FLASHBACK: Putin condemns ‘defective’ UN resolution for violating Libya’s sovereignty [VIDEO]

FLASHBACK: Putin condemns ‘defective’ UN resolution for violating Libya’s sovereignty [VIDEO]

by Scott Greer

As Russian troops moved into Crimea on Friday, President Barack Obama issued a warning that any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty would destabilize the region.

Obama’s declaration bears some similarity to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement after the United Nations passed a resolution that allowed airstrikes against Libya in 2011.

In an angry speech before TV cameras, Putin, then Russia’s prime minister, ripped into the UN resolution “resembling a medieval call for a crusade” that paved the way for other nations to violate other nations’ national sovereignties.

“This resolution is defective. If we look at what is written there, it becomes obvious that it allows anyone to take any action against [any] sovereign state, and it reminds me of a medieval call for a crusade,” Putin declared at a press conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in April of 2011.

The Obama administration lobbied for the resolution to get approval to attack Libya – and the U.S. went on to be one of the main actors in the foreign intervention against the Gaddafi regime.


source: dailycaller.com

About these ads

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

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.

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

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.

Bandar-Putin meeting July-2013

Bandar-Putin meeting December 4, 2013

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 OceanicSouth 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.

Source: Global Research

Mahdi_Darius_Nazemroaya2Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy.

