Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Covert Origins of ISIS



The Covert Origins of ISIS

Evidence exposing who put ISIS in power, and how it was done.
The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares. They are ruthless, fanatical, killers, on a mission, and that mission is to wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion or belief system and to impose Shari'ah law. The mass executions, beheadings and even crucifixions that they are committing as they work towards this goal are flaunted like badges of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole world to see. This is the new face of evil.
Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?
This story makes more sense if we start in the middle, so we'll begin with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
The Libyan revolution was Obama's first major foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.
The fact that the CIA was actively working to help the Libyan rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor were the airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan government. However, little was said about the identity or the ideological leanings of these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering the fact that the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq.
These jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what national security analysts commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was ISIS before it was rebranded.
With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah Akbar". For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.
Prior to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This according to the U.N.'s Human Development Index rankings for 2010. However in the years following the coup, the country descended into chaos, with extremism and violence running rampant. Libya is now widely regarded as failed state (of course those who were naive enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to the war get defensive when this is said).
Now after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria. The weapons, which included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of London reported on the arrival of the shipment on September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in this NYT article) This was just three days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had served as the U.S. government's liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011.
While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.
It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.
The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.
However as the rebels gained strength, the reports of war crimes and atrocities that they were committing began to create a bit of a public relations problem for Washington. It then became standard policy to insist that U.S. support was only being given to what they referred to as "moderate" rebel forces.
This distinction, however, had no basis in reality.
In an interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This statement is further validated by an interview given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front. In this interview he openly discusses his ties with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the identities of these two commanders here in this document from The Institute for the Study of War)
Moderate rebels? Well it's complicated. Not that this should really come as any surprise. Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA's command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times had reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.
And the FSA's ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014 Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.
So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they've known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.
In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn't it? If it wasn't enough that U.N. investigators, Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington's proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.
By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.
This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.
After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.
In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).
Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.
"They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.
One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.
Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn't even TRY to stop them.
U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn't happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn't lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.
Why would they do that?
Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor.
Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.
By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" the U.S. was funding and arming.
This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.
Officially the U.S. government's arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled "From the Shadows" Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)
The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.
This example doesn't just establish precedent, what we're seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.
The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington's attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.
On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government's twisted and decrepit foreign policy.
Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-...). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?
Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
There's a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.
Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]
Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]
Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]
ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.
Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.
The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn't an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.
To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.
The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.
Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari'ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.
If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:
1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they're not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.
2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.
Now obviously this support isn't going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.
3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.
Now you might be thinking: "This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can't influence this situation."
That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it's paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We've done it before, and we can do it again.
I'll be honest with you though, this isn't going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it's just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.
If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012
If this message resonates with you then spread it. If you want to see the BIG picture, and trust me we've got some very interesting reports coming, subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube, and follow us on Facebook, twitter and Google plus.
BONUS ARTICLE (an interesting tangent): Were the Libyan rebels being led by a CIA plant?

Exposed - U.S. Diplomat Behind Artillery Satellite Images was Involved in the Toppling of Yanukovich



Exposed - U.S. Diplomat Behind Artillery Satellite Images was Involved in the Toppling of Yanukovich

