does not integrate but only merges chaotically, and that is not self-sufficient but dependent of the parasitic global finance, and which is not sovereign but an USrael colony.
 
Chechnya and other Caucasian peoples are factually much freer and have more autonomy (culturally and economically) if they are integrated in the Federation under the protective umbrella of Russia/ the Russias in the Eurasian Kontinentalblock, than with a fake "independence" that can not be such, because it would fall under the absolute control of the Rothschilds, Soros, etc. . That's what the "nationalist " and "independentists" do not understand; neither in Russia nor in Spain .
 
Chechnya has more political freedom and more autonomy from Moscow than any country in the "EU" from Brussels. (And who says Brussels, says Washington).
 
 
Meanwhile, the Russian "white supremacist" (racial chauvinists), the " neo-Nazi" and "skinheads" in Moscow and other cities that harass or discriminate against people from the Caucasus and other areas of the post -Soviet space (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz , etc. ) are the other side of the coin of ethno-social "divide and conquer". They are manipulated and used by those who seek the destruction of Russia (as the Russias / Eurasia). The strategic alliance between the "Ukrainian nationalists" and separatist Chechen Wahhabis is a clear example of this.
 
"Independence" ( ie its constitution as a truly sovereign state) of such small countries and regions (Chechnya has a total population of one million two hundred thousand) is not possible; nor it is desirable such a fallacious "independence", even if these peoples do have indeed a completely different and unique ethnic, cultural and linguistic idiosyncrasy; because then they would inevitably be devoured by the globalism of the "international community". 
 
Thus, "nationalists" feelings (ironically encouraged by those internationalists seeking to establish the dystopian entelechy of the NWO) are transformed in a weapon that turns against the nations themselves. In the case of the Caucasus, the best that can happen to this countries is to be under the protection of the Russian state, integrated in it in a Federation, enjoying full rights of autonomy, with the ability to enjoy their historical and ancestral tribal organization clans (the teips), and with their own regional laws (similar to the "fueros" in the case of Spain) . If not, the alternative to the "independence" of Russia, is the dependence of the "West" ; ie of USrael (which financed Wahhabis there, as it does in Syria), and a greater dependence on IMF, World Bank , and maybe even NATO (see Georgia) and EU ... See also what happened with the Baltic countries, which have gone from the bad (USSR) to the worst (EU).
 
In the case of Spain, Basque separatism is a creation of British imperialism (which was very admired by Sabino Arana - the "Basque Stepan Bandera" so to say), and both the Basque and Catalan separatism is functional to international imperialism, as it always the case with  chauvinist nationalism, seeking to separate from an historical entity (Spain / the Spains) to get into an artificial one ( "EU") , believing themselves to be "independent".
 
Ahmad Kadyrov and son Ramzan
 
Ahmad Kadyrov was born in Karaganda (Kazakhstan) in 1951, within a Chechen family who had been deported following WWII. He studied in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He was a Sufi Cleric of the Qadiriyya tariqa and a Chechen politician, first a secessionist and finally pro-federation and president of the Chechen Republic from 2003 until his assassination a year later.
 
After the breakup of the USSR he initially joined the breakaway faction and was appointed mufti by Dudayev. But at the beginning of the second Chechen war in 1999, he switched to the pro-Russian side when he realized the geopolitical implications of the conflict and the increasing arrival of militant Wahhabis and Arab mercenaries of the Saudi orbit to extend terror and perpetuate conflict.
 
Kadyrov followed the teachings of the Chechen Sufi master Kunta-hajji Kishiev (1830-1867). His followers (which adhere to the Qadiriyya tariqa) believe that Kunta - hajji is one of the 360 saints who will return to Earth at the End of Time (which has some similarities with the eschatological prophecies of esoteric Shiism, the Hidden Imam, etc. ). 
 
The grave of Heda, the mother of Kunta - haji , is considered sacred by his followers, and became a source of conflict between Wahhabis and Sufis during the separatist government of Aslan Maskhadov. The Wahhabi "Puritans" wanted to destroy the tomb because they believe the veneration of saints to be "paganism". This was one of the turning points that led Ahmad Kadyrov , then grand mufti of Chechnya, to make the decision to break with the regime of Maskhadov and side with the Russian Federation.
 
With him began (from 2003 onwards) the period of peace and stability that lasts until today, under his son Ramzan. Ahmad Kadyrov made many ex-rebels pass to the pro-Russian side. (The Kadyrovtsy, pro-Chechen Federation troops are mostly ex-rebels. They are estimated to be around 5000).
 
There were a dozen assassination attempts against him, before the final one, on March 9, 2004. In the attack against him 30 other people were killed as well. Basayev was the organizer.
 
Ramzan (1976 in Tsenteroi), a boxer, a practicing Sufi, father of 5 daughters and 3 sons.
As Gaddafi in Libya, he banned alcohol and gambling. He replaced Alkhanov as head of the Republic after turning 30, minimum age for the post.
 
In 2006 the industry grew by 11.9 % , in 2007 26.4%
 
Logically , the "informative" media continued (and continues today) its smear campaign against Kadyrov and the pro-Federation Chechens, calling them " warlords" (which curiously had achieved peace, by the way) of "repressing  opposition" and of "crimes against human rights" , etc, etc. Apparently, they are worried about the stability that prevails today in Chechnya and by the fact that the potential of terrorist subversion has been smashed and virtually eradicated (both the "moderate" ones, openly friends with the "West" like the faction of Maskhadov, as well as the "extremists" ones of Umarov).
 
There were numerous assassination attempts against Ramzan, one of the most spectacular in October 2009.
 
In December 2009, the Chechen president said that the remaining terrorists are funded by the West.
 
In December 10, 2013 the opposition leader of Ingushetia, the separatist Magomed Khazbiev, attended the "Euromaidan" in Ukraine and participated in the anti-Russian campaign there. On February 2, 2014 FSB officially confirmed that in the mid December 2013 four  nor- Caucasian instructors were operating in Ukraine, and preparing the maidanite "rebels" for street fighting (Just like the Israelis military who were also there for the same... – See http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-israeli-special-forces-unit-under-neo-nazi-command-involved-in-maidan-riots/5371725)

samedi, 19 juillet 2014

Saudi Complicity in the Rise of ISIS

1242537.jpg

The Blunders of Prince Bandar

Saudi Complicity in the Rise of ISIS

by PATRICK COCKBURN

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world?

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as “spoils of war”. Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

Dearlove’s explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6′s view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion, has attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove’s speech focused instead on his main theme that the threat from Isis to the West is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, it is absorbed in a new conflict that “is essentially Muslim on Muslim”. Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. “The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq,” said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published. Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge. But, drawing on past experience, he sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes.

• First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”.
• But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

The difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis can be overstated: when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death.

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.” She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa’ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year. But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in Egypt.

The problem for the Saudis is that their attempts since Bandar lost his job to create an anti-Maliki and anti-Assad Sunni constituency which is simultaneously against al-Qa’ida and its clones have failed.

By seeking to weaken Maliki and Assad in the interest of a more moderate Sunni faction, Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, as happened previously in its Syrian capital Raqqa, potential critics and opponents are disarmed, forced to swear allegiance to the new caliphate and killed if they resist.

The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.

An alibi used by the US and Britain is that the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is pursuing dialogue and reform. But this excuse looked thin last week as Bahrain expelled a top US diplomat, the assistant secretary of state for human rights Tom Malinowksi, for meeting leaders of the main Shia opposition party al-Wifaq. Mr Malinowski tweeted that the Bahrain government’s action was “not about me but about undermining dialogue”.

Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq.

Publicly and privately, they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni, partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community’s protector against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.

The chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds in the north and the official al-Qa’ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra, are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil wells that it did not already control.

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control.

The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from the Turkish intelligence service.

As for Saudi Arabia, it may come to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target. It is the unnamed head of Saudi General Intelligence quoted by Dearlove after 9/11 who is turning out to have analysed the potential threat to Saudi Arabia correctly and not Prince Bandar, which may explain why the latter was sacked earlier this year.

Nor is this the only point on which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge.

“God help the Shia,” said Prince Bandar, but, partly thanks to him, the shattered Sunni communities of Iraq and Syria may need divine help even more than the Shia.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of  Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

jeudi, 17 juillet 2014

¿Jihad global contra los BRICS?

carte-de-lava.jpg

Nuevo califato del siglo XXI en Irak/Siria: ¿jihad global contra los BRICS?

Alfredo Jalife Rahme

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

La nebulosidad sobre la sorprendente creación y propagación del grupo sunita jihadista Estado Islámico de Irak y el Levante (Siria y Líbano) –Isil, por sus siglas en inglés, y Daesh en árabe–, que ha generado aparente confusión (ver Bajo la Lupa, 18, 25 y 29/6/14), se empieza a disipar por sus alcances geoestratégicos en la frontera del triángulo RIC (Rusia, India y China), cuyos tres miembros forman parte del ascendente BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica), a 14 días de celebrar su sexta cumbre en Fortaleza.

El primer día del ayuno islámico del Ramadán, un dato simbólicamente ilustrativo fue escenificado por Isil/Daesh, que deja oficialmente de lado su nombre por el de Estado islámico: el lanzamiento del califato islámicoen los territorios bajo su ocupación militar, y nombró a su enigmático líder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi como su nuevo califa (que significa sucesor del profeta Mahoma en árabe).

El temerario lanzamiento del nuevo califato por el Estado islámico sunita es un triple anatema para el chiísmo universal de 300 millones de feligreses (20 por ciento del total islámico global): 1) el califato, que nace con loscompañeros del profeta, es eminentemente sunita y motivo de la ruptura sucesoria con los chiítas seguidores de Alí (primo de Mahoma); 2) Abu Bakr fue el primer califa del sunismo, padre de la legendaria Aisha y uno de los suegros del profeta, y hoynom de guerre del nuevo califa del siglo XXI, y 3) el califato sunita proclamado llega hasta las fronteras de Irán en la provincia de Diyala para vincularse con Alepo (Siria), en la frontera turca.

El primigenio califato fue abolido con la derrota del Imperio Otomano en la Primera Guerra Mundial, lo cual significó el reparto de su féretro mediante la artificial cartografía medioriental del tratado secreto anglo-francés Sykes-Picot que el nuevo califato del siglo XXI ha dado por muerto al borrar de facto la transfrontera de Siria e Irak, lo cual beneficia el nuevo trazado militar del Kurdistán iraquí.

Las reverberaciones del nuevo califato del siglo XXI son enormes a escala local/transfronteriza/regional y euroasiática, en medio de su epifenómeno multidimensional –donde el control de los hidrocarburos juega un papel preponderante–, cuando sus implicaciones prospectivas se plasman en su irredentismo cartográfico tanto de su jihad petrolera como de su proyección geopolítica para los próximos cinco años.

A alguien le convino la guerra de 1980-1988 focalizada entre los árabes de Irak (en la etapa de Saddam Hussein) contra los persas de Irán (en la fase del ayatola Jomenei), para que luego Estados Unidos/Gran Bretaña/OTAN librasen sus dos guerras puntuales en contra de Irak (1990/1991 y 2003/2011) del nepotismo dinástico de los Bush (padre e hijo).

Irak, hoy en delicuescencia, lleva 34 años ininterrumpidos de guerras caleidoscópicas y entra a un nuevo estadio: una guerra etno-teológica que puede durar otros 30 años –réplica de las guerras europeas del siglo XVII– entre sunitas y chiítas, que abarca ya nítidamente a varios países del gran Medio Oriente (en la definición del general israelí Ariel Sharon: de Marruecos a Cachemira y de Somalia al Cáucaso): Irak, Siria, Líbano, Yemen, Bahréin, Arabia Saudita (en su parte oriental petrolera, donde predomina la minoría chiíta), y en la que participan a escala regional tras bambalinas (ya muy vistas) las seis petromonarquías del Consejo de Cooperación Árabe del Golfo Pérsico, Turquía, Jordania e Irán, sin contar el Kurdistán iraquí (gran aliado de Israel).

El nuevo califato del siglo XXI en el mero corazón euroasiático comporta implicaciones profundas en el triángulo geoestratégico de los RIC, que ostentan relevantes minorías islámicas, a diferencia de Estados Unidos y todo el continente americano, en donde la presencia musulmana es microscópica: 0.8 por ciento de la población en Estados Unidos; Sudamérica, 0.42 por ciento, y todo el continente americano, 1.6 por ciento.

Es mi hipótesis que el nuevo califato del siglo XXI y su jihad global, tanto petrolera como geopolítica, carcome las fronteras islámicas del triángulo RIC y desestabiliza su conformación demográfica interna –con un total de casi 200 millones de islámicos en su seno–, tomando en cuenta la doble contención que ejerce Estados Unidos contra Rusia y China (mediante la doctrina Obama).

Con antelación ya había expuesto el preponderante factor islámico en India, que se encuentra ante un tsunami demográfico-geopolítico.

Vlady Putin declaró que “los acontecimientos provocados por Occidente en Ucrania son una muestra concentrada de una política de contención (¡supersic!) contra Rusia ”.

No se pueden soslayar los vasos comunicantes entre Ucrania, el mar Negro, el Transcáucaso y el gran Medio Oriente, donde brilla intensamente el factor chechenio.

A juicio de Putin, después del fracaso del mundo unipolar,Occidente pretende imponer a otros países sus principios, convirtiendo el planeta en un cuartel mundial. ¡Uf!

Durante el paroxismo de la guerra fría, el libro predictivo de la disolución de la URSS, El imperio resquebrajado: la revuelta de las naciones en la URSS , de la aristócrata francesa Helène Carrère d’Encausse, exhibió la vulnerabilidad cohesiva de la URSS debido al galopante crecimiento demográfico de su poligámica población islámica.

Los políticos de Estados Unidos, entre ellos el vicepresidente Joe Biden, vuelven a repetir el modelo demográfico del imperio resquebrajado, ya reducido a la mínima expresión de Rusia, donde existe una relevante minoría islámica de alrededor de 15 por ciento de su población (20 millones del total) asentada en la región Volga/Ural y en el hipersensible Cáucaso norte (Daguestán, Chechenia, etcétera).

China también ostenta unaminoría islámica sunita muy inquieta, ostensiblemente azuzada desde el exterior: los célebres uigures –de origen mongol, conectados con sus congéneres de Asia central y Turquía–, que predominan en la Región Autónoma de Xinjiang, que ascienden a 10 millones (según el censo de 2010).

La superestratégica región de Xinjiang, que mide 1.6 millones de kilómetros cuadrados, detenta pletóricos yacimientos de petróleo, constituye la mayor región productora de gas natural de toda China y ostenta importantes reservas de uranio.

La conexión comercial de Xinjiang con Kazajstán es del mayor orden geoestratégico en el corazón euroasiático.

En fechas recientes, los separatistas uigures sunitas han intensificado sus atentados en el mero corazón de China, en su capital Pekín.

Los separatistas uigures, que buscan derrocar al gobierno chino local, están inspirados por la teología de la jihad global avant la lettre y que ahora proclama y reclama el nuevo califato del siglo XXI, con el que muy bien pudieran conectarse.

¿Forma parte del cuartel mundial  de Occidente el nuevo califato del siglo XXI y su jihad global contra los BRICS?

02/07/2014

alfredojalife.com

Twitter: @AlfredoJalifeR_

Facebook: AlfredoJalife

mercredi, 16 juillet 2014

Snowden : «Le chef de l’EIIL, Al Baghdadi, a été formé par le Mossad»

Snowden : «Le chef de l’EIIL, Al Baghdadi, a été formé par le Mossad»

Auteur : Al Imane

L’ancien employé à l’Agence nationale de sécurité américaine, Edward Snowden, a révélé que les services de renseignement britannique et américain, ainsi que le Mossad, ont collaboré ensemble pour la création de l’ex-EIIL ou l’État islamique en Irak et au Levant, selon l’agence d’information iranienne Farsnews.

Snowden a indiqué que les services de renseignement de trois pays, à savoir les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et l’entité sioniste ont collaboré ensemble afin de créer une organisation terroriste qui soit capable d’attirer tous les extrémistes du monde vers un seul endroit, selon une stratégie baptisée « le nid de frelons ».