Short URL: http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/?p=401145

Road to World War III The Road to WW3 Arabic

Road to World War III The Road to WW3 Arabic


by: NitzssH

Transcript of the video

why did the United States attack Libya Iraq

Afghanistan and Yemen wire US operatives helping to destabilize Syria
him why is the united states government so intent on taking down our and
despite the fact that Iran is not attacked any country
since 1790 8 in what’s next
what are we headed for when you look at the current trajectory that were on
it doesn’t make any sense at all if you evaluated based on what we’re taught
and it doesn’t make any sense if you base your worldview on the propaganda
that the mainstream media tries to pass off as news
but it makes perfect sense once you know the real motive the powers that be
in order to understand those motives the first to take a look
history the 1945
Bretton Woods Agreement establish the dollar as the world’s reserve currency
which meant the international commodities were priced in dollars
the agreement which give the United States a distinct financial advantage
but maybe the condition but those dollars would remain redeemable for gold
at a consistent rate of thirty five dollars per ounce domestic comments not
print very much money with this is on the honor system that the Federal
Reserve refuse to allow any audits
or supervision at spring present the years leading up to nineteen seventy
expenditures in the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the US is
pretty far more money than it had in gold
and in response they begin to ask for the gold back
there’s a core set of a rapid decline in the value of the dollar
the situation climax in 1971
but France attempted to withdraw its cold Nixon refused
% Uh on August 15 to meet the following an uncertain
I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the actions necessary
the defending the dollar against the speculators on
I have directed secretary Conley to suspend temporarily the convertibility
the dollar in the gold or other reserve asset
accept an amount and conditions determined to be in the interests the
monetary stability
and in the best interest of the United States United
this is obviously not a temporary suspension as he claimed a rather
permit the fall for the rest of the world would entrust the United States
with their gold
it was outright theft in 1973 the president nixon asking face I’ll
Saudi Arabia took said only US dollars as payment for oil
to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds
notes bills in return big sin offered military protection
society will fields the same offer was extended into the world’s key
oil-producing countries
by 1975 every member of OPEC
agreed to only sell their oil in US dollars active within a dollar of gold
behind it foreign oil% uh instantly forced every will importing country in
the world
start maintaining a constant supply the Federal Reserve paper
% Uh and in order to get that paper we have to send a real physical goods
to America this was the birth the petro dollar
the paper when our everything America needed came in
in the United States got very very rich as a result it was the largest financial
in recorded history% uh
the arms race at the cold war
the game of poker military expenditures for the chips
the US had in the supply James
with the petro dollar under its belt he was able to raise the stakes higher
and higher now spinning every other country on the planet until eventually
US military expenditure surpassed that of all the nations in the world combined
% Uh Soviet Union never had a chance
% Uh collapse the communist bloc 1991
remove the last counter-balance to american military might the United
States was now on
undisputed superpower with the right with many hold
that this would mark the beginning of a new era peace and stability
unfortunately there were those in high places
who had other ideas the within that same year
the US invaded Iraq the first call work
and after crushing the Iraqi military destroying their infrastructure
including water purification plants and hospitals crippling sanctions were
imposed to prevent in that infrastructure
from being rebuilt the sanctions which were initiated by Bush Senior
it sustained throughout the entire clinton administration Bassett for over
a decade
were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children
the Clinton administration was the bully where these figures
% Uh we have heard a half million jobs
the Nets who work with children the Bible
he rushing the hit
you know is a price worth it I think this is a very hard choice
price we think priced work this on break
what exactly was it it was worth killing five hundred thousand kids warns
the in November 2000 Iraq begin selling its oil exclusively in Euros
this is a direct attack on the dollar in on US financial dominance thing
and it wasn’t gonna be tolerated in response US government with the
assistance that the mainstream media
begin to build up a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction
was planning to use the in 2003 the US invaded
want to control the country will sales were immediately switch back to dollars
this is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar
metal 15 to 20 percent loss in revenue do the euro’s higher value
it doesn’t make any sense at all unless you take the measure dollar
into account I’m so I came back to see him a few weeks later
on and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan is there was still going to
war with Iraq and you know it’s worse than that
he said he reached over and just picked up these papers I just
should I just got this down from upstairs mister coroner’s office today
and he said
miss a memo describes how we’re gonna take out in seven countries
in five years starting with Iraq and Syria Lebanon
Libya Somalia Sudan vision of erase your Amazon
let’s take a look at the events the past decade see if you see a pattern
do in Libya Qaddafi was in the process of organizing a block African countries
to create a coal-based currency called the diner
it was the intended to use to replace the dollar now region% uh
US and NATO forces some destabilize and toppled Libyan government 2011
meter taking control the region US armed rebels
execute a good of in cold blood immediately set up the Libyan central
the Marine has been actively campaigning the pool while sales of for the dollar
for some time now
the news recently secured agreements to begin training as well
in exchange for gold in response the US government with mainstream media
has been attempting to build international support for military
on the pretext to preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon the meantime
establish sanctions which US officials openly admit her came to causing a
the green economy Syria is Iran’s closest ally
they’re bound by mutual defense agreements with countries currently in
the process have been destabilized
covert assistance from 8 am to russia and China have worn the United States
not to get involved
the white house has made statements within the past month indicating that
they’re considering the military intervention
should be clear that military intervention in Syria and Iran
isn’t being considered it’s a foregone conclusion just as it was in Iraq
and love you the US’s actively working to create the context which gives in the
diplomatic cover
the do what they already have plans the motive for these invasions in covert
actions becomes clear when we look at them and therefore context
connect the dots those who control the United States understand that even if a
few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency
bill set off a chain reaction the dollar will collapse
they understand that there’s absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the
at this point so does the rest of the world the rather than accepting the fact
that the dollar’s nearing the end of its life span
the powers that be have made a calculated gamble they’ve decided to use
the brute force
and the US military crush each and every resistance state
in the Middle East Africa that in itself would be bad enough food push you need
to understand
is that this is not going to end with Iran China and Russia
stated publicly and I’m no uncertain terms but they will not tolerate an
attack on Iran or Syria
haran is one other key allies won the last independent oil producers in the
and they understand that if Iran falls they will have no way to escape the
without going to war and yet the United States is pushing forward
despite the warnings what we are witnessing here
it’s a trajectory that restraint the unthinkable
to trajectory that was mapped out years ago pool awareness
the human consequences the guy who was it puts on this course
welcome a psychopath is willing to intentionally set of the global conflict
that will lead to millions and S just to protect the value
a paper currency they obviously the president
the decision to invade Libya Syria and Iran
mean long before Obama enters into the national spotlight yeah he’s carrying
out his duty just like published in receipt and
so who is it that pulls the strings% uh
often the best answer questions like this found by asking another question
keep O’Neil prove innocence obviously those who have the power to print the
dollar and then there
have the most to lose if the dollar bombs since 1913
powers been held by the Federal Reserve Federal Reserve is a private entity
combined glamour to the most powerful banks in the world
the dominant role as banks for the ones who pull strings
did them
this is just a game your life analyze those you love them
art is a Ponzi under chessboard and like a spoiled four year old who tips the
board on the floor
when I start to lose the powers that be are willing to start world war three min
keep control the global financial system remember that
these wars extend an accelerated remember that when your son
your neighbor’s son comes back home in a flag-draped coffin
remember that when in point the finger at the new boogeyman in the Mad Men were
running the show
will take this as far as you allow them to it
to how much time do we have left this question and you’re constantly
this the wrong question asking how much time we have left
passive posh the additive a prisoner
movies waiting to be taken out two additional shot in the back and% uh
what are our chances can we change course I’m
also the wrong question the odds don’t matter anymore you understand what we’re
the Navajo responsibility to do everything in your power
alter the course that were on with regard to the odds its only stop basing
your involvement in the chances of success
the success actually becomes possible% uh
to strip to kill the gun power financial leads to bring these criminal cartels to
work for nothing less than a revolution government
is not going to save us the government is completely infiltrated
corrupt to the core looking them for solution at this point
is on early nineteen there are three stages a revolution
their sequential stage 1 is already underway
stage 1 is the ideological resistance
in this stage we have been actively work to wake up as many people as possible
about what is happening
and the direction we’re headed. all revolutions originate from a shift in
the mindset of the population
and no other meaningful resistance possible without it
success in this stage in the game can be measured by the contagion have ideas
when idea reaches critical mass begins to spread on its own and seats and all
levels of society
in order to achieve that contagion we need more people in this fight
would be more people speaking out on making videos writing articles
getting this information on the national and international stage
and especially need to reach the police and military
stage 2 this civil disobedience also known as non-violent resistance in this
you put your money where your mouth is or more accurately you withhold your
and Europeans in the government and you everything in your power to bring the
years the stain
20 practice in mass this method alone is often enough to bring everything to his
home however he failed the stage stage during
is inevitable stage during is direct physical resistance
direct physical resistance is the last resort they should be avoided in the
late as long as possible
it should only be imposed after all their options having thoroughly
there are those who talk time claimed they will resist when the time comes
with those who fail to realize if you were inactive during the first two
stages and save your efforts
the last resistance that you of alien
with the Nazis removing door-to-door driving people out of their homes in
that wasn’t on the bike back physically but the lack of ideological resistance
civil disobedience leading up to that moment even an armed uprising would
likely fail at that point on
an armed uprising can only succeed the people in establishing had to do
active resistance an active resistance is only possible
after their minds have broken free mainstream propaganda
if you wanna fight Manny it now or never
you’re not going to get another chance mistakes are far higher
but they were not to Germany