28.Jul.2014 | SCG   
Geoffrey Pyatt - U.S. State Department Toppling of Yanukovich Ukraine
It turns out that the man the U.S. State Department chose to handle the the latest phase of Russia demonization played an integral role in the toppling of the Ukrainian government.
Yesterday, July 27th, the U.S. state department decided to launch what turned out to be a rather weak propaganda spasm in their long running campaign against Russia. Interestingly, this round involved satellite images which were supposedly taken four days after the MH17 crash, but if you were expecting these images to be the long awaited evidence proving that the separatists shot down MH17 you are in for a disappointment. No, the images released by the U.S. State Department have absolutely nothing to do with the downing of MH17, or any other aircraft for that matter. These images supposedly show that Russia fired HEAVY ARTILLERY into Ukraine recently.
U.S. Government Artillery Images Ukraine Russia
U.S. Government Artillery Images Ukraine Russia
U.S. Government Artillery Images Ukraine Russia
Heavy artillery can't hit an airliner (unless it's parked on the ground), so one can only assume that these new claims are designed distract the public from the MH17 debacle (which seems to have decidedly backfired on them at this point), and to draw their attention to a new warmongering narrative. In any case, the fact that the U.S. State Department was willing to go to the trouble to fish out a set of grainy images that have absolutely nothing to do with what may very well be the most important airline disaster since 9/11, when the whole world is questioning their story, makes it abundantly clear that whatever the satellite images taken on July 17th actually show, they don't support Washington's narrative.
UPDATE: Some people have pointed out that there are anti-aircraft guns that they refer to as anti-aircraft artillery, however the artillery described by the State Department in their pdf report were heavy artillery used to attack terrestrial targets, not anti-aircraft artillery, and they specifically mention craters on the ground where the shells supposedly landed. Go read it yourself.
Again heavy artillery cannot hit an airliner flying at 32,000 feet. It can't even come close, so don't let people try to blur this issue.
Now Russia has come out to call these images fake, and until the dust settles on this it's a bit premature to call it one way or another, but even while the jury is out on the technical side, we have one major red flag already. It turns out that the man that the U.S. State Department has put in charge of pushing this story is none other than our good friend Geoffrey Pyatt.
Geoffrey Pyatt - U.S. State Department
Geoffrey Pyatt - U.S. State Department
Geoffrey Pyatt was the man on the other end of the now infamous leaked Victoria Nuland call. That was the call in which the U.S. State Department got caught red handed discussing who they were going to install in the Ukrainian government after the fall of Yanukovich. If you haven't listened to that call, you should. It was very revealing.
Oh, by the way, you probably heard of this audio clip back when it was first released. The main stream media put all attention on the fact that Victoria Nuland said "Fuck the E.U." Apparently these "journalists" consider her potty mouth to be more important than the fact that the U.S. State Department was caught red handed installing a puppet government.
One has to wonder why the U.S. government is willing to use these same characters even after they've been compromised in previous operations. Are they just having a hard time recruiting qualified henchmen, are they just counting on the public having the attention span of a gnat, or are they just getting desperate? It might be a combination of the three.
By the way, if you missed the opening act of this fiasco, watch the video below to catch up.

How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”

How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”

Global Research, July 21, 2014


Why hasnt Washington joined Russian President Putin in calling for an objective, non-politicized international investigation by experts of the case of the Malaysian jetliner?
The Russian government continues to release facts, including satellite photos showing the presence of Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missiles in locations from which the airliner could have been brought down by the missile system and documentation that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet rapidly approached the Malaysian airliner prior to its downing.
The head of the Operations Directorate of Russian military headquarters said at a Moscow press conference today (July 21) that the presence of the Ukrainian military jet is confirmed by the Rostov monitoring center.
The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area. The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.
President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Putins call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide.
Turning to Washington Putin stated: In the meantime, no one [not even the exceptional nation] has the right to use this tragedy to achieve their narrowly selfish political goals.
Putin reminded Washington: We repeatedly called upon all conflicting sides to stop the bloodshed immediately and to sit down at the negotiating table. I can say with confidence that if military operations were not resumed [by Kiev] on June 28 in eastern Ukraine, this tragedy wouldnt have happened.
What is the American response?
Lies and insinuations.
Yesterday (July 20) the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was pretty clear that Russia was involved. Here are Kerrys words: Its pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.
Kerrys statement is just another of the endless lies told by US secretaries of state in the 21st century. Who can forget Colin Powells package of lies delivered to the UN about
Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction or Kerrys lie repeated endlessly that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people or the endless lies about Iranian nukes?
Remember that Kerry on a number of occasions stated that the US had proof that Assad crossed the red line by using chemical weapons. However, Kerry was never able to back up his statements with evidence. The US had no evidence to give the British prime minister whose effort to have Parliament approve Britains participation with Washington in a military attack on Syria was voted down. Parliament told the prime minister, no evidence, no war.
Again here is Kerry declaring confidence in statements that are directly contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and endless eye witnesses on the ground.
Why doesnt Washington release its photos from its satellite?
The answer is for the same reason that Washington will not release all the videos it confiscated and that it claims prove that a hijacked 9/11 airliner hit the Pentagon. The videos do not support Washingtons claim, and the US satellite photos do not support Kerrys claim.
The UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq reported that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. However, the fact did not support Washingtons propaganda and was ignored. Washington started a highly destructive war based on nothing but Washingtons intentional lie.
The International Atomic Energy Commissions inspectors on the ground in Iran and
all 16 US intelligence agencies reported that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.
However, the fact was inconsistent with Washingtons agenda and was ignored by both the US government and the presstitute media.
We are witnessing the same thing right now with the assertions in the absence of evidence that Russia is responsible for the downing of the Malaysian airliner.
Not every member of the US government is as reckless as Kerry and John McCain.
In place of direct lies, many US officials use insinuations.
US Senator Diane Feinstein is the perfect example. Interviewed on the presstitute TV station CNN, Feinstein said: The issue is where is Putin? I would say, Putin, you have to man up. You should talk to the world. You should say, if this is a mistake, which I hope it was, say it.
Putin has been talking to the world nonstop calling for an expert non-politicized investigation, and Feinstein is asking Putin why he is hiding behind silence. We know you did it, Feinstein insinuates, so just tell us whether you meant to or whether it was an accident.
The way the entire Western news cycle was orchestrated with blame instantly being placed on Russia long in advance of real information suggests that the downing of the airliner was a Washington operation. It is, of course, possible that the well-trained presstitute media needed no orchestration from Washington in order to lay the blame on Russia. On the other hand, some of the news performances seem too scripted not to have been prepared in advance.
We also have the advanced preparation of the youtube video that purports to show a Russian general and Ukrainian separatists discussing having mistakenly downed a civilian airliner. As I pointed out earlier, this video is twice damned. It was ready in advance and by implicating the Russian military, it overlooked that the Russian military can tell the difference between a civilian airliner and a military airplane. The existence of the video itself implies that there was a plot to down the airliner and blame Russia.
I have seen reports that the Russian anti-aircraft missile system, as a safety device, is capable of contacting aircraft transponders in order to verify the type of aircraft. If the reports are correct and if the transponders from MH-17 are found, they might record the contact.
I have seen reports that Ukrainian air control changed the route of MH-17 and directed it to fly over the conflict area. The transponders should also indicate whether
this is correct. If so, there clearly is at least circumstantial evidence that this was an intentional act on the part of Kiev, an act which would have required Washingtons blessing.
There are other reports that there is a divergence between the Ukrainian military and the unofficial militias formed by the right-wing Ukrainian extremists who apparently were the first to attack the separatists. It is possible that Washington used the extremists to plot the airliners destruction in order to blame Russia and use the accusations to pressure the EU to go along with Washingtons unilateral sanctions against Russia.
We do know that Washington is desperate to break up the growing economic and political ties between Russia and Europe.
If it was a plot to down an airliner, any safety device on the missile system could have been turned off so as to give no warning or leave any telltale sign. That could be the reason a Ukrainian fighter was sent to inspect the airliner. Possibly the real target was Putins airliner and incompetence in implementing the plot resulted in the destruction of a civilian airliner.
As there are a number of possible explanations, lets keep open minds and resist Washingtons propaganda until facts and evidence are in. In the very least Washington is guilty of using the incident to blame Russia in advance of the evidence. All Washington has shown us so far is accusations and insinuations. If that is all Washington continues to show us, we will know where the blame resides.
In the meantime, remember the story of the boy who cried wolf! He lied so many times that when the wolf did come, no one believed him. Will this be Washingtons ultimate fate?
Instead of declaring war on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria, why did Washington hide behind lies? If Washington wants war with Iran, Russia, and China, why not simply declare war? The reason that the US Constitution requires war to begin with a declaration of war by Congress is to prevent the executive branch from orchestrating wars in order to further hidden agendas. By abdicating its constitutional responsibility, the US Congress is complicit in the executive branchs war crimes. By approving Israels premeditated murder of Palestinians, the US government is complicit in Israels war crimes.
Ask yourself this question: Would the world be a safer place with less death, destruction and displaced peoples and more truth and justice if the United States and Israel did not exist?

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Israel's Doomsday Submarines Nearly Ready Dolphin II Class Nearing Completion

Israel's Doomsday Submarines Nearly Ready

Dolphin II Class Nearing Completion

By Robert Beckhusen
The Israeli navy is a bit of an odd duck. It’s designed largely for coastal and eastern Mediterranean warfare. But among all of Israel’s small corvettes and missile boats are some some seriously mighty submarines.
Israel is also investing heavily in growing its submarine fleet. It’s a reflection of Tel Aviv’s increasing reliance on the underwater boats for a range of operations — including nuclear deterrence.
Right now, three Dolphin II-class submarines are under construction at Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems shipyards in Kiel. Once the submarines complete their trials and head towards the Mediterranean, they will become the most powerful Israeli submarines ever.
More than 225 feet long, the diesel-electric Dolphin II class is part attack submarine, part nuclear strike ship and part commando taxi.
They’re also painted in an unusual combination of black, blue and green colors. That’s “meant to make the ship less visible, and thought to be especially effective in Mediterranean waters,” Defense News noted after recently publishing new photographs of the fat, oddly-shaped boats in dry dock and on sea trials.
In terms of weapons, the three boats of the Dolphin II class—the TanninRahav and a third unnamed submarine—contain 10 torpedo tubes capable of launching fiber optic cable-guided DM-2A4 torpedoes. Germany has already handed over the Tannin, which is preparing for its journey to Israel.
Four of these tubes are larger 26-inch tubes—the size is rare for a Western-built submarine—capable of launching small commando teams or firing larger cruise missiles. The remaining six tubes measure at 21 inches.
Although not admitted by the Israeli government, the Dolphin II is widely believed to soon possess nuclear-tipped Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. The submarine’s armament includes non-nuclear anti-ship Harpoon and anti-helicopter Triton missiles.
In 2012, German news magazine Der Spiegel interviewed several German defense ministry officials, all of whom were under the assumption that Israel intends for these submarines to carry nuclear weapons. The missiles can also be launched “using a previously secret hydraulic ejection system,” the magazine reported.
The photographs at Defense News also reveal horizontal planes for trailing communications gear and sonar buoys. But the classified propeller is covered by a tarp to keep out prying eyes.
For sensors, the Dolphin II comes with the German-made CSU-90 active radar, a PRS-3 passive ranging sonar and a FAS-3 flank sonar. These sensors are in addition to an Israeli-made surface search radar.
Of course, submarines need to be stealthy—and the Dolphin II is indeed quiet. The trick is in the submarine’s air-independent propulsion fuel cells, which provide power under the surface as the diesel engines—used for running on the surface—rest and recharge.
This system is quieter than the nuclear-powered engines on American and Russian submarines, which must constantly circulate engine coolant. Nuclear submarines are virtually unlimited in terms of range, and are better used for deep-water operations. But Israel has no need for nuclear-powered subs when quiet diesel subs can do the same job.
The Dolphin II’s top speed maxes out at 20 knots when submerged. But the maximum distance before needing to be refueled is around 9,200 miles at a speed of eight knots underwater. This puts the submarines in range of Iran.
And that’s why Israel is investing in an up-armed submarine fleet. The Israeli military wants to maintain its undeclared nuclear strike force. Given Israel’s small size, a nuclear deterrent promises massive retaliation if Israel’s homeland is threatened.
Plus, submarines are very useful for littoral operations off the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
Israel has also boosted its submarines’ operational tempo. In 2013, Israeli submarines spent 58 percent of their time at sea compared to 36 percent from 2010 to 2012, according to the Times of Israel. This not only included secretive missions off Lebanon, but “deployments lasting several weeks that took the submarines thousands of kilometers from Israel,” the paper reported.
In July 2013, a series of mysterious explosions occurred at the Syrian port of Latakia. Though Israeli aircraft were likely responsible for the attack—which targeted a shipment of Russian Yakhont anti-ship missiles—such operations can be carried out by submarines.
Now the Israeli navy will soon have the much more capable way to do it.
From drones to AKs, high technology to low politics, exploring how and why we fight above, on and below an angry world.
Sign up for a daily War is Boring email update here. Subscribe to WIB’s RSS feed here and follow the main page here.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Putin’s “Nuclear” Remark Checks U.S. Moves In Eastern Europe

Putin’s “Nuclear” Remark Checks U.S. Moves In Eastern Europe

U.S. has violated ABM and numerous other treaties
Putin's “Nuclear” Remark Checks U.S. Moves In Eastern