Les documents de l’Agence nationale de sécurité américaine évoque « la mise en place récente d’un vieux plan britannique connu sous le nom de “nid de frelons” pour protéger l’entité sioniste, et ce en créant une religion comprenant des slogans islamiques qui rejettent toute autre religion ou confession ».

Selon les documents de Snowden, « la seule solution pour la protection de “l’État juif” est de créer un ennemi près de ses frontières, mais de le dresser contre les États islamiques qui s’opposent à sa présence ».

Les fuites ont révélé qu’« Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi a suivi une formation militaire intensive durant une année entière entre les mains du Mossad, sans compter des cours en théologie et pour maîtriser l’art du discours ».


- Source : Al Imane

vendredi, 20 juin 2014

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

dj155261.jpg

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

jeudi, 19 juin 2014

The ISIS Crisis

EIILiRAK1.jpg

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“ 

dimanche, 15 juin 2014

Le terrorisme, stade final du processus démocratique

Irak: vers la création d’un état islamique
 
Le terrorisme, stade final du processus démocratique

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr
 
Trois ans après le départ des troupes américaines du sol irakien, le pays est plus que jamais au bord du chaos, menacé par des conflits ethniques et religieux entre sunnites, chiites et Kurdes. L'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL) gagne du terrain dans le nord de l'Irak, région qui concentre une grande partie des champs pétrolifères et des raffineries du pays. Des centaines de djihadistes se sont emparés coup sur coup de la deuxième ville d'Irak, Mossoul, de sa province, ainsi que des parties de deux autres provinces proches. « Toutes les unités militaires ont quitté Mossoul et les habitants ont commencé à fuir par milliers vers la région autonome du Kurdistan », a confirmé un officier de haut rang. 

 
L'EIIL a revendiqué  les attaques à Ninive, province pétrolière sunnite, et affirmé avoir saisi des armes par milliers. Il contrôlait déjà Fallouja et plusieurs autres secteurs de la province occidentale d'Al-Anbar, à majorité sunnite et voisine de Ninive, alors que le pays, qui ne connaît pas de répit depuis l'invasion menée par les Etats-Unis en 2003, est emporté depuis un an et demi dans une spirale de violences. La chute de Saddam a ouvert la boite de pandore et les américains ont bien été incapables de la refermer. Les avancées des insurgés témoignent d'une situation chaotique sur le plan sécuritaire, alimentée par les tensions confessionnelles sunnites/chiites et le conflit en Syrie voisine. Les Etats-Unis ont ainsi plaidé en faveur d'une «  réaction ferme et coordonnée » pour reprendre Mossoul et se sont dit prêts à fournir à Bagdad toute l'aide nécessaire pour la mener à bien.

Dans un communiqué, Jen Psaki, la porte-parole du département d'Etat a indiqué : « Les Etats-Unis sont profondément préoccupés par les événements qui se sont produits au cours des dernières 48 heures à Mossoul, où des éléments de l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant se sont emparés d'une partie importante de la ville. La situation reste extrêmement grave. Les Etats-Unis vont fournir toute l'aide nécessaire au gouvernement irakien dans le cadre de l'Accord-cadre stratégique pour contribuer au succès de ces efforts ».

Ban Ki-moon, secrétaire général de l'Onu, a également exprimé sa préoccupation : « Le secrétaire général exhorte tous les dirigeants politiques à présenter un front uni face aux menaces qui pèsent sur l'Irak, qui ne peuvent être dissipées que dans le cadre de la Constitution et d'un processus politique démocratique ».

Ils ont tout de même bonne mine avec leur processus démocratique. Des terroristes sont en train de se constituer un état confessionnel en Irak, espérant l’étendre à la Syrie. Il s'installe à cheval sur la Syrie ( dans le nord-est du pays ) et sur l'Irak ( dans l'Ouest et le Nord ). C'est un événement d'une portée considérable, non seulement pour la région, mais aussi pour l'Europe.

Profitant de l'affaiblissement, voire de l'éclatement, de ces deux ex-Etats forts du Proche-Orient, le groupe djihadiste que dirige l'Irakien Abou Bakri Al-Baghdadi, l'Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant ( EIIL ), ne cesse d'agrandir son domaine. Jamais Al-Qaïda, même en Afghanistan sous le règne des talibans, à la fin des années 1990, n'avait contrôlé pareil territoire.

L'EIIL supplante Al-Qaïda en puissance de feu et en moyens financiers. Prônant officiellement la même pureté islamiste sunnite et la même violence extrême, il peut modifier durablement la carte de la région, amputant la Syrie et l'Irak d'une partie de leurs provinces pétrolières. 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.

Si les américains et leurs pantins sur place sont impuissants, ils pourraient  peut-être faire appel à Assad.

dimanche, 08 juin 2014

Salvaje campaña de Al Qaeda en Siria e Irak contra símbolos y religiones ‘heréticas’

 
Imagen mostrando la destrucción de la estatua asiria en contrada en Tell Ajajah, al sur de Hasaka. / APSA

Imagen mostrando la destrucción de la estatua asiria encontrada en el yacimiento de Tell Ajajah, al sur de Hasaka. / APSA

Salvaje campaña de Al Qaeda en Siria e Irak contra símbolos y religiones ‘heréticas’

Manuel Martorell

Ex: http://www.cuartopoder.es

La Asociación para la Protección de la Arqueología Siria (APSA) ha difundido nuevas e impactantes imágenes de lo que está suponiendo la guerra siria para el patrimonio internacional. En una de ellas, tomada en un lugar indeterminado al sur de Hasaka, se puede ver cómo varios milicianos integristas destrozan a martillados una estatua del periodo asirio, alrededor del año 1.000 antes de Cristo.

Según los datos difundidos por esta asociación en su página web, quienes destrozan esta reliquia arqueológica serían miembros del Estado Islámico de Irak y Siria (ISIS), en estos momentos la organización vinculada a Al Qaeda más fuerte en estos dos países. Este grupo habría detenido a varias personas por realizar una excavación ilegal en el yacimiento de Tell Ajajah, pero, una vez las piezas robadas en su manos, se dedicaron a destruirlas por considerarlas signos paganos.

No es la primera vez que el Estado Islámico arremete contra objetos o lugares de valor patrimonial o religioso al considerarlos incompatibles con su restrictiva visión del islam. Esta misma asociación coloca varios ejemplos más de mausoleos islámicos que también han sido destruidos pese a su gran valor religioso, como ha ocurrido con los de Tell Sahuk y Tell Maruf, donde están enterrados, respectivamente, los cheiks Names y Keznawi, ambos destacadas figuras sufíes.

El mausoleo sufí de Keznawi antes y después de su destrucción. / APSA

El mausoleo sufí de Keznawi antes y después de su destrucción. / APSA

La misma suerte han corrido antiguas iglesias cristianas o monumentos naturales a los que los locales dan un valor religioso, dejando claro así que están dispuestos a hacer tabla rasa en las zonas que todavía están bajo su control en Siria o en las que están actualmente cayendo en sus manos en el norte de Irak, donde este grupo está cobrando una inusitada fuerza tras las sucesivas derrotas sufridas en el país vecino.

Precisamente, las informaciones que llegan de esta zona de Irak indican que el ISIS está recuperando su fuerza en las provincias de Nínive y Anbar, volviendo a controlar áreas urbanas en Mosul y Faluya, hasta el punto de que, en esta ciudad, abren y cierran las compuertas del río Tigris a su antojo.

Este hecho es bastante significativo respecto a la impotencia del Gobierno de Bagadad, que, incapaz de recuperar el control de la ciudad, debe contentarse con protestar porque el cierre de las compuertas compromete el suministro de agua a la capital por un lado y por otro provoca inundaciones en amplias zonas del curso superior, anegando cosechas y áreas habitadas.

Aún más preocupante es la campaña de limpieza étnica que en los últimos meses está lanzando contra corrientes religiosas no islámicas o que no siguen la ortodoxia suní, sobre todo en torno a la ciudad de Mosul, una zona habitada tanto por turcómanos chiíes, como por yezidis, cristianos asirio-caldeos y shabaks, seguidores estos últimos de un credo exotérico próximo a los alevis de Turquía.

La tumba del cheik Names (izq.) y lo que quedó de ella (dcha.). / APSA

La tumba del cheik Names (izquierda) y lo que quedó de ella (derecha). / APSA

Según informa la agencia de noticias Aina, generalmente bien informada sobre lo que ocurre en esa zona de Irak, el Estado Islámico está obligando a las familias asirio-caldeas a abandonar sus casas, prohibiendo, además, a quienes huyen que vendan sus propiedades para poder asentarse con el dinero conseguido en otros lugares más seguros.

Son varias las informaciones que hablan de ejecuciones sumarias y decapitaciones de propietarios de inmobiliarias por haber participado en estas transacciones, incluso pese a haber hecho las operaciones de compra-venta de forma secreta fuera de las oficinas. Esto es lo que habría ocurrido con los agentes de la inmobiliaria Zurhur que, tras ser secuestrados, habrían sido llevados frente a la sede de la inmobiliaria para ser degollados delante de su jefe. Lo mismo habría ocurrido con el propietario de la inmobiliaria Al Nur, también de Mosul. Se calcula que en los dos últimos años, una decena de personas habrían sido asesinadas por este mismo motivo en esta parte de Irak.

También se considera que unas 5.000 familias asirio-caldeas se encontrarían en esta tesitura de tener que abandonar sus propiedades sin poder venderlas.

Por su parte, en la zona de Muafakiwiya, son los shabak quienes están recibiendo las amenazas de esta organización islamista. Los shabak forman una pequeña comunidad que acepta tanto elementos cristianos como musulmanes pero que es considerada herética por la ortodoxia suní. El 10 de octubre del pasado año, mientras celebraban la mahometana Fiesta del Cordero, estalló un camión bomba que dejó decenas de muertos. Se calcula que un millar de fieles han sido asesinados en la última década y unas 1.500 familias han tenido que hacer las maletas y marcharse.

La última ofensiva de Al Qaeda es ahora dirigida contra los yezidis, todavía seguidores, 3.000 años después, de las enseñanzas de Zaratustra. Los yezidis –que también están extendidos por Turquía, Siria, Irán, Armenia y Georgia- habitan en Irak fundamentalmente en la región de Sinjar, situada entre la ciudad de Mosul y la frontera con Siria. Las 4.000 familias que viven en la zona de Rabia, justo donde se encuentra la aduana de Al Yarubiya, han recibido ya el ultimátum: o se van o mueren.

lundi, 02 juin 2014

¿Qué hay detrás de Boko Haram y la propaganda mediática?

por Maximiliano Sbarbi Osuna

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Es llamativo que durante la reunión que mantuvo días atrás el presidente de Francia, François Hollande, con los líderes de Nigeria, Níger, Chad, Togo, Benin y altos representantes diplomáticos de Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos, haya manifestado ignorar quién o quiénes financian al grupo terrorista nigeriano Boko Haram, que mantiene secuestradas unas 270 niñas desde hace un mes. También es curioso que recién ahora París y Washington comiencen una campaña de alerta contra este grupo extremista, siendo que desde 2009 ha asesinado a unas tres mil personas.

¿Quién financia a Boko Haram?

La asociación ilícita entre la OTAN con Al Qaeda para el Magreb Islámico en 2011, por medio de la cuál Occidente y el extremismo lograron quitar a Kadafi del medio y repartirse las riquezas petroleras, acuíferas y armamentísticas de Libia, produjo un asentamiento permanente en Bengasi, desde donde se torció el destino de la Primavera Árabe a favor de Occidente.

Por ejemplo, desde allí se enviaron recursos, armas y combatientes a Siria.

Pero, las cuantiosas armas de las que disponía Kadafi, compradas a Rusia y Occidente fueron robadas y vendidas en el mercado negro a través del desierto del Sahara, terminando en manos de Ansar Dine (grupo extremista de Malí), rebeldes de la República Centroafricana y de Boko Haram, la guerrilla musulmana del norte de Nigeria.

Era sabido que los almacenes de armas diseminados por toda Libia, que fueron abandonados tras los bombardeos de la OTAN iban a ser saqueados y repartidos a grupos extremistas contra los cuáles Kadafi había combatido antes de 2011.

Precisamente, Francia fue uno de los países que promovió con mayor énfasis el ataque a Libia.

Además, una investigación difundida por el diario The Nigerian Tribune y reproducida en diversos medios detalla que una organización de caridad londinense recauda fondos para Boko Haram: Al-Muntada Trust Fund es el nombre.

Desde 2009 los extremistas se hicieron conocidos en el exterior de Nigeria, pero recién en 2011 consiguieron las armas de Al Qaeda y en 2012 fueron entrenados en el norte de Malí antes de la intervención francesa.

El grupo maliense Ansar Dine habría capacitado a Boko Haram junto con Al Qaeda para el Magreb Islámico durante la anarquía en Malí en 2012.

También, existen analistas que indican que Arabia Saudita financia indirectamente a los nigerianos, tal como hace con los extremistas chechenos, talibanes, rebeldes sirios, etc.

Asimismo, se están por cumplir diez años de la sangrienta toma de rehenes en un colegio en Beslán, Osetia del Norte (Rusia), por parte de extremistas islámicos apoyados económicamente por el reino saudí. Como se ve el modus operandi es similar.

¿Por qué intervienen Francia y Estados Unidos?

París va a prestar asesores militares para que ayuden al ejército de Nigeria a liberar a las niñas capturadas.
Pero, a Francia no le preocupa el extremismo islámico tanto como otra amenaza que hay en África. Por eso, intervino en Malí en 2012, en Centroafricana en 2013 y 2014, tras el golpe y cuida muy bien a sus aliados de Níger (país de donde extrae el uranio para sus plantas nucleares) y a la dictadura de Chad.

Por su parte, EE.UU., también le teme a un gigante mucho más difícil de manejar que al terrorismo islámico. Esa amenaza se llama China, y la creciente relación entre Pekín y los países africanos espanta a las compañías occidentales.

Principalmente, porque China a cambio de extraer los recursos (petróleo, gas, minerales preciosos y metales) invierte en infraestructura y en desarrollo social en los países a los cuáles se asocia.

La presencia china no deja de ser desigual, dado que Pekín extrae materias primas a cambio de productos con valor agregado, y además en el caso particular de Nigeria, ha vertido residuos tóxicos en el delta del río Níger.

En cambio, las empresas Total, Chevron y Shell han saqueado los recursos y corrompido a las elites locales profundizando aun más la desigualdad en África Central y Occidental.

Por eso, la campaña mediática demonizando a este grupo extremista es aprovechada por las potencias occidentales para legitimar su presencia militar y su control con un pretexto altruista, pero en realidad pretenden no perder terreno a manos de China, que necesita las materias primas africanas para sostener el crecimiento.

La competencia contra China en África ha llegado a un punto tal que Washington ha dividido a Sudán en dos partes autónomas e independientes: la petrolera aliada de Occidente (Sudán del Sur) y la que carece de petróleo pero tiene la infraestructura para la exportación de crudo (Sudán del Norte), cercana a China.

Control y manipulación

Estados Unidos además de frenar a China tiene otros dos objetivos. El primero es ubicar al AFRICOM, es decir el Comando Central Africano, en algún lugar del continente, ya que actualmente se encuentra en Stuttgart, Alemania.

En Bengasi no ha podido establecerse por la lucha entre facciones, que aun no lograron consolidar el poder en Libia. La interna de esta lucha alcanzó el 11 de septiembre de 2012 a EEUU, cuando el embajador norteamericano en Libia fue asesinado en el consulado.

Nigeria podría ser una buena ubicación para el AFRICOM, con la complicidad del presidente nigeriano Goodluck Jonathan, originario del sur petrolero y que ha olvidado al norte pobre y musulmán, profundizando la ya escandalosa desigualdad en el país africano más poblado.

Por otro lado, a pesar de que EE.UU. esté por recuperar su autonomía energética, gracias a la extracción de gas de esquisto, sus compañías procuran continuar con el negocio de la extracción y exportación de hidrocarburos.

Estados al servicio de multinacionales

Es habitual, en varios países de África, que las empresas multinacionales apoyadas por potencias financien guerrillas locales contra otras empresas disfrazando estas luchas de “conflictos étnicos”.

En el Delta del Níger son cotidianos los sabotajes contra oleoductos o contra trabajadores de las empresas petroleras. Es posible que Boko Haram sea un grupo extremista cercano a Al Qaeda o que también sea parte de esta estrategia imperialista de contratar mano de obra militar local para desplazar a compañías competidoras.

Por todo lo expuesto, ¿puede Hollande ignorar qué se teje detrás del extremismo de Boko Haram?

Fuente: El Espía Digital

jeudi, 22 mai 2014

Boko Haram et le Nigéria

boko-haram.jpeg

BOKO HARAM ET LE NIGERIA
 
Ce n'est pas une guerre de fillettes
 
Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr

L'opération médiatique de Boko Haram marche. On ne parle maintenant que de fillettes enlevées, la larme chrétienne à l'œil. Elles le furent quand même mi-mars, soit il y a  plus d'un mois ! En fait, depuis 3 ans, le Nigeria est la proie d’une insurrection qui se manifeste par des attentats réguliers et violents, des attaques sporadiques sur les bâtiments publics, des massacres de civils, des prises d'otages occidentaux, en général des prêtres ou des religieuses, monnaie d'échange pour le financement des bandes armées mais surtout bon service de propagande indirecte. La frontière avec le Cameroun échappe totalement à l'Etat central. Le pays est donc en état de décomposition avancée et un groupe obscur qui porte le nom de Boko Haram a revendiqué la plupart des attentats qui ont eu lieu dans le pays.


Dans la foulée des attentats et des attaques sporadiques qui avaient eu lieu en octobre 2013 à Damaturu au Nord-est du Nigeria  c'est-à-dire à quelques kilomètres de Ndjamena (Tchad), l'ambassade des Etats-Unis avait émis un communiqué public étonnant qui, pour certains observateurs, révélait que l'ambassade des États-Unis en savait beaucoup plus sur l'attentat que ce qu'elle prétendait. Depuis les révélations de Wikileaks, on n'ignore plus le rôle que le gouvernement américain a joué ou peut jouer dans les actes de déstabilisation contre le Nigeria. Wikileaks avait en effet identifié l'ambassade américaine au Nigeria comme l'avant-poste opérationnel pour des actes de subversion contre ce pays, qui ne se limitaient pas seulement à la mise sur écoute classique des communications du gouvernement mais visaient tout à la fois l'espionnage économique des multinationales travaillant dans la zone pétrolière de Port-Harcourt, le soutien et le financement de groupes subversifs et d'insurgés, le parrainage d'une propagande de discorde entre groupes ethniques et religieux, à côté d'une politique classique de visas accordés aux politiques et hommes d'affaires nigérians en échange de la défense des intérêts américains.


Les activités subversives de l'ambassade des États-Unis au Nigeria s'inscrivent dans une politique plus large, une politique de containment (pour reprendre l'expression anglo-saxonne) du Nigeria dans le but ultime d'éliminer tout simplement le pays, puissance économique en construction et véritable bombe démographique de l'Afrique de l'Ouest. Les Etats-Unis ne peuvent tolérer et admettre un Nigéria fort, futur rival stratégique des États-Unis sur le continent africain. 

Boko Haram dans la stratégie américaine


Pour comprendre ce qui se passe au Nigéria, il faut revenir en fait sur la guerre libérienne. En 1997, sous l'administration Clinton, avait été mis en place l'ACRI (African Crisis Response Initiative), forte à peu près de 15 000 hommes. Officiellement chargé d'humanitaire et d'entraînement au maintien de la paix, l'ACRI permit en réalité de moderniser et d'adapter les forces locales aux normes des forces américaines. L'ACRI fut pensé comme un contrepoids aidant le gouvernement nigérian dans sa conduite du groupe armé ECOMOG de la CEDEAO qui fut chargé dans la guerre civile libérienne de surveiller les cessez le feu et d'assurer le maintien du pays pour les pays de la Communauté Economique de l'Afrique de l'Ouest. L'ACRI produisit ainsi des recommandations, apporta son soutien dans la guerre civile libérienne et en fait orienta les forces de l'ECOMOG.


Les Etats-Unis se félicitèrent alors du rôle central du Nigéria dans la crise libérienne, qui permit aux les Etats-Unis d'éviter une intervention directe et ils autorisèrent alors la CEDEAO à aller jusqu'au bout, le principal bénéficiaire étant à ce moment là le Nigeria. C'est dans ce contexte que se forma chez les diplomates et militaires américains l'idée de base d'une Pax Nigeriana dans la sous-région de l'Afrique de l'Ouest, une Pax Nigeriana éclipsant totalement l'influence des anciennes puissances coloniales, à savoir la Grande-Bretagne mais surtout, la France. Puis si l'on consulte de près les rapports sur l'ACRI on note que le Libéria étant une création américaine, le Liberia ne devait absolument pas tomber dans les mains du Nigeria. Deux rapports internes de la NSA indiquent par exemple que le Nigeria devrait être autorisé à avoir un pied au Libéria. Sans cesse, on redit dans ces textes qu'il faut contenir le Nigeria qui pourrait être enclin à contester la primauté des États-Unis et de l'Occident dans ces régions à fort potentiel économique.


Bref, le gouvernement des États-Unis cherche à contenir absolument l'influence croissante du Nigeria dans la région par la formation d'une organisation parallèle à l'ECOMOG, en utilisant la diplomatie secrète ou parallèle, autrement dit dans le jargon des services, la déstabilisation interne. C'est dans l'opacité de l'ACRI, de l'ECOMOG, dans la confusion de tous ces rapports internes de la diplomatie et de l'armée américaine que finalement l'US Africa Command ou AFRICOM a été formée. 


Et avec l'AFRICOM, tout change


L'AFRICOM, créée le 1er Octobre 2008, est clairement programmée pour servir les intérêts militaires et stratégiques américains et en particulier pour contrer la portée et l'influence croissante de la Chine en Afrique. L'objectif de l'Africom est de s'approprier les principaux sites stratégiques en Afrique et de les placer le sous le contrôle direct des États-Unis afin de bloquer l'accès de la Chine aux ressources énergétiques et minérales vitales pour son économie. Mais pour mener efficacement cet objectif, les pays africains d'importance stratégique doivent devenir vulnérables afin de demander la protection et l'intervention des États-Unis. C'est ce se passe à Abuja (Nigéria), dans la région des grands lacs où les forces spéciales américaines ont été déployées sous prétexte de protéger les pays, d’insurgés autrefois parrainés par les États-Unis eux-mêmes. Au Soudan, nous avons vu aussi comment une couverture globale de crises humanitaires internationales orchestrées par les États-Unis à partir de la crise du Darfour a servi de prélude au démembrement du Soudan, à sa partition pour punir le gouvernement d'El-Béchir d'oser conclure des accords pétroliers avec les Chinois au détriment des entreprises américaines. En République Centrafricaine, rappelons que le renversement de Bozizé fut aussi la conséquence des pourparlers économiques initiés avec les Chinois. La Libye et Kadhafi ont été liquidés pour avoir osé détourner les intérêts pétroliers américains. Mais le plus grand défi pour l'AFRICOM, son plus grand objectif est de déployer la PAX AMERICANA en Afrique et pour cela, il lui faut mettre totalement au pas le pays africain le plus stratégique à savoir, le Nigéria. C'est cette question qui fait rage autour de Boko Haram et qui intervient juste après une prédiction largement rapportée par l'Intelligence Council des États-Unis sur une désintégration probable du Nigeria en 2015. De fait, la nature du soulèvement Boko Haram a suscité beaucoup de questions chez les Nigérians. Quels sont leurs réels griefs ? Ce n'est pas clair. Pourquoi ont-ils toujours refusé les demandes de négociations des autorités nigérianes ? Pourquoi sont-ils en mesure de perpétrer leurs attaques avec une relative facilitée ? Le Nigéria plutôt bien éduquée à l'anglaise n'était pas habitué à une telle violence sectaire. Enfin, comment un groupe hétéroclite de personnes très jeunes largement analphabètes, opérant principalement sur Okada ont-ils pu se transformer du jour au lendemain en groupe puissant au point d'être en mesure de concevoir, fabriquer et déployer des bombes dans des bâtiments d'importance et dans des véhicules coûtant plus d'un million de nairas tout en menant des attaques dans plusieurs endroits du pays ?

 
Une telle coordination logistique suppose un poste de commandement, pas une réunion de bandits en pleine poussière sur le capot d'un 4x4 fut-il flambant neuf et un tel centre de décision ne pourrait pas en Afrique rester inaperçu, d'autant que la couverture satellitaire américaine est essentiellement axée sur cette région. Ainsi, ce n'est pas une coïncidence ni une simple conjecture si comme nous le relevions plus haut le Conseil national du renseignement américain a estimé que le Nigeria va se désintégrer en l'an 2015, juste avant les prochaines élections générales.Pour nous, l'opération vient de commencer.

The Distorted Civilizational War: Syria, Nigeria and Elitist Intrigues

img_1184026611.jpg

The Distorted Civilizational War: Syria, Nigeria and Elitist Intrigues

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Ex: http://www.moderntokyotimes.com

The government of Syria is facing the brute force of international sponsored Islamism which is beheading minorities, doing daily car bombings, killing journalists and slaughtering anyone deemed to be a supporter of the secular government. At the same time Boko Haram in Nigeria is eulogizing the international jihadist movement and slaughtering Christians and Muslims deemed loyal to the government of Nigeria. This civilizational war should be straightforward but because of elites in London, Paris and Washington; then once more they are muddying everything by siding with al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups in Syria.

Recently in Nigeria another ten Christians had their throats slit by Islamists and clearly all roads lead to Boko Haram given the hallmarks of the attack. Of course, Nigeria is sadly blighted by ethnic and other issues which often results in violence. Yet, while these issues are disturbing by themselves they pale into comparison when viewing the threat of Boko Haram to the central state. After all, this Islamist organization continues to cause mayhem daily and clearly it views the Nigerian state to be worthy to be overthrown in order to introduce a draconian version of Islamic Sharia law.

Political elites in London, Paris and Washington continue to play “with the devil” by supporting Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state at all costs. Yet it is the petrodollars emanating from this region which is spreading radical Islamism far and wide. The disturbing reality is that this is a Salafist civilization war against mainstream Islam, African Islam, non-Muslims, secular nations, women and a world based on diversity.

The mass media which hoodwinked the world in the 1980s and early 1990s, with the notion of the “brave Islamic jihadists” fighting against communism in Afghanistan, is still eulogizing the terrorist opposition on the whole in Syria. Yet the “brave Islamic jihadists” who became unified under the CIA, ISI (Pakistan) and other covert agencies from the United Kingdom, turned out to be a nightmare. Once Islamists took power in Afghanistan they killed tens of thousands of Shia Muslims; shot women in national stadiums on the grounds of adultery (of course marrying young girls was fine based on their Saudi influenced based Islamic Sharia law); enforced women into slavery; began to destroy female schools; blew up ancient Buddhist heritage; and turned society into the “Islamic year zero.” Of course, for elites in Washington and London this was fine because their short-term objectives ambitions had been met. The real winner was Saudi Arabia which understands the foolishness of elites in London, Washington and Paris because Islamization was always the intended goal of political elites in Riyadh.

September 11 should have been a wake-up call for America and the entire world but instead it became forgotten in time. After all, the United States and other nations turned “a blind eye” to the Saudi Arabia angle of September 11. Therefore, recent events in Libya and Syria highlights that Washington, London and Paris are once more “in bed” with international jihadists in order to meet short-term ends. Of course, for political elites in Ankara, Riyadh, Doha and other nations in the Gulf, they have long-term objectives based on turning the Middle East, North Africa and parts of the Balkans into Islamist states based on “so-called puritan Salafi mind thoughts. Yet you have nothing puritanical about Salafi Islam or Saudi Arabia which continues to allow men between the ages of 18 to 80 to marry young girls aged 8 and 9 years of age. This hypocrisy runs throughout the Islamist worldview of destroying civilization based on ignorance, sexual subservience, dhimmitude, enslavement of others and creating laws based on hatred and power structures which will crush alternative thought patterns.

Syria is now fighting a civilizational war because this secular nation is an affront to Saudi Arabia and the supporters of Islamic jihad in Qatar and other nations. In Syria you have many religious communities and sects within Islam, Christianity and the Druze faith. This mixing of different faith groups and the rights of women is despised in Saudi Arabia because in this nation no non-Muslim places of worship are allowed and women are shackled, apart from the wealthy elites which can bypass the system based on privilege. Therefore, the wealthy monarchs which will not tolerate any power bases to their power in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the same nations sponsoring Islamist terrorism against Syria. It is a convenient marriage for the ruling monarchs because by exporting Islamic jihad abroad they can maintain their control over society based on mass propaganda. However, “Islamist terrorism” is crushed at home while using the same Islamists to slaughter in Syria and other nations which meet their intended objectives. Of course this is also based on being given the green light from powerful nations like America, the United Kingdom, France and more recently Turkey.

In Nigeria, Mali, Somalia and other parts of black African Islam you have an array of different thought patterns within various different Muslim sects in these nations. Yet Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabaab (al-Shabab) in Somalia and international Islamists in Northern Mali all hate indigenous black African Islam. These “soldiers of Salafi jihad” desire to implement the draconian version of Islam which still rules and controls Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Therefore, petrodollars are financing the international Sunni jihadist movement in Africa whereby Sufi shrines are being destroyed, rich black African Islamic architecture is being burnt to the ground and this is followed by a brutal Islamist indoctrination force which is intent on “Islamist year zero.”

Boko Haram under their leader Abubakar Shekau comments that “We are with our mujahideen brothers in the Cause of Allah everywhere, in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iraq, the Peninsula of Muhammad [Saudi Arabia], Allah’s peace and prayer be upon him, Yemen, Somalia, Algeria, and other places that I didn’t mention.” This indicates that Boko Haram deems the majority of Nigerians to be infidels and that the conflict against the Nigerian government is secondary in terms of the real Islamist global objective. Therefore, Boko Haram will continue to blow up Christian churches, kill mainstream Muslims, slit the throats of Christians, kill apostates from Islam and spread a brutal version of Islamic Sharia law which belongs to the harsh reality of modern day Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the Islamist movement is also intent on destroying black African Islam in order to Arabize and Islamize society based on cultural norms which belong to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Once more the elites in London, Paris and Washington are a million miles away and they are misleading other powerful nations like Japan into a policy based on folly. After all, in civilizational wars you can’t swap sides to suit geopolitical objectives or based on protecting draconian and brutal nations like Saudi Arabia. Either you stand on the side of fighting international terrorism and the continuing Salafist propaganda machine which is supported by petrodollars – or you compromise and are sowing the seeds of future conflict and struggles.

In Syria the secular government is fighting international terrorism and powerful forces within the Middle East and in the West. The difference between the mainly Muslim armed forces of Syria is that they are protecting Christians, the Druze community and people from all faiths or who have no religious faith. Therefore, why are political elites in London, Paris and Washington siding with Islamist terrorism against secular Syria?

Afghanistan remains a nightmare after more than 40 years of meddling by outside nations and now in Libya many Sufi shrines are being destroyed. In Iraq the majority of Christians and other minorities have fled and terrorism is a daily reality in Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflict in Libya also enabled international jihadists to create a powerbase in Northern Mali whereby they are destroying indigenous black African Islam. Meanwhile in Nigeria Boko Haram is intent on spreading the indoctrination of the petrodollars of the Gulf in order to subvert black African Islam in Nigeria and the central state.

If Syria falls to Islamism then it will be “a very dark day” for not only the Middle East but for all of civilization. Likewise, if the crisis gets out of control in Nigeria then sooner or later you will have internal convulsions that will spread. Therefore, it is time for Western powers to acknowledge their respective failed policies by curtailing the evil deeds of Gulf petrodollars.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

dimanche, 18 mai 2014

El grupo terrorista Boko Haram abre las puertas a la invasión militar de Nigeria

 boko-haram-nigheraia-2-1140a.jpg

Según reportes publicados por el períodico nigeriano Vanguard, el grupo jihadista Boko Haram atacó el pueblo de Gamborou Ngala, en el Estado de Borno, matando a cerca de 300 personas.

Boko Haram es el nombre oficial de Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, que se traduce como “pueblo comprometido con la propagación de las enseñanzas y jihad del Profeta”. El grupo es una derivación takfiri del movimiento salafista. Los salafistas-takfiris atacan a otros musulmanes y cristianos a los que consideran apóstatas. Boko Haram ha trabajado para imponer la Ley Sharia en Nigeria, el norte de Camerún y Níger. Han detonado bombas en iglesias, atacado escuelas, estaciones de la policía, instalaciones del gobierno y secuestrado a turistas provenientes de Occidente.

Antes del ataque, los grandes medios cubrieron un anuncio realizado el lunes por el gobierno de Obama, en el que señaló que Estados Unidos enviará asesores del Ejército, de inteligencia y de la policía a Nigeria, con el objeto de ayudar al gobierno a ubicar y rescatar a más de 270 niñas que han sido secuestradas por Boko Haram.

Según Los Angeles Times, el equipo no será usado con fines militares, y sólo compartirá servicios investigativos de inteligencia en la búsqueda de los estudiantes secuestrados el 14 de abril desde una escuela rural en el noreste de Nigeria, una región predominantemente musulmán. Obama dijo que los secuestros debieran “movilizar a toda la comunidad internacional para finalmente hacer algo en contra de esta horrenda organización”. En octubre de 2013, Estados Unidos calificó a Boko Haram como un grupo terrorista.

En 2012, Obama invocó la Ley de Poderes de Guerra para aumentar el número de personal militar estadounidense desplegado en Nigeria. El entrante comandante del Comando África de EE.UU. (AFRICOM) en aquel entonces, general David M. Rodríguez, dijo que las operaciones de Boko Haram amenazaban a Nigeria, Camerún, Níger, Mali y Chad. Rodríguez sostuvo que Estados Unidos tiene autoridad en África para responder a la amenaza impuesta por Al Qaeda.

En 2012, The Nigerian Tribune informó que el financiamiento de Boko Haram provenía del Reino Unido y Arabia Saudita, específicamente desde un fondo llamado Al-Muntada Trust Fund. En 2005, The Center for Security Policy señaló que “Al-Muntada ha, incidentemente, actuado de manera activa en el fomento del islamismo wahhabista en Nigeria… Al-Muntada… paga a clérigos nigerianos para que sean ‘lavados’ en universidades saudíes y colocados sobre musulmanes nigerianos a través de una red bien financiada de mezquitas y escuelas”.

Escuelas similares conocidas como madrasas, fueron establecidas en Pakistán durante la guerra encubierta de la CIA en contra de la Unión Soviética en Afganistán. Éstas fueron financiadas por Arabia Saudita y su red de organizaciones. “Entre 1982 y 1992, casi 35 mil musulmanes radicales de 43 países islámicos de Medio Oriente, África Norte y Éste, Asia Central y el Lejano Oriente, pasaron su bautismo bajo el fuego de los muyahidines afganos”, escribe Phil Gasper. Los muyahidines se transformarían, finalmente, en lo que hoy se conoce como Al Qaeda y el talibán.

Además del apoyo recibido por los saudíes, Boko Haram ha recibido asistencia directa de la OTAN a través de mercenarios de Al Qaeda en Libia. “Durante una entrevista conducida por Al Jazeera a Abu Mousab Abdel Wadoud, el líder de AQIM señaló que las organizaciones establecidas en Algeria han proveído armas al movimiento nigeriano de Boko Haram ‘para defender a los musulmanes en Nigeria y detener el avance de una minoría de cruzados’. Documentado ha sido el hecho de que miembros de Al Qaeda (AQIM) y el Grupo Combatiente Islámico Libio (LIFG), que combatieron junto a los rebeldes libios (para derrocar a Muammar Gaddafi), recibieron armas y apoyo logístico directamente del bloque de países de la OTAN durante el conflicto de 2011”, escribe Nile Bowie.

AQIM y Boko Haram, sin embargo, representan una amenaza menor para Estados Unidos en África, que la que representa China. “Estados Unidos y Francia planean contrarrestar la amenaza con gobiernos títeres de África, los cuales impondrán un desafío a la influencia económica y diplomática de China en la región”, escribe Timothy Alexander Guzmán.

Nigeria es el décimo tercer productor de petróleo en el mundo. Los otros recursos de la nación africana incluyen gas natural, estaño, mineral de hierro, carbón, piedra caliza, niobio, plomo, zinc y tierras de cultivo.

“Los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y Francia quieren asegurarse de que el nuevo liderazgo chino no continúe su beneficiosa relación con las naciones ricas en recursos de África, la cual ha sido exitosa en el pasado. Por ende, la ‘guerra contra el terrorismo’ creará inestabilidad e interrumpirá el crecimiento económico de China. La misión de AFRICOM es crear una guerra en nombre del combate al terrorismo”.

boko-haram-map.jpg

 

vendredi, 16 mai 2014

Obama’s Alliance with Boko Haram

Boko-Hram1-439x350.jpg

Obama’s Alliance with Boko Haram

By Daniel Greenfield

Ex: http://www.frontpagemag.com

Leftist policy is the search for the root cause of evil. Everything from a street mugging to planes flying into the World Trade Center is reduced to a root cause of social injustice. Throw poverty, oppression and a bunch of NGO buzzwords into a pot and out come the suicide bombings, drug dealing and mass rapes.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls, or a drug dealer with a record as long as his tattooed arm.

Obama and Hillary resisted doing anything about Boko Haram because they believed that its root cause was the oppression of Muslims by the Nigerian government. Across the bloody years of Boko Haram terror, the State Department matched empty condemnations of Boko Haram’s killing sprees with condemnations of the Nigerian authorities for violating Muslim rights.

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton haven’t championed #BringBackOurGirls because it’s a hashtag in support of the kidnapped girls, but because it undermines the Nigerian government. They aren’t trying to help the kidnapped girls. They’re trying to bring down a government that hasn’t gone along with their agenda for appeasing Boko Haram and Nigerian Muslims.

The hashtag politics aren’t aimed at the terrorists. They’re aimed at helping the terrorists.

There’s a reason why the media and so many leftists have embraced the hashtag. #BringBackOurGirls isn’t a rescue. It denounces the Nigerian government for not having already gotten the job done even as the State Department stands ready to denounce any human rights violations during a rescue attempt.

Obama and Boko Haram want to bring down the Nigerian government and replace it with a leadership that is more amenable to appeasement. It’s the same thing that is happening in Israel and Egypt.

State Department officials responded to Boko Haram attacks over the years with the same litany of statistics about unemployment in the Muslim north and the 92 percent of children there who do not attend school. When Hillary Clinton was asked about the kidnappings by ABC News, she blamed Nigeria for not “ensuring that every child has the right and opportunity to go to school.”

Clinton acted as if she were unaware that Boko Haram opposes Muslim children going to school or that it would take the very same measures that her State Department has repeatedly opposed to make it possible for them to go to school. This is a familiar Catch 22 in which the authorities are blamed for not fixing the socioeconomic problems in terrorist regions that are impossible to fix without defeating the terrorists and blamed for violating the human rights of the terrorists when they try to defeat them.

The mainstream media has been more blatant about carrying Boko Haram’s bloody water. Their stories begin with the kidnapped schoolgirls and skip over to a sympathetic reading of history in which Boko Haram only took up arms after government brutality.

Two years ago the New York Times ran an op-ed titled, “In Nigeria, Boko Haram Is Not the Problem.”

The op-ed contended that Boko Haram didn’t exist, that it was a peaceful splinter group and that the Nigerian army was worse than Boko Haram. Somehow these three claims were made on the same page.  The editorial warned the US not to give the impression that it supports Nigeria’s Christian president or it would infuriate Muslims and suggested that Christians might really be behind the Muslim terror attacks.

Last year, Secretary of State John Kerry , after a pro forma condemnation of Boko Haram terror, warned, “We are also deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism.”

Kerry was blaming the victims of Boko Haram for the violence perpetrated against them and claiming that resistance to Boko Haram caused Boko Haram’s attacks.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom, three of whose members had been appointed by Obama and one by Nancy Pelosi, issued a report blaming Nigeria for Boko Haram’s murderous Jihad.

The report’s findings claimed that the Nigerian government’s “violations of religious freedom” had led to “sectarian violence.” It echoed the propaganda of the Islamic terrorist group, stating that, “Boko Haram also justifies its attacks on churches by citing, among other things, state and federal government actions against Muslims.”

The report suggested that the Nigerian government was too focused on fighting Boko Haram and not focused enough on dealing with Christian violence against Muslims. “The Nigerian government’s failure to address chronic religion-related violence contrasts with its commitment to stop Boko Haram, which at times has resulted in the indiscriminate use of force against civilians and in human rights abuses.”

The solution was to scale back the fight against Boko Haram and appease Nigerian Muslims.

“In meetings with Nigerian officials, including Secretary Clinton’s meeting with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in August 2012, the U.S. government consistently has urged the Nigerian government to expand its strategy against Boko Haram from solely a military solution to addressing problems of economic and political marginalization in the north, arguing that Boko Haram’s motivations are not religious but socio-economic,” the report stated.

“Additionally, senior U.S. officials frequently warn in private bilateral meetings and in public speeches that Nigerian security forces’ excessive use of force in response to Boko Haram is unacceptable and counterproductive.”

A year earlier, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns had proposed helping Nigeria develop “a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy” that includes “citizen engagement and dialogue.”  This was really a proposal to export Obama’s failed appeasement strategy in Afghanistan that had cost over 1,600 American lives to Nigeria.

Boko Haram’s kidnapping of the schoolgirls is both convenient and inconvenient for Obama and the State Department. On the one hand it has brought negative attention to their stance on Boko Haram, but on the other hand it may end up toppling the Nigerian government and empowering Muslims. And they see a more flexible Nigerian government as the only means of coming to terms with Boko Haram.

This isn’t just their strategy for Nigeria. It’s their universal approach to Islamic terrorism. It’s why Kerry blamed Israel for the collapse of the peace talks with the PLO. It’s why Egypt is being pressured to free its Muslim Brotherhood detainees. And It’s why the United States is never allowed to defeat Al Qaeda.

Obama is trying to bring down governments that fight Islamic terrorism, whether in Egypt, Israel or Nigeria, and replace them with governments that appease terrorists. This shared goal creates an alliance, direct or indirect, open or covert, between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and the PLO and Obama and Boko Haram.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obamas-alliance-with-boko-haram/

mardi, 13 mai 2014

Boko Haram : une opération secrète de la CIA?

tahmasebi20130917235522900.jpg

Boko Haram : une opération secrète de la CIA?

Auteur : Réseau International 
Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Depuis 3 ans, le Nigeria semble être la proie d’une insurrection croissante et ingérable qui se manifeste par des attentats dans les lieux publics et des attaques sporadiques sur les institutions publiques ainsi que des massacres de civils et enlèvements de masse.

On pouvait s’y attendre, il y a eu une panique et une tension croissante dans le pays et de plus en plus de personnes commencent à penser que le pays pourrait se diriger inévitablement vers une insurrection de longue haleine qui conduirait à une scission du pays. À l’exception du 1er attentat à la bombe en Octobre 2010 à Abuja, un groupe obscur qui porte le nom de Boko Haram a revendiqué la plupart des attentats ultérieurs qui ont eu lieu dans le pays.


Selon la Coalition GreenWhite, la campagne actuelle Boko Haram est une opération secrète organisée par la Central Intelligence Agency américaine, la CIA et coordonnée par l’ambassade étatsunienne au Nigeria.

Depuis quelque temps, la CIA a été en charge des camps d’entraînement et d’endoctrinement secrets le long des régions frontalières poreuses et vulnérables du Niger, du Tchad et du Cameroun. Lors des entraînements dans ces camps, des jeunes issus des milieux pauvres et démunis sont recrutés et formés pour servir les insurgés. Les agents qui instrumentalisent ces jeunes les attirent avec la promesse d’une meilleure vie et sont en outre endoctrinés pour leur faire croire qu’ils travaillent pour installer un ordre juste islamique contre l’ordre impie actuellement au pouvoir au Nigeria .

Les agents étatsuniens de ce projet de la CIA restent prudemment en arrière-plan, organisant les camps grâce à des superviseurs originaires du Moyen-Orient spécialement recrutés à cette fin. Après plusieurs mois d’endoctrinement et de formation sur le maniement des armes, les tactiques de survie, de surveillance et les techniques d’évasion, les insurgés sont maintenant mis en stand by pour la prochaine opération terroriste.

 

nigeria.jpg

dimanche, 27 avril 2014

Islamist Fifth Column in Gaza based on Gulf and Western Strings: Egypt and Syria

hamas-typical-radical-islamists.jpg

Islamist Fifth Column in Gaza based on Gulf and Western Strings: Egypt and Syria

Boutros Hussein and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

If individuals want to see the dead end path of radical Takfiri Islam then look no further than the mantra of hatred and discord in Gaza because this estranged reality says everything about the international reality of this brand of Islam. Takfiri Islamism cares little about issues related to national identity therefore killing fellow nationals is part of the course alongside destroying respective civilizations. This reality means that nations like America, France, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom, can pull the strings by manipulating various agendas. The upshot of this is that “international jihadists” can be manipulated in the short term while “internal jihadists” become a fifth column and this can be seen in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.

In Egypt and Syria both internal militant Islamists view killing fellow Egyptians and Syrians with glee because in their schizophrenic world view they are serving Takfiri and Muslim Brotherhood indoctrination. It would have been unthinkable in the past that Palestinians would desire jihad against Egypt and Syria rather than being focused on the Palestinian issue. However, the petrodollars of the Gulf and the spread of militant Salafi ideology have altered the religious and political landscape.

Of course, militant Islamists in Gaza are not powerful enough to change events on the ground in either Egypt or Syria. Despite this, it is clear that Islamists in Gaza can cause mayhem in the Sinai region and in Syria based on supplying arms and partaking in terrorism. Similarly, if Islamists don’t abide by the tune then new pied pipers will emerge in order to sow the seeds of more division. Alas, in modern day Syria various Takfiri Islamist terrorist groups in 2014 are now butchering each other and this reality is replicated in Afghanistan and in other nations where this virus is let loose.

Gulf petrodollars are sowing the seeds of crushing indigenous Sunni Islam, creating destabilization, spreading sectarianism, empowering terrorism and targeting non-Muslim minorities. America, France, Israel, Turkey and the United Kingdom are “riding this Islamist ticket” in order to destabilize nations they want to crush. Of course, Afghanistan was the springboard in the 1980s and early 1990s but the evolution and spread of Salafism is much more potent in the modern world.

In Libya the power of NATO was needed in order to bomb from the skies and of course covert operatives were involved on the ground whereby they were allies of various militias and al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Similarly, in Syria it is clear that al-Qaeda affiliates, various terrorist groups and Salafi ideologues are working hand-in-hand with Gulf and NATO powers. Therefore, in Libya and Syria it is mainly fellow Arabs alongside international jihadists who are doing the bidding of America, France, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Colonel Gaddafi in Libya never envisaged that fellow Libyans would openly work hand-in-hand with NATO forces and that international jihadists would deem him to be an apostate. Yet, Libya was crushed based on the manipulation of internal discontent which was manipulated by outside nations, the role of NATO and Gulf powers – and the third trinity, the role of international jihadists and Salafi preachers which incite hatred. Syria is witnessing the same trinity despite events on the ground being very different based on the persistence of the armed forces of Syria and because of other important factors.

It is interesting to note that while mayhem and chaos abounds in many nations because of the so-called “Arab Spring,” which really should be named the “Western and Gulf ticket;” the nations of Israel and Saudi Arabia have emerged unscathed. Also, while international jihadists and internal militants in Syria are busy fighting and killing in the name of Allah; it is apparent that they aren’t concerned about Israel in the south and NATO Turkey in the north. Indeed, on several occasions Israel bombed Syria and this mustered no real mass demonstrations nor created political convulsions within the Middle East. Likewise, it is noticeable that al-Qaeda affiliate groups are notably strong in northern Syria whereby they can utilize the terrain of NATO Turkey and the supply lines for military arms.

In a video speech which was played to militants in Gaza the Islamist Sheikh Ahmad Oweida is inciting hatred towards Syria. He reportedly states “the time is for blood and destruction. The time is for invasions. The time is for battles.” Other comments in the video and during the demonstration in Gaza are aimed at Egypt and Syria. Suddenly, the role of NATO and Israel appears a very distant second and clearly for power brokers in the Gulf and West then this is a remarkable achievement. After all, it implies that militant Islam can be used like “a Trojan horse” in order to cause internal destabilization. Therefore, when the times are right international jihadists can do the bidding of Gulf and Western powers.

Oweida stated about Egypt that the “spear of Islam in the chest of despicable secularism….You are our hope that Shariah returns to what it was before.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that “Posters on jihadist bulletin boards have suggested that now was the time for jihadists to go to Egypt to exact revenge against the Egyptian military.”

“It is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that they [secularists and the idolatrous disbelievers] are hostile to Islam and they wage war against it and they hate it,” Abdullah Muhammad Mahmoud of the jihadi group Dawa’at al-Haq Foundation for Studies and Research wrote in a jihad forum, the Long War Journal reported. “If jihad isn’t declared today to defend the religion, then when will it be declared?!” He continued: “Will Muslims wait until they are prevented from praying in mosques?! Will they wait until the beard becomes a charge that is punishable by imprisonment?! Will they wait until their sons enter prisons in the tens of thousands to be tortured and spend tens of years of their lives in their depths?!”

“O Muslims of Egypt, if you don’t do jihad today, then only blame yourselves tomorrow.”

Egypt is much more complex because while Gulf and Western powers are all anti-Syrian government the same doesn’t apply to this nation. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations (apart from Qatar which is pro-Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism) are supporting Egypt financially and in other ways because they fear losing their internal powerbases. Indeed, Saudi Arabia even turned against the pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda of the Obama administration which resulted in a rare clash between Riyadh and Washington. However, the issue of spreading Salafism is a real problem for Egypt and other nations like Tunisia. Therefore, Gulf petrodollars need to cease when it comes to spreading Islamist ideology. In other words,  indigenous Muslim clerics need to tend to spiritual matters. Issues related to the Muslim Brotherhood also need to be resolved because this Islamist movement desires to enforce its ideology on all the people of Egypt.

Al Ahram Weekly reported during a pivotal period last year that: “Mohamed Gomaa, a specialist on Palestinian affairs at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, says that while the “organic relationship” between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood has long been common knowledge, Hamas is taking a risk by parading those ties in Al-Qassam Brigades’ marches through Gaza. There are, Gomaa says, differences within Hamas over how to respond to developments in Egypt. Some within the movement urge restraint and the avoidance of any rhetoric that might be viewed as provocative by the Egyptian army. The appearance of Al-Qassam convoy, he argues, suggests that such voices are losing out to the zealously pro-Muslim Brotherhood contingent.”

“The Hamas government viewed Sinai as its backyard,” says Gomaa, “a safe corridor for arms and other strategic needs. This is why the movement supported strikes against Egypt’s security forces in Sinai. It explains why so many Palestinian elements were discovered to have taken part in operations against the army.”

The Syrian government meanwhile is currently fighting for its survival because of the unholy trinity being used against this nation. Likewise, Egypt faces internal political convulsions and a terrorist threat within the Sinai region and in other parts of the country.

Libya succumbed to the trinity and clearly Syria faces the same combination of forces despite the internal situations being very different. After all, Libya was just “abandoned to the wolves” but several powerful nations have stood by Syria despite their support being insufficient compared to what the enemies of Syria are doing. In other words,  if powerful Gulf and Western powers collectively decide on destabilization then clearly nations in North Africa and the Middle East are very vulnerable. The one saving grace for Egypt is that most Gulf nations oppose the administration of Obama when it comes to this nation. However, Syria is not so lucky because this nation faces outside manipulation and a brutal trinity which refuses to let go.

Gaza Islamists openly celebrate killing Syrians and inciting hatred towards this secular nation. At no point do they show the same willingness to die against Israel or against NATO Turkey. Likewise, Palestinian Takfiri jihadists are involved in spreading terrorism and mayhem in the Sinai region and more recently the Shia in Lebanon are being targeted by the same forces that have abandoned the Palestinian cause. Therefore, Islamist Salafi schizophrenia is a great tool for America, France, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom in the short-term providing the above nations all share the same vision.

Islamists are now whipping up hatred in Gaza aimed mainly at Syria but also against Egypt. The Long War Journal reported last year: “the marketplace of jihad opened in Syria, the youth of Islam rose from every direction to fight” against the Assad regime. The narrator similarly boasted that “convoys of mujahideen” from Gaza have gone to Syria to fight and that some have died while there.”

In other words, militant Islam is a convenient tool to be manipulated by outside forces which desire to alter the political and military landscape. Of course, if Afghanistan and Libya are viewed in the long-term – just like the destabilization of Iraq and the self-destructive policies of Pakistan – then the long term is very different unless you support failed states, terrorism, sectarianism, putting women in the shadows and crushing religious and cultural diversity.

Gaza Islamists are only one piece in a very complex jigsaw. However, if they can forsake their homeland while killing fellow Muslims and Arabs – alongside persecuting religious minorities and becoming embroiled in anti-Shia policies in Syria; then this highlights the new force being backed within Gulf and Western circles. Indeed, outside nations don’t need boots on the ground like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, the trinity can do everything from a distance and if extra support is needed then powerful ratlines will be increased alongside more Salafi indoctrination.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4126/egypt-warns-hamas-over-jihadi-threats

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/3904/17/Sinai—no-longer-a-proxy-battle.aspx

www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/09/salafi_jihadists_hol.php#ixzz2eMcmf0z9 

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

lundi, 07 avril 2014

Nieuwe wet Saudi Arabië: Alle niet-moslims zijn terroristen

Nieuwe wet Saudi Arabië: Alle niet-moslims zijn terroristen

Twijfelen aan islam als terreurdaad bestempeld


De Saudische koning Abdullah duldt geen enkele tegenspraak.

Saudi Arabië heeft een aantal nieuwe wetten ingevoerd waarmee ‘atheïsten’ - in de islamitische wereld alle niet-moslims- automatisch als terroristen worden beschouwd. Hetzelfde geldt voor alle vormen van politieke tegenstand, inclusief deelnemers aan demonstraties.

De nieuwe wetten werden opgesteld vanwege het groeiende aantal Saudi’s dat terugkeert uit de burgeroorlog in Syrië, en dat de monarchie omver zou willen werpen. Koning Abdullah vaardigde daarom ‘Koninklijk Decreet 44’ uit, waarmee deelname aan ‘vijandelijkheden’ buiten het koninkrijk bestraft kan worden met een gevangenisstraf van 3 tot 20 jaar.

Ook het aantal groepen dat als terreurorganisatie wordt gekenmerkt, werd uitgebreid. Net als in Egypte werd de Moslim Broederschap in deze lijst opgenomen.

Twijfel aan islam = terreurdaad

In artikel 1 van de nieuwe regels wordt terrorisme omschreven als ‘het aanhangen van de atheïstische gedachte in iedere vorm, of het betwijfelen van de fundamenten van de islamitische religie waar het land op is gebaseerd.’ Buiten de islam zijn in Saudi Arabië alle andere religies verboden.

Joe Stork, vicedirecteur van Human Rights Watch afdeling Midden Oosten en Noord Afrika, wees erop dat de Saudische autoriteiten nog nooit kritiek op hun beleid hebben geaccepteerd, maar dat de nieuwe wetten nu bijna iedere vorm van kritiek of onafhankelijk denken als een terreurdaad bestempen.

Human Rights Watch probeert meestal tevergeefs om gevangen zittende Saudiërs vrij te krijgen. Twee mannen verloren onlangs hun beroepzaak, en zullen respectievelijk 3 maanden en 5 jaar de cel in moeten vanwege hun kritiek op de Saudische autoriteiten.

Xander

(1) Independent

samedi, 01 février 2014

La guerre des Saoud contre la Syrie

5245781.jpg

La guerre des Saoud contre la Syrie

 

Tout observateur du conflit syrien désireux de connaître de plus près la rébellion anti-régime aura quelque peine à s’y retrouver en raison de l’inflation des groupes armés que l’on estime aujourd’hui à plus d’un millier. La guerre fratricide dans laquelle sont plongées les principales milices djihadistes depuis le début de l’année accentue la confusion notamment sur le rôle et l’évolution d’Al Qaïda dans le conflit. Pourtant, au-delà de leurs rivalités économiques et territoriales, une même idéologie et une même stratégie les unissent et les relient à un acteur clé de la guerre de Syrie : le royaume d’Arabie saoudite.

Le wahhabisme syrien avant la guerre

Le courant religieux fondé il y a quelques 250 ans par le prédicateur extrémiste Muhammad Ben Abdel Wahhab dans le Najd en Arabie saoudite, n’est pas un phénomène de mode soudainement apparu en Syrie à la faveur du printemps arabe. Le wahhabisme dispose en effet d’une base sociale solide entretenue depuis plusieurs années par les Syriens qui vivent en Arabie saoudite et dans les autres théocraties de la péninsule arabique. En Syrie, les émigrés du Golfe sont singulièrement appelés « les Saoudiens » car à leur retour au pays, on les confond avec les vrais Saoudiens. La plupart de ces émigrés reviennent en effet imprégnés du puritanisme rituel, vestimentaire, familial et sociétal qui caractérise les royaumes wahhabites (1).

Mais le wahhabisme syrien est aussi le fait de prédicateurs salafistes chassés par le régime de Damas et accueillis par les royaumes du Golfe. Malgré la distance et la répression, ces salafistes exilés sont parvenus à entretenir des réseaux d’influence dans leurs régions et leurs tribus d’origine.

La multiplication des chaînes satellitaires émettant depuis les pays wahhabites a renforcé en Syrie la popularité de certains exilés syriens reconvertis dans le « télé-coranisme ». Le plus emblématique d’entre eux est sans doute Adnane Arour. Exilé en Arabie saoudite, celui que l’on surnomme le cheikh de la discorde (fitna), anime plusieurs émissions sur Wessal TV et Safa TV où il a popularisé les harangues anti-chiites et anti-alaouites notamment celle où il appelle à « passer les alaouites au hachoir et à jeter leur chair aux chiens ». Dans la région de Hama dont il est originaire, Arour a gardé une influence significative au point que son nom était loué dès les premières manifestations anti-régime de 2011.

D’un point de vue historique et territorial, la wahhabisation rampante de la Syrie s’est d’abord imposée dans les populations rurales échappant au sunnisme institutionnel syrien d’orientation hanafite réputé tolérant. Suite au virage libéral emprunté par le parti Baas en 2005, le wahhabisme a connu un nouvel essor dans les banlieues misérables des métropoles syriennes ou les villes de seconde zone comme Douma ou Darayya ravivant le spectre de la discorde inter-communautaire.

De nombreux Syriens qui se sont enrichis en Arabie saoudite lancèrent des campagnes caritatives dans leur pays d’origine, accroissant ainsi leur influence parmi les Syriens défavorisés. Chaque carence de l’Etat était aussitôt comblée par des réseaux de bienfaisance liés à d’ambitieux cheikhs exilés. L’un des plus connus s’appelle Mohammad Sourour Zayn Al Abidin. Il est le chef de file d’un courant prosélyte à mi-chemin entre le mouvement des Frères musulmans syriens et le wahhabisme (2).

Le moment venu, les Syriens du Golfe sont devenus les principaux sponsors privés du djihad en Syrie, aussitôt assistés dans leur « mission sacrée » par des riches donateurs saoudiens mais aussi koweïtiens, bahreïniens ou encore jordaniens, pour la plupart, d’obédience wahhabite (3).

Malgré le calme tout relatif qui faisait la renommée du régime sécuritaire de Damas avant les troubles et la guerre que nous connaissons depuis trois ans, le pays a connu plusieurs cas d’échauffourées et de provocations à caractère confessionnel. (4) Une alaouite originaire de la ville majoritairement sunnite de Tall Kalakh dans le gouvernorat de Homs m’a parlé de tentatives de pogromes anti-alaouites plus d’un an avant les premières manifestations démocratiques de mars 2011. D’autres Syriens m’ont confirmé l’installation durant la décennie précédente, d’un climat délétère sur fond de rancœurs communautaires dans les quartiers pauvres de Damas et dans certains villages d’Idlib.

Les autorités syriennes ont préféré étouffer ce type d’incidents pour éviter la contagion.

En mars 2011, les slogans hostiles aux chiites, au Hezbollah et à l’Iran scandés aux portes de la mosquée Abou Baqr As Saddiq à Jableh sur la côte syrienne ont rapidement cédé la place aux appels à la guerre contre les minorités. Alors que les Syriens manifestaient contre l’injustice, la tyrannie, la corruption et la pauvreté, certaines forces conservatrices tentaient délibérément de détourner la colère populaire vers des cibles innocentes dont le seul crime était d’exister. Ainsi, avant même que les troupes d’Al Qaïda ne tirent leur premier coup de feu en Syrie, les prédicateurs wahhabites étaient déjà à la manœuvre.

La wahhabisation de la rébellion syrienne

Si à l’aube de l’insurrection syrienne, au milieu de l’écrasante majorité des combattants de confession sunnite, on pouvait croiser quelques rebelles druzes, chrétiens, chiites et alaouites, sous la pression des agitateurs et des généreux donateurs du Golfe, la rébellion va rapidement s’homogénéiser sur le plan confessionnel et se radicaliser, contraignant les quelques combattants issus des minorités à se démobiliser et à s’exiler.

Dans leur propagande, les groupes rebelles syriens reprennent à leur compte les insultes anti-chiites en vogue au royaume des Saoud. Les chiites mais aussi les alaouites, les ismaéliens et les druzes seront systématiquement accusés par la rébellion d’être des mécréants (kouffar), des négateurs (rafidha), des zoroastriens (majous), des transgresseurs (tawaghit, pluriel de taghout), des polythéistes, des adorateurs d’icônes, de pierres ou de tombes (mouchrikines), des satanistes, des crypto-iraniens, des envahisseurs perses, des safavides ou encore des crypto-juifs (5).

Parallèlement, des bataillons aux connotations confessionnelles vont se former à l’intérieur même de l’Armée syrienne libre : bataillons Muawiya, Yazid, Abou Ubayda Jarrah, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, la brigade turkmène « Yavuz Sultan Selim » du nom du sultan-calife ottoman qui, au XVIe siècle, massacra alévis, alaouites et chiites…

Parmi ces groupes d’insurgés à connotation confessionnelle, il y a la fameuse Brigade Farouk, véritable épine dorsale de l’Armée syrienne libre. Aucun média occidental ne s’est même interrogé sur le sens du mot Farouk. (6) Il s’agissait pourtant du surnom du calife Omar Ibn Khattab, considéré comme un usurpateur par les chiites.

Nul ne peut oublier Khalid al Hamad, l’homme qui éviscéra un soldat de l’armée gouvernementale avant de crier en portant à sa bouche le cœur et le foie de sa victime : « Oh, héros ! massacrez les Alaouites et découpez leurs cœurs pour les manger ! ». Mais se souvient-on que cet individu n’était ni membre d’Al Qaïda, ni un simple milicien mais un commandant de la célèbre brigade Al Farouk affiliée à l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) soi-disant modérée et aujourd’hui dirigée par Salim Idriss.

Le prédicateur Andan Arour qui appelle au meurtre de masse lors de ses apparitions télévisées fait lui aussi partie de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) et non pas de la rébellion dite « extrémiste ».

Ces quelques exemples montrent que la présentation de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) en tant que rébellion démocratique, laïque et plurielle était un pur produit marketing à destination de l’opinion publique occidentale.

De nos jours, nos médias présentent le Front islamique (FI), la principale coalition djihadiste qui fédère près de 80.000 combattants comme une possible alternative à Al Qaïda. Le leader du Front islamique s’appelle Zahran Alloush. Il est le fils de Mohammad Alloush, un prédicateur syrien ultraconservateur exilé en Arabie saoudite. Zahran Alloush a beau résister contre les deux succursales syriennes d’Al Qaïda, à savoir Al Nosra et l’Etat islamique de l’Irak et du Levant (EIIL) alias Daech, il développe la même rhétorique sectaire que ses concurrents. Dans une allocution prononcée devant le château omeyyade Qasr al Hayr al Charqi près d’Al Sukhna en juillet 2013, voici ce que Zahran Alloush déclarait urbi et orbi :

« Les fils des Omeyyades sont revenus au pays du Levant malgré vous. Les moudjahidines du Levant vont laver la souillure des Rafidhas , pour purifier le Levant à jamais… Les Chiites demeureront à jamais soumis et humiliés comme ils l’ont toujours été tout au long de l’histoire. Et l’Islam a toujours détruit leur Etat… La dynastie des Omeyyades a toujours détruit leur Etat ». (7)

Début octobre 2013, quatre groupes djihadistes regroupant plusieurs milliers de combattants indépendants d’Al Qaïda annoncent la création dans l’Est syrien de l’Armée de la sunna et de la communauté (Jaych al Sunna wal Jama’a). Non seulement, cette nouvelle coalition arbore un nom confessionnel clairement anti-chiite mais, en plus, elle accuse leurs ennemis d’être des safavides, un nom désignant une dynastie chiite qui régna sur l’Iran de 1501 à 1736. Par ailleurs, la nouvelle armée confessionnelle proclame sa volonté de combattre les « sectes » jusqu’au jour du jugement dernier. (8)

Par conséquent, il serait illusoire de considérer la rébellion de groupes armés contre à Al Qaïda comme un gage de respectabilité et de tolérance. En effet, tous les mouvements rebelles actifs en Syrie pratiquent le takfir, c’est-à-dire la guerre contre la « mécréance », dans un premier temps contre les courants de l’Islam qu’ils considèrent comme hérétiques et les non-croyants, ensuite contre les minorités chrétiennes et enfin contre les sunnites.

La distinction faite par les médias occidentaux entre rebelles et djihadistes est donc abusive. Entre Al Qaïda, le Front islamique et l’Armée syrienne libre, c’est en quelque sorte bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet.

Le Royaume wahhabite à l’assaut de la forteresse syrienne

En trois ans de conflit en Syrie, le régime des Saoud ne s’est pas contenté d’exporter son idéologie. Dès le début de la crise, Riyad se profile en effet comme la force d’avant-garde de la guerre contre le régime syrien. Il se fait remarquer en devenant le premier pays au monde à rompre ses relations diplomatiques avec Damas.

Lorsque l’insurrection armée éclate en Syrie, le Royaume wahhabite cherche immédiatement à en prendre le contrôle. Il charge ses agents locaux de canaliser les ressources financières, logistiques et militaires vers les groupes insurgés les plus fiables.

Au Liban, en Turquie et surtout en Jordanie, les services de renseignements saoudiens organisent des camps d’entraînement pour les rebelles syriens.

Au pays du Cèdre, l’Arabie saoudite mobilise le Courant du futur des Hariri, une puissante famille libano-saoudienne politiquement inféodée à la dynastie wahhabite ainsi que les cellules terroristes présentes dans le Nord du pays. Les groupes terroristes du Nord-Liban constituent la force de réserve traditionnelle du régime de Riyad dans sa guerre contre le Hezbollah, parti solidement implanté dans la population chiite du Sud du Liban.

Au début du « printemps syrien » (mars 2011), ce même Nord-Liban a logiquement servi à l’Arabie saoudite de base d’attaque contre la Syrie. Des mercenaires pro-saoudiens de toutes origines, mais au départ syriens, ont afflué vers les province de Homs et de Damas à partir du territoire libanais.

Le chef des opérations anti-syriennes n’est autre que le prince Bandar Ben Sultan, secrétaire général du Conseil national de sécurité saoudien. Le prince est par ailleurs surnommé « Bandar Bush » en raison de ses étroites liaisons avec l’ex-président étasunien. Coutumier des opérations secrètes, le prince Bandar a fait de l’élimination du président syrien une question personnelle. Il lui arrive de débarquer en personne à Tripoli, la capitale du Nord-Liban, pour encourager, en monnaies sonnantes et trébuchantes, les volontaires pour le djihad anti-chiite, anti-Hezbollah et anti-syrien (9). Parfois, il charge ses meilleurs agents, comme le député haririste Okab Sakr, d’assurer la logistique. Selon une enquête du journal Time, Okab Sakr se trouvait fin août 2013 à Antioche, la ville turque servant de base-arrière aux djihadistes anti-syriens du Front nord pour équiper en armes légères plusieurs unités de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) basées à Idlib et à Homs. (10)

Le 25 février 2013, le New York Times a révélé que des armes issues de stocks secrets de l’armée croate ont été achetées par l’Arabie saoudite et acheminées aux rebelles syriens via la Jordanie. Il était question de « multiples avions chargés d’armes » et d’un « nombre inconnu de munitions ». (11)

Le 17 juin 2013, citant des diplomates du Golfe, l’agence Reuters annonce la fourniture aux rebelles syriens par l’Arabie saoudite de missiles anti-aériens achetés en France et en Belgique. La dépêche précise que le transport de ses armes aurait été financé par la France. (12)

Au Liban, en Turquie ou en Jordanie, l’Arabie saoudite avançait ses pions à mesure que les autres sponsors de la rébellion, à savoir le régime d’Ankara et l’émir du Qatar, levaient le pied. Désormais, la Syrie était victime d’une guerre saoudienne, une guerre d’invasion et de conquête de la Syrie par l’Arabie saoudite.

Les légions saoudiennes déferlent sur la Syrie

Voyant que les Etats-Unis rechignaient à envoyer des troupes pour combattre le régime de Damas suite à l’attaque chimique survenue le 21 août 2013, le régime de Riyad a décidé de mettre les bouchées doubles en augmentant de manière significative le budget militaire et le nombre de mercenaires saoudiens pour la guerre contre la Syrie. Parallèlement, plusieurs centaines de Saoudiens, soldats d’active ou réservistes, ont gagné la Syrie pour renforcer les groupes terroristes les plus radicaux comme Al Nosra ou Daech.

Ces dernières semaines, le journal libanais As-Safir et les médias officiels syriens ont constaté cette implication accrue de la monarchie wahhabite, indiquant que plusieurs hauts gradés de l’armée saoudienne dont un colonel ont été capturés par l’armée syrienne à Alep tandis qu’un général major de l’armée saoudienne nommé Adel Nayef Al-Shoummari avait été tué dans une attaque kamikaze à Deir Attiyeh. Les médias syriens ont publié sa photo en uniforme de l’armée saoudienne. Al Shoummari serait le fils du chef des officiers de la Garde royale saoudienne. Une autre personnalité saoudienne, Moutaleq el-Moutlaq, fils du général saoudien Abdallah Moutlaq Soudairi a lui aussi été tué à Alep. À sa mort, les autorités saoudiennes ont tenté de se dissocier de son engagement en Syrie en prétendant qu’il s’était rendu dans ce pays en guerre par échapper à la justice. Le journal As-Safir note cependant que l’oncle paternel de Moutlaq al-Moutlaq, se trouve lui aussi en Syrie dans les rangs de groupes dihadistes. (13)

Parmi les milliers de Saoudiens actuellement présent en Syrie, on compte également des cheikhs influents comme Abdullah Al Mohaisany. Dans une vidéo postée sur Youtube, on le voit arme à la main, chanter des louanges au Front Al Nosra et à l’Etat islamique d’Irak et du Levant (EILL), les deux branches d’Al Qaïda en Syrie et maudire les chiites et les alaouites (14).

L’inertie des services secrets saoudiens face aux départs de personnalités publiques comme Al Mohaisany pose question. Au début du conflit, les autorités saoudiennes semblaient vouloir tenir leurs citoyens à l’écart de la guerre de Syrie. En septembre 2012, plusieurs oulémas appartenant à un organe religieux gouvernemental avaient même déconseillé à leurs ressortissants d’aller se battre en Syrie. (15) Aujourd’hui, Riyad semble au contraire prêcher avec véhémence la guerre totale dans ce pays.

Fin novembre 2013, l’armée arabe syrienne a annoncé avoir capturé pas moins de 80 combattants saoudiens à Deir Attiyeh durant la bataille de Qalamoune.

Le 15 janvier 2014, l’ambassadeur syrien aux Nations Unies M. Bachar Jaafari a déclaré que 15% des combattants étrangers en Syrie étaient Saoudiens. Dans ses deux derniers discours, la président syrien Bachar el Assad a souligné la menace du wahhabisme sur l’Islam et sur le monde. Et d’ajouter : « (…) tout le monde doit contribuer à la lutte contre le wahhabisme et à son éradication. » Le président syrien confirmait ainsi que la guerre de Syrie est devenue une guerre de l’Arabie saoudite contre la Syrie.

Conclusion

Lorsque l’on parle du rôle de l’Arabie saoudite dans la guerre de Syrie, par ignorance ou à dessein, les analystes occidentaux restent souvent vagues, se limitant à répéter des généralités sur les rivalités entre l’Iran et la dynastie des Saoud.

Si les médias occidentaux principalement français, sont avares de critiques envers les monarchies du Golfe, ils sont carrément muets sur l’obsession des Saoud à vouloir confessionnaliser à tous prix un conflit qui est éminemment politique, géostratégique et idéologique. Il est vrai que « nos » experts pointent le discours confessionnel et l’extrémisme de la rébellion, mais ils en parlent comme une conséquence et non comme la principale cause du conflit et de sa pérennisation.

Or, les forces du régime ont toujours mis en avant la solidarité interconfessionnelle et l’unité de la patrie au centre de leur combat, (ce que les médias mainstream se gardent de mentionner, faisant passer les forces loyalistes pour les membres d’une seule communauté) tandis que les groupes armés cultivaient leur différence et leur pureté par rapport aux communautés jugées déviantes puis par rapport à l’ensemble de la population.

Là où ces milices fanatiques ont pris le pouvoir, le chaos et la terreur se sont installés. Dans les zones dites « libérées », le jeu dangereux de la surenchère anti-chiite et anti-alaouite entretenu par les canaux de propagande saoudiens s’est rapidement mué en campagne d’extermination de tout ce qui est non sunnite d’abord et de tous ce qui est différent ensuite.
C’est le phénomène que nous observons aujourd’hui, avec la liquidation de plus d’un millier de djihadistes en deux semaines de guerre entre factions rivales se revendiquant de la même confession et de la même pratique théologique.

En trois ans de crise et de guerre en Syrie, la stratégie saoudienne est passée du « soft power » et de la wahhabisation rampante à la guerre directe.

Les Saoud ont commencé par saboter toute perspective de réforme, de démocratisation et de réconciliation en Syrie. Ils ont ensuite poussé les Syriens à s’entre-tuer en dressant face aux forces loyalistes des groupes armés créés de toutes pièces à leur image. Voyant leur projet de renversement de régime échouer, ils ont décidé de tenter le tout pour le tout, quitte à réduire la Syrie en poussière avec l’aide d’Al Qaïda.

Comme le régime théocratique de Riyad est en guerre contre Al Qaïda sur le plan domestique, certains experts occidentaux doutent encore du soutien de Riyad aux terroristes en Syrie. Or, la manipulation par les services saoudiens de groupes affiliés à Al Qaïda comme l’EIIL ou Al Nosra est non seulement une constante de la politique étrangère saoudienne mais en plus, les milices du Front islamique (FI) et de l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) que l’Arabie saoudite soutient officiellement ont une idéologie et une rhétorique quasi identiques à celles d’Al Qaïda.

Ainsi, du chef de l’espionnage saoudien Bandar Ben Sultan au leader suprême d’Al Qaïda Ayman al Zawahiri, de l’émir d’Al Nosra Abu Mohammad Al Joulani au commandant de l’Armée syrienne libre Salim Idriss, de l’émir de Daech Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi au commandant du Front islamique (FI) Zahran Alloush, ils prônent tous le même discours, les mêmes méthodes et les mêmes objectifs en Syrie.

Le terrorisme de ces bandes armées et de leur sponsor saoudien ne laisse guère d’autre choix à la Syrie souveraine que de résister ou de disparaître.

Nous sommes décidément encore bien loin de la paix.

Bahar Kimyongür

18 janvier 2014

Notes

(1) J’ai constaté ce phénomène de wahhabisation des moeurs durant mes multiples voyages en Syrie entre 1998 et 2005. Il a été observé par Alper Birdal et Yigit Günay auteurs du livre critique sur les printemps arabes (Arap Bahari Aldatmacasi, Ed. Yazilama, 2012). L’opposant syrien Haytham Manna a lui aussi rendu compte de la wahhabisation progressive de la Syrie durant une conférence donnée à Bruxelles le 3 novembre 2013.

(2) Mohammad Sourour Zayn Al Abidin vit actuellement en Jordanie.

(3) Selon un article paru le 12 novembre dans le New York Times et signé Ben Hubbard, douze Koweïtiens dont un certain Ghanim Al Mteiri agiraient ouvertement dans le transport de fonds pour le djihad en Syrie. Des imams vivant en Europe ont également impliqués dans le trafic d’armes international vers la Syrie comme l’imam syrien exilé en Suède Haytham Rahmeh.

(4) A Qamechli, dans le Nord-est de la Syrie, des troubles inter-ethniques sanglants survenus en 2004 entre supporters de football arabes et kurdes.

(5) La légende veut que ce soit un juif converti à l’Islam du nom d’Abdullah Ibn Saba qui serait le fondateur du chiisme. Certaines sources sunnites font d’Ibn Saba un agent juif provocateur ayant eu pour mission de détruire l’Islam de l’intérieur. Mais à ce jour, les autorités chiites réfutent jusqu’à l’existence même de ce personnage et accusent les auteurs de ce “mythe” de vouloir discréditer leur foi.

(6) Farouk signifie celui qui distingue le Bien du Mal.

(7) Voir :lien

(8) Voir : lien

(9) Pour plus de détails sur Bandar Ben Sultan, cf. Bahar Kimyongür, Syriana, La conquête continue, Ed. Investig’Action et Couleur Livres, Charleroi, 2012

(10) Time, Syria’s Secular and Islamist Rebels : Who Are the Saudis and the Qataris Arming ?, 18 septembre 2012,

(11) The New York Times, Saudis Step Up Help for Rebels in Syria With Croatian Arms, 25 février 2013

(12) Reuters, Saudi supplying missiles to Syria rebels : Gulf source, 17 juin 2013

(13) As Safir, Saudi Jihadis Flow into Syria, 5 décembre 2012

(14) Voir : lien
.
La chanson reprise par le cheikh saoudien range dans le même panier les chiites et l’Amérique, ce qui est un contre-sens. Le royaume dont il est citoyen est non seulement un protectorat étasunien mais en plus, Washington est l’un des principaux soutiens du djihad en Syrie.

(15) Reuters, Saudi steers citizens away from Syrian « jihad », 12 septembre 2012

lundi, 13 janvier 2014

Hezbollah is a stabilizing factor in the Levant unlike Saudi Arabia and Qatar

AP00122201170.jpg

Hezbollah is a stabilizing factor in the Levant unlike Saudi Arabia and Qatar

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times - http://www.moderntokyotimes.com

Gulf and Western intrigues in the Levant are collectively creating chaos and spreading sectarianism. In Lebanon the Hezbollah movement is trying to contain these dark forces by maintaining strong relations with powerful Christian leaders like Michel Aoun. At the same time Hezbollah is supporting the rich religious mosaic in Syria. Therefore, while Gulf and Western powers alongside Turkey have tried to crush the secular government in Syria; it is clear that the Russian Federation, Iran, and Hezbollah, are not for changing.

The Syrian armed forces are multi-religious in line with the nation of Syria and clearly the only sectarian angle belongs to the enemies of this nation. Indeed, Syria took in vast numbers of Sunni Muslims fleeing Palestine and Iraq. Therefore, when outside nations were meddling throughout the region the nation of Syria was open to all refugees irrespective of religious affiliation. This reality meant that Christians fleeing Iraq, after the destabilization of this nation, fled to Syria in order to escape sectarianism and terrorism. Sadly, the intrigues of Gulf and Western powers now means that vast numbers of Syrians from all faiths are fleeing the destruction which follows in the wake of outside meddling.

Sunni Takfiri fanatics and militant Salafists are entering Syria from many nations and clearly NATO Turkey is an open conduit for the vilest of jihadists to be found on this planet. After all, the so-called Islamic jihad in Syria is just based on terrorism, sectarianism, beheading, destroying the economy and doing the bidding of outside forces. Note, so-called Islamic jihadists are not fighting NATO Turkey in the north or Israel in the south; instead, they are going to Syria to slaughter and indoctrinate. In other words, Islamic jihadists are not only “blind pawns” based on being funded by wealthy Gulf states but these hypocrites are also the enemies of the Levant because they desire to sow wars based on sectarianism.

Once more, the governments of America and the United Kingdom have helped to cleanse Christians just like they did in Iraq and Kosovo. Indeed, President Obama of America even supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt despite this movement being anti-Christian and anti-secular.  However, the masses in Egypt woke up to the dark threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and similarly the armed forces of Syria refuse to abandon their homeland.

In Syria the forces of Hezbollah are fighting for the richness of the Levant despite the mass propaganda being espoused in the media towards this movement. After all, when Sunni Takfiri Islamists take control of mainly Alawite and Christian villages then both communities flee. The same happens when the brutal Free Syrian Army (FSA) enters either mixed areas or villages belonging to various minorities. Yet, when Hezbollah assists the armed forces of Syria, then this movement only engages itself in fighting various sectarian and terrorist forces.

Hezbollah is not interested in enforcing their faith on anyone. On the contrary, it is clear that Hezbollah supports the mainly Sunni Palestinians, just like this movement is working closely with powerful Christian forces in Lebanon under the leadership of Michel Aoun. Indeed, the modern day movement of Hezbollah resembles many aspects of the secular government of Syria and this applies to supporting the religious and ethnic mosaic of the Levant. This reality highlights the clear sham of sectarianism being thrown at Hezbollah and the government of Syria.

However, in the opposite direction you have the brutal sectarianism of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are supporting many militant Salafi and Takfiri movements in various nations. Of course, in Syria both feudal Gulf powers are supporting terrorism and sectarianism openly. Also, Gulf petrodollars are doing much in the shadows throughout the world based on spreading an ideology based on supremacy and hatred. Like usual, Western powers care zilch about the Christian faith because in Saudi Arabia not one single Christian church is allowed and apostates face death.

Saudi Arabia is now trying to spread dissent in Lebanon by funding the armed forces of this nation. Despite this, many powerful regional religious leaders fully understand the evil deeds being done throughout the Levant based on the intrigues of Gulf and Western powers. Therefore, Hezbollah will continue to fight against outside nations who seek to alter the indigenous dynamics of the Levant.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

dimanche, 12 janvier 2014

Fallujah: Obama’s Newest Headache

31C3FA37-BE96-4FDC-A2FA-6D8D8E15C8DE_mw1024_n_s.jpg

Fallujah: Obama’s Newest Headache

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR

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

 
Guernica in the Spanish civil war, My Lai in the Vietnam War, Guantanamo Bay in the war on terror – these have been powerful symbols. The siege of Fallujah in May 2004 stands out in the Iraq War as the bloodiest battle that the United States fought since the Vietnam War. The US Marines suffered 40 deaths in the siege, while Iraqi civilian casualties were in the hundreds. The US forces reportedly used F-16 warplanes to blitz residential areas in Fallujah with cluster bombs. The majority of prisoners were executed…

As the US Marine Corps announced a ceasefire and withdrew in May 2004, mosques proclaimed the victory of insurgents and Fallujah’s transformation began as a sort of Islamic mini-state with Sharia law. So, in the fall of that year, in late October, the US military returned with another major offensive with aerial attacks and precision-guided missiles followed by a full-blooded assault by the Marines backed by artillery and armor in early November – Operation Phantom Fury. 

This is how CNN’s Karl Penhaul reported on November 9: «The sky over Fallujah seems to explode as U.S. Marines launch their much-trumpeted ground assault. War planes drop cluster bombs on insurgent positions and artillery batteries fire smoke rounds to conceal a Marine advance». According to Washington Post, white phosphorous grenades and artillery shells were used to create «walls of fire» in the city. Doctors later reported seeing melted corpses. No one knows the casualty figures; as of November 18 US military claimed 1200 ‘insurgents’ had been killed and 1000 captured… 

A Guardian report said over 70 percent of the city’s homes were destroyed along with sixty schools and sixty-five mosques and shrines. There has been anecdotal evidence of large increases in cancer, infant mortality, etc. among the survivors, triggering speculation that there was use of depleted uranium leading to environmental contamination. 

It is extremely important to recollect the horrendous living memory of Fallujah to understand what happened last week when the centre of the city fell into the hands of fighters from the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and Levant [ISIL]. Fallujah, along with the capital of Anbar province, Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents during the US occupation of Iraq and al-Qaeda militants largely took over both cities last week. Hundreds of ISIL fighters have entered Fallujah. 

Pundits have begun analyzing the factors behind. The dominant narrative is that the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to reach out to the Sunnis and alienating them during the period since the US troops pulled out in 2011. Indeed, the latest flare-up happened after Maliki dispatched troops last week to break up an year-old Sunni protest in Ramadi to voice their grievances of political exclusion. Almost all Sunnis have turned against the government and are opposed to the Iraqi security forces, although not all have aligned themselves with the ISIL. 

Meanwhile, the turmoil in Syria in which ISIL is playing a lead role has compounded the security situation in Iraq. The ISIL has been targeting Shi’ites, which at once gives the conflict in Anbar a sectarian overtone. Also, Iraq is heading for parliamentary poll in April and there are conspiracy theories that Maliki is calibrating a confrontation with Sunnis and raising the spectre of the al-Qaeda threat that might help him rally the Shi’ite opinion to support his re-election. 

However, Maliki’s decisions are also prompted by the real fear that his Shi’ite-led government is besieged and faces the threat of being overrun Sunnis. To say he contrived the al-Qaeda takeover in Fallujah stretches credulity. The ISIL comprises hardened fighters coming in from Syria where the US’ regional allies in the Persian Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, have been inducting foreign fighters and supporting them financially and with weapons. Also to be factored in is the so-called Sahwa, the Awakening, which the US created as surrogate force to fight the al-Qaeda and was abandoned when the American troops withdrew in 2011. Most of its leaders have been assassinated. 

Suffice to say, in terms of political morality or strategy, the Barack Obama administration cannot wash its hands off the emergent situation in Fallujah. The blame for the Iraq’s unraveling as a nation should lie with the George W. Bush presidency. Bush’s forecast of ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq and Gen. David Petraeus’ brag about the Awakening sound hollow today. 

To be sure, how Obama responds to the situation in Fallujah has wider implications for the US’ regional strategies. Secretary of State John Kerry said, «We’re not contemplating putting boots on the ground. This is their [Iraqis’] fight, but we’re going to help them in their fight». 

The White House spokesman Jay Carney said Washington is «accelerating» its deliveries of military equipment to Iraq and «looking to provide an additional shipment of Hellfire missiles» in the coming months as well as ten surveillance drones in the coming weeks and another 48 later this year. Carney added that Washington is «working closely with the Iraqis to develop a holistic strategy to isolate the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups», but ultimately Iraq must handle the conflict itself. 

The point is, US fought ferociously in 2004 to keep al-Qaeda out of Fallujah and now they’ve returned and may create a base there and this is every bit the US’ fight and Maliki government is a quasi-ally of Washington. The US’ interests in the region will be seriously hurt if al-Qaeda establishes another foothold in the region. And, of course, the whole region is watching Washington’s grit to take on al-Qaeda. 

The Republican hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham blame Obama for the situation insofar as he didn’t try hard enough to reach an agreement with Maliki to keep US troops in Iraq beyond 2011. However, the criticism won’t gain traction as the domestic attitudes in the US favor the idea that despite the upheaval in the Middle East, the US will do well to seek a diplomatic and political engagement with the region rather than a military settlement. 

The choices that lie ahead for Obama can be viewed from three perspectives. First, the Fallujah situation sails into view at an awkward time – when the Obama administration proposes to maintain anywhere around ten to twelve thousand US troops in Afghanistan. That plan lacks support within the US and the Fallujah situation is a timely warning about the dangers of maintaining a large residual force in Afghanistan. 

Second, Fallujah highlights that the wars in Syria and Iraq and the dangerous slide in Lebanon have morphed. At the same time, Fallujah is not an al-Qaeda problem alone. It is a city that became irreconcilably alienated in the brutal violence of US occupation and it no longer feels it’s a part of Iraq. Thus, Fallujah calls attention to a far more fundamental question regarding the future of Iraq itself. This, again, holds some stark lessons for Afghanistan where too the US occupation hastened the fragmentation along ethnic and religious lines. A response to the crisis by accelerating weapons deliveries to the Iraqi government will not solve the problem and may even make it worse. 

A third stunning aspect is that the Fallujah situation finds the US and Iran on the same side. Their respective interests in Iraq vary but they share the profound concern that an international movement of Sunni fighters fired by Wahhabi ideology is raising the black flag of al-Qaeda along sectarian fault lines. Neither is willing to intervene and Tehran too promises military aid but shows reluctance to put ‘boots on the ground’. 

The Obama administration could be edging close to acknowledging Iran’s influence on regional issues – Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen – and this hastens regional realignments. Saudi Arabia accuses the Obama administration of strengthening Iran’s regional at the expense of Washington’s traditional allies and also alleges that Tehran is pursuing a clever strategy to undermine the US-Saudi alliance. 

Indeed, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a meeting with a visiting delegation of Italian lawmakers on Sunday in Tehran that the spread of radicalism in the Middle East would pose unpredictable threats to other parts of the world as well unless countered through effective international cooperation. The Intelligence Minister Seyed Mahmoud Alavi claimed that the western powers realize that international cooperation is needed to counter the «threat of terrorism by Takfiri groups». 

Significantly, a bipartisan a group of influential figures in the US foreign policy establishment addressed a letter to the US Senate on Monday urging that no new sanctions be passed against Iran, warning that it would potentially move the US closer to war. Ryan Crocker who was a former ambassador to Iraq, led the initiative.

samedi, 11 janvier 2014

Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia

20080813112736_carte_caucase_du_sud.jpg

Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia: Has the House of Saud seen its Stalingrad?

 

The events in Volgograd are part of a much larger body of events and a multi-faceted struggle that has been going on for decades as part of a cold war after the Cold War—the post-Cold War cold war, if you please—that was a result of two predominately Eurocentric world wars. When George Orwell wrote his book 1984 and talked about a perpetual war between the fictional entities of Oceania and Eurasia, he may have had a general idea about the current events that are going on in mind or he may have just been thinking of the struggle between the Soviet Union and, surrounded by two great oceans, the United States of America.

So what does Volgograd have to do with the dizzying notion presented? Firstly, it is not schizophrenic to tie the events in Volgograd to either the conflict in the North Caucasus and to the fighting in Syria or to tie Syria to the decades of fighting in the post-Soviet North Caucasus. The fighting in Syria and the North Caucuses are part of a broader struggle for the mastery over Eurasia. The conflicts in the Middle East are part of this very grand narrative, which to many seems to be so far from the reality of day to day life.

 “Bandar Bush” goes to Mother Russia

For the purposes of supporting such an assertion we will have to start with the not-so-secret visit of a shadowy Saudi regime official to Moscow. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the infamous Saudi terrorist kingpin and former House of Saud envoy to Washington turned intelligence guru, last visited the Russian Federation in early-December 2013. Bandar bin Sultan was sent by King Abdullah to solicit the Russian government into abandoning the Syrians. The goal of Prince Bandar was to make a deal with the Kremlin to let Damascus be overtaken by the Saudi-supported brigades that were besieging the Syrian government forces from Syria’s countryside and border regions since 2011. Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the two held closed-door discussions about both Syria and Iran at Putin’s official residence in Novo-Ogaryovo.

The last meeting that Bandar had with Putin was a few months earlier in July 2013. That meeting was also held in Russia. The July talks between Prince Bandar and President Putin also included Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. One would also imagine that discussion about the Iranians increased with each visit too, as Bandar certainly tried to get the Russians on bad terms with their Iranian allies.

After Bandar’s first meeting with President Putin, it was widely reported that the House of Saud wanted to buy Russia off. Agence France-Presse and Reuters both cited the unnamed diplomats of the Arab petro-monarchies, their March 14 lackeys in Lebanon, and their Syrian opposition puppets as saying that Saudi Arabia offered to sign a lucrative arms contract with Moscow and give the Kremlin a guarantee that the Arab petro-sheikdoms would not threaten the Russian gas market in Europe or use Syria for a gas pipeline to Europe.

Russia knew better than to do business with the House of Saud. It had been offered a lucrative arms deal by the Saudi regime much earlier, in 2008, to make some backdoor compromises at the expense of Iran. After the compromises were made by Moscow the House of Saud put the deal on ice. If the media leaks in AFP and Reuters were not tactics or lies in the first place aimed at creating tensions between the Syrian and Russian governments, the purportedly extravagant bribes to betray Syria were wasted on the ears of Russian officials.

The House of Saud and the undemocratic club of Arab petro-monarchies that form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have always talked large about money. The actions of these self portrayed lords of the Arabia Peninsula have almost never matched their words and promises. To anyone who deals with them, the House of Saud and company are known for habitually making grand promises that they will never keep, especially when it comes to money. Even when money is delivered, the full amount committed is never given and much of it is stolen by their corrupt partners and cronies. Whether it is the unfulfilled 2008 arms contract with Russia that was facilitated with the involvement of Iraqi former CIA asset Iyad Allawi or the overabundant commitments of financial and logistical aid to the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples that never materialized, the Arab petro-sheikhdoms have never done more than talk grandly and then get their propagandists to write articles about their generosity and splendor. Underneath all the grandeur and sparkles there has always been bankruptcy, insecurity, and emptiness.

A week after the first meeting with Bandar, the Kremlin responded to the media buzz about the attempted bribe by Saudi Arabia. Yury Ushakov, one of Putin’s top aides and the former Russian ambassador to the US, categorically rejected the notion that any deal was accepted or even entertained by the Kremlin. Ushakov avowed that not even bilateral cooperation was discussed between the Saudis and Russia. According to the Kremlin official, the talks between Bandar and Putin were simply about the policies of Moscow and Riyadh on Syria and the second international peace conference being planned about Syria in Geneva, Switzerland.

More Leaks: Fighting Fire with Fire?

If his objective was to get the Russians to abandon Syria, Prince Bandar left both meetings in Russia empty-handed. Nevertheless, his visit left a trail of unverifiable reports and speculation. Discretion is always needed when analyzing these accounts which are part of the information war about Syria being waged on all sides by the media. The planted story from the Saudi side about trying to buy the Russians was not the only account of what took place in the Russian-Saudi talks. There was also a purported diplomatic leak which most likely surfaced as a counter-move to the planted story about Bandar’s proposal. This leak elaborated even further on the meeting between Bandar and Putin. Threats were made according to the second leak that was published in Arabic by the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir on August 21, 2013.

According to the Lebanese newspaper, not only did Prince Bandar tell the Russians during their first July meeting that the regimes of the GCC would not threaten the Russian gas monopoly in Europe, but he made promises to the Russians that they could keep their naval facility on the Mediterranean coast of Syria and that he would give the House of Saud’s guarantee to protect the 2014 Winter Olympics being held in the North Caucasian resort city of Sochi, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, from the Chechen separatist militias under Saudi control. If Moscow cooperated with Riyadh and Washington against Damascus, the leak discloses that Bandar also stated that the same Chechen militants fighting inside Syria to topple the Syrian government would not be given a role in Syria’s political future.

When the Russians refused to betray their Syrian allies, Prince Bandar then threatened Russia with the cancellation of the second planned peace conference in Geneva and with the unleashing of the military option against the Syrians the leak imparts.

This leak, which presents a veiled Saudi threat about the intended attacks on the Winter Olympics in Sochi, led to a frenzy of speculations internationally until the end of August 2013, amid the high tensions arising from the US threats to attack Syria and the threats coming from Iran to intervene on the side of their Syrians allies against the United States. Originating from the same politically affiliated media circle in Lebanon, reports about Russian military preparations to attack Saudi Arabia in response to a war against Syria began to circulate from the newspaper Al-Ahed also, further fueling the chain of speculations.

A House of Saud Spin on the Neo-Con “Redirection”

Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that after the 2006 defeat of Israel in Lebanon that the US government had a new strategy called the “redirection.” According to Hersh, the “redirection” had “brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.” With the cooperation of Saudi Arabia and all the same players that helped launch Osama bin Ladin’s career in Afghanistan, the US government took “part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria.” The most important thing to note is what Hersh says next: “A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

A new House of Saud spin on the “redirection” has begun. If there is anything the House of Saud knows well, it is rounding up fanatics as tools at the service of Saudi Arabia’s patrons in Washington. They did it in Afghanistan, they did it Bosnia, they have done it in Russia’s North Caucasus, they did it in Libya, and they are doing it in both Lebanon and Syria. It does not take the British newspaper The Independent to publish an article titled “Mass murder in the Middle East is funded by our friends the Saudis” for the well-informed to realize this.

The terrorist bombings in Lebanon mark a new phase of the conflict in Syria, which is aimed at forcing Hezbollah to retreat from Syria by fighting in a civil war on its home turf. The attacks are part of the “redirection.” The House of Saud has accented this new phase through its ties to the terrorist attacks on the Iranian Embassy in Beirut on November 19, 2013. The attacks were carried out by individuals linked to the notorious Ahmed Al-Assir who waged a reckless battle against the Lebanese military from the Lebanese city of Sidon as part of an effort to ignite a sectarian civil war in Lebanon.

Al-Assir’s rise, however, was politically and logistically aided by the House of Saud and its shameless Hariri clients in Lebanon. He is also part of the same “redirection” policy and current that brought Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon. This is why it is no surprise to see Hariri’s Future Party flag flying alongside Al-Qaeda flags in Lebanon. After Al-Assir’s failed attempt to start a sectarian Lebanese civil war, he went into hiding and it was even alleged that he was taken in by one of the GCC embassies.

In regard to the House of Saud’s roles in the bombings in Lebanon, Hezbollah would confirm that the attack on the Iranian Embassy in Beirut was linked to the House of Saud. Hezbollah’s leadership would report that the Abdullah Izzam Brigade, which is affiliated to Al-Qaeda and tied to the bombings, is directly linked to the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, the Saudi agent, Majed Al-Majed, responsible for the attack would be apprehended by Lebanese security forces in late-December 2013. He had entered Lebanon after working with Al-Nusra in Syria. Fars News Agency, an Iranian media outlet, would report on January 2, 2014 that unnamed Lebanese sources had also confirmed that they had discovered that the attack was linked to Prince Bandar.

Wrath of the House of Saud Unleashed?

A lot changed between the first and second meetings that Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin had, respectively in July 2013 and December 2013. The House of Saud expected its US patron to get the Pentagon involved in a conventional bombing campaign against Syria in the month of September. It is more than likely that Riyadh was in the dark about the nature of secret negotiations that the US and Iran were holding through the backchannel of Oman in the backdrop of what appeared to be an escalation towards open war.

Bandar’s threat to reassess the House of Saud’s ties with Washington is probably a direct result of the US government keeping the House of Saud in the dark about using Syria as a means of negotiating with the Iranian government. US officials may have instigated the House of Saud to intensify its offensive against Syria to catalyze the Iranians into making a deal to avoid an attack on Syria and a regional war. Moreover, not only did the situation between the US and Iran change, Russia would eventually sign an important energy contract for Syrian natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea. The House of Saud has been undermined heavily in multiple ways and it is beginning to assess its own expendability.

If one scratches deep enough, they will find that the same ilk that attacked the Iranian Embassy in Beirut also attacked the Russian Embassy in Damascus. Both terrorist attacks were gifts to Iran and Russia, which served as reprisals for the Iranian and Russian roles in protecting Syria from regime change and a destructive war. It should, however, be discerned if the House of Saud is genuinely lashing out at Iran and Russia or if it being manipulated to further the goals of Washington in the US negotiations with Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus.

In the same manner, the House of Saud wants to generously reward Hezbollah too for its role in protecting Syria by crippling Hezbollah domestically in Lebanon. Riyadh may possibly not want a full scale war in Lebanon like the Israelis do, but it does want to neutralize and eliminate Hezbollah from the Lebanese landscape. In this regard, Saudi Arabia has earnestly been scheming to recruit Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman and the Lebanese military against Hezbollah and its supporters.

The Saud grant of three billion dollars to the Lebanese Armed Forces is not only blood money being given to Lebanon as a means of exonerating Saudi Arabia for its role in the terrorist bombings that have gripped the Lebanese Republic since 2013, the Saudi money is also aimed at wishfully restructuring the Lebanese military as a means of using it to neutralize Hezbollah. In line with the House of Saud’s efforts, pledges from the United Arab Emirates and reports that NATO countries are also planning on donating money and arms to the Lebanese military started.

In addition to the terrorists bombings in Lebanon and the attack on the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Russia has also been attacked. Since the Syrian conflict intensified there has been a flaring of tensions in Russia’s North Caucasus and a breakout of terrorist attacks. Russian Muslim clerics, known for their views on co-existence between Russia’s Christian and Muslim communities and anti-separatist views, have been murdered. The bombings in Volgograd are just the most recent cases and an expansion into the Volga of what is happening in the North Caucasus, but they come disturbingly close to the start of the Winter Olympics that Prince Bandar was saying would be “protected” if Moscow betrayed Syria.

Can the House of Saud Stand on its Own Feet?

It is a widely believed that you will find the US and Israelis pulling a lot of the strings if you look behind the dealings of the House of Saud. That view is being somewhat challenged now. Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UK, threatened that Saudi Arabia will go it alone against Syria and Iran in a December 2013 article. The letter, like the Saudi rejection of their UN Security Council seat, was airing the House of Saud’s rage against the realists running US foreign policy.

In this same context, it should also be noted for those that think that Saudi Arabia has zero freedom of action that Israeli leaders have stressed for many years that Tel Aviv needs to cooperate secretly with Saudi Arabia to manipulate the US against Iran. This is epitomized by the words of Israeli Brigadier-General Oded Tira: “We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran.”

Along similar lines, some may point out that together the House of Saud and Israel got France to delay an interim nuclear agreement between the Iranians and the P5+1 in Geneva. The House of Saud rewarded Paris through lucrative deals, which includes making sure that the grant it gives to the Lebanese military is spent on French military hardware. Saad Hariri, the main Saudi client in Lebanon, even met Francois Hollande and French officials in Saudi Arabia in context of the deal. Appeasing the House of Saud and Israel, French President Hollande has replicated France’s stonewalling of the P5+1 interim nuclear deal with Iran by trying to spoil the second Syria peace conference in Geneva by saying that there can be no political solution inside Syria if President Bashar Al-Assad stays in power.

Again, however, it has to be asked, is enraging Saudi Arabia part of a US strategy to make the Saudis exert maximum pressure on Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus so that the United States can optimize its gains in negotiations? After all, it did turn out that the US was in league with France in Geneva and that the US used the French stonewalling of an agreement with Iran to make additional demands from the Iranians during the negotiations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed that the US negotiation team had actually circulated a draft agreement that had been amended in response to France’s demands before Iran and the other world powers even had a chance to study them. The draft by the US team was passed around, in Foreign Minister Lavrov’s own words, “literally at the last moment, when we were about to leave Geneva.”

Instead of debating on the level of independence that the House of Saud possesses, it is important to ask if Saudi Arabia can act on its own and to what degree can the House of Saud act as an independent actor. This looks like a far easier question to answer. It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia can act on its own in most instances or even remain an intact state. This is why Israeli strategists very clearly state that Saudi Arabia is destined to fall apart. “The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia,” the Israeli Yinon Plan deems. Strategists in Washington are also aware of this and this is also why they have replicated models of a fragmented Saudi Arabia. This gives rise to another important question: if they US assess that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a sustainable entity, will it use it until it burns out like a flame? Is this what is happening and is Saudi Arabia being sacrificed or setup to take the blame as the “fall guy” by the United States?

 Who is Hiding Behind the House of Saud?

Looking back at Lebanon, the messages from international media outlets via their headlines is that the bombings in Lebanon highlight or reflect a power struggle between the House of Saud and Tehran in Lebanon and the rest of the region. Saying nothing about the major roles of the US, Israel, and their European allies, these misleading reports by the likes of journalists like Anne Barnard casually blame everything in Syria and Lebanon on a rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, erasing the entire history behind what has happened and casually sweeping all the interests behind the conflict(s) under the rug. This is dishonest and painting a twisted Orientalist narrative.

The outlets trying to make it sound like all the Middle East’s problems are gravitating around some sort of Iranian and Saudi rivalry might as well write that “the Saudis and Iranians are the sources behind the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the sources behind the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that crippled the most advanced Arab country, the ones that are blockading medication from reaching Gaza due to their rivalry, the ones who enforced a no-fly zone over Libya, the ones that are launching killer drone attacks on Yemen, and the ones that are responsible for the billions of dollars that disappeared from the Iraqi Treasury in 2003 after Washington and London invaded that country and controlled its finances.” These outlets and reports are tacitly washing the hands of  actors like Washington, Tel Aviv, Paris, and London clean of blood by trying to construct a series of false narratives that either blame everything on a regional rivalry between Tehran and Riyadh or the premise that the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims are fighting an eternal war that they are biologically programmed to wage against one another.

Arabs and Iranians and Shias and Sunnis are tacitly painted as un-human creatures that cannot be understood and savages to audiences. The New York Times even dishonestly implies that the Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims in Lebanon are killing one another in tit-for-tat attacks. It sneakily implies that Hezbollah and its Lebanese rivals are assassinating one another. Bernard, its reporter in Lebanon who was mentioned earlier, along with another colleague write:

In what have been seen as tit-for-tat attacks, car bombs have targeted Hezbollah-dominated neighborhoods in the southern suburbs of Beirut and Sunni mosques in the northern city of Tripoli.

On Friday, a powerful car bomb killed Mohamad B. Chatah, a former Lebanese finance minister who was a major figure in the Future bloc, a political group that is Hezbollah’s main Sunni rival.

The New York Times is cunningly trying to make its readers think that Hezbollah was responsible for the bombing as part of a Shiite-Sunni sectarian conflict by concluding with an explanation that the slain former Lebanese finance minister belonged to “Hezbollah’s main Sunni rival” after saying that the bombings in Lebanon “have been seen as tit-for-tat attacks” between the areas that support Hezbollah and “Sunni mosques” in Tripoli

The US and Israel wish that a Shiite-Sunni sectarian conflict was occurring in Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East. They have been working for this. It has been them that have been manipulating Saudi Arabia to instigate sectarianism. The US and Israel have been prodding the House of Saud—which does not represent the Sunni Muslims, let alone the people of Saudi Arabia which are under its occupation—against Iran, all the while trying to conceal and justify the conflict being instigated as some sort of “natural” rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis that is being played out across the Middle East. 

It has been assessed with high confidence by outsiders concerned by the House of Saud’s inner dealings that Prince Bandar is one of the three Al-Saud princes managing Saudi Arabia’s security and foreign policy; the other two being Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the Saudi deputy foreign minister and one of King Abdullah’s point men on Syria due to his ties to Syria from his maternal side, and Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the interior minister. All three of them are tied to the United States more than any of their predecessors. Prince Bandar himself has a long history of working closely with the United States, which explains the endearing moniker of “Bandar Bush” that he is widely called by. “Chemical Bandar” can be added to the list too, because of the reports about his ties to the Syrian chemical weapon attacks in Ghouta.

As a US client, Saudi Arabia is a source of instability because it has been conditioned hence by Washington. Fighting the terrorist and extremist threat is now being used by the US as a point of convergence with Iran, which coincidently has authored the World Against Violence and Extremism (WAVE) motion at the United Nations. In reality, the author of the regional problems and instability has been Washington itself. In a masterstroke, the realists now at the helm of foreign policy are pushing American-Iranian rapprochement on the basis of what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor of the US, said would be based on Tehran and Washington working together to secure Iran’s “volatile regional environment.” “Any eventual reconciliation [between the US and Iranian governments] should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran,” he explains. The point should not be lost either that Brzezinski is the man who worked with the Saudis to arm the Afghan Mujahedeen against the Soviets after he organized an intelligence operation to fool the Soviets into militarily entering Afghanistan in the first place.

The House of Saud did not work alone in Afghanistan during the Cold War either. It was rigorously backed by Washington. The United States was even more involved in the fighting. It is the same in Syria. If the diplomatic leak is to be believed about the meeting between Bandar and Putin, it is of merit to note that “Bandar Bush” told Putin that any “Saudi-Russian understanding” would also be part of an “American-Russian understanding.”

Has the “Redirection” Seen its Stalingrad?

Volgograd was called Stalingrad for a part of Soviet history, in honour of the Republic of Georgia’s most famous son and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. It was Volgograd, back then called Stalingrad, where the Germans were stopped and the tide of war in Europe was turned against Hitler and his Axis allies in Europe. The Battle of Stalingrad was where the Nazis were defeated and it was in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where the bulk of the fighting against the Germans was conducted. Nor is it any exaggeration to credit the Soviets—Russian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Tartar, Georgian, Armenian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Chechen, and all—for doing most of the fighting to defeat the Germans in the Second World War.

Judging by the bellicose 2013 New Years Eve speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the terrorist attacks in Volgograd will be the start of another Battle of Stalingrad of some sorts and the launch of another Russian “war on terror.” Many of the terrorists that Russia will go after are in Syria and supported by the House of Saud.

The opponents of the Resistance Bloc that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian resistance groups form have called the battlefields in Syria the Stalingrad of Iran and its regional allies. Syria has been a Stalingrad of some sorts too, but not for the Resistance Bloc. The alliance formed by the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel has begun to unravel in its efforts to enforce regime change in Syria. The last few years have marked the beginning of a humiliating defeat for those funding extremism, separatism, and terrorism against countries like Russia, China, Iran, and Syria as a means of preventing Eurasian cohesion. Another front of this same battle is being politically waged by the US and the EU in the Ukraine in a move to prevent the Ukrainians from integrating with Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia

While speculation has been entertained with warning in this text, most of what has been explained has not been speculative. The House of Saud has had a role in destabilizing the Russian Federation and organizing terrorist attacks inside Russia. Support or oppose the separatist movements in the North Caucasus, the point is that they have been opportunistically aided and used by the House of Saud and Washington. Despite the authenticity of the narrative about Bandar’s threats against Russia, Volgograd is about Syria and Syria is about Volgograd. Both are events taking place as part of the same struggle. The US has been trying to encroach into Syria as a means of targeting Russia and encroaching deeper in the heart of Eurasia.

When George Orwell wrote 1984 he saw the world divided into several entities at constant or “eternal” war with one another. His fictitious superstates police language, use total surveillance, and utterly manipulate mass communication to indoctrinate and deceive their peoples. Roughly speaking, Orwell’s Oceania is formed by the US and its formal and informal territories in the Western Hemisphere, which the Monroe Doctrine has essentially declared are US colonies, confederated with Britain and the settler colonies-cum-dominions of the former British Empire (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa). The Orwellian concept of Eurasia is an amalgamation of the Soviet Union with continental Europe. The entity of Eastasia on the other hand is formed around China. Southeast Asia, India, and the parts of Africa that do not fall under the influence of Oceanic South Africa are disputed territory that is constantly fought for. Although not specifically mentioned, it can be extrapolated that Southwest Asia, where Syria is located, or parts of it are probably part of this fictional disputed territory, which includes North Africa.

If we try to fit Orwellian terms onto the present set of global relations, we can say that Oceania has made its moves against Eurasia/Eastasia for control of disputed territory (in the Middle East and North Africa).

1984 is not just a novel, it is a warning from the farseeing Orwell. Nonetheless, never did he imagine that his Eurasia would make cause with or include Eastasia through a core triple alliance and coalition comprised of Russia, China, and Iran. Eurasia will finish, in one way or another, what Oceania has started. All the while, as the House of Saud and the other rulers of the Arab petro-sheikhdoms continue to compete with one another in building fancy towers, the Sword of Damocles is getting heavier over their heads.