BBC documentary 2005
Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military–industrial complex and its 50-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The documentary asserts that in every decade since World War II, the American public was misled so that the government (incumbent Administration) could take them to war and fuel the military-industrial economy maintaining American political dominance in the world. Interviewed about this matter, are politician John McCain,****(the idiot who’s in bed with Al Qaeda and all the extremists, low life scums) political scientist and former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson, politician Richard Perle, neoconservative commentator William Kristol, writer Gore Vidal, and public policy expert Joseph Cirincione.
Why We Fight documents the consequences of said foreign policy with the stories of a Vietnam War veteran whose son was killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and who then asked the military to write the name of his dead son on any bomb to be dropped in Iraq; and that of a 23-year-old New Yorker who enlists in the United States Army because he was poor and in debt, his decision impelled by his mother’s death; and a female military explosives scientist (Anh Duong) who arrived in the U.S. as a refugee child from Vietnam in 1975.

Director: Eugene Jarecki
Writer: Eugene Jarecki
Stars: Gore Vidal, John McCain, Ken Adelman | See full cast and crew

The Resistance and the apparent

The Resistance and the apparent

by Mirko Senda

Is not imminent as first expected, given the huge gap in the balance of power, but not as long as advocates hoped Colonel -. Gave some important lessons and the key to understanding the trends.

LESSON ONE Making war in the old sense disappeared. Now it is important to understand not only the number of tanks, planes, soldiers, etc., but the target audience of local media and global communication in the country, their mood, the presence of opinion leaders, etc activities of “Al-Jazeera” showed that a few smart journalists, editor and director of its most important military significance, along with their tanks and general units.

LESSON TWO Party preparing for war the old type, is doomed to failure because of its operational maneuver space is initially determined by the extent of the plot, which imposes more advanced opponent. Gaddafi was preparing to storm Tripoli, in the tradition of military operations, and the operation was in the spirit of the militants television. As a result, he was not able to implement the tactical advantages he had, if the assault took place in the standard model. No matter what the stories about taking Tripoli “Al Jazeera” filmed in Qatar, it is important that Tripoli saw as evidence of facts. In war there is no true or false. In war, they are not effective or not effective.

LESSON THREE. Lack of protection of airspace leads to the fact that there is no front line. Strikes are of nowhere and from different angles. This pressure to divert scarce resources to permanently plug the holes, which drastically reduces the maneuverability of the army and sentenced to a defensive battle. Failed attack means you can not win.

LESSON FOUR. If you do not report your problem to a global audience, the war is lost. This means you should be able to speak the language of a global audience, which implies an understanding of their interests.

LESSON FIVE. Media blows mainly aimed at blocking the activity of a large number of people from the enemy. When growing struggle million, mainly hard to achieve victory. In the Libyan war actively participated in about 5% of the population on each side. Therefore, 90% of the population in the passive position. Under these conditions, won that he knew how to achieve the superiority of forces at key points.The fact that hundreds of thousands of residents of Tripoli Gaddafi loyalists, not important, as your motivation to help him blocked with enemy propaganda. People do not understand what is happening is real, because nothing. Not just what people think, but also what the motivation of the action-inaction formed.

LESSON SIX. It follows that the Gaddafi regime had real problems, lets you create a start-up and growth of the insurgency. The Western media exaggerate the shortcomings of the Gaddafi regime, mobilizing disaffected and blocking hesitant. Those critical look at the existing order of things crisis. They think: why should I take risks to protect the power that gives both, and suddenly under the new government would be better? When it comes to the new government, the balance of power is changing irrevocably, and play the situation is impossible. Therefore, similar to the fall of Gaddafi’s fall of the USSR. At the crucial moment of most of the population had no motivation to defend the regime and was in the position of the observer, and his opponents were better organized and motivated. It happened Libya, and earlier in the USSR, Yugoslavia, Iraq and a number of other countries. Time to find an answer to the question posed at the beginning of this article, public agencies gone, the situation is getting warmer by the minute happens. From state leadership requires immediate drastic action item that will change the and take situation under control.


source: libia-sos.blogspot.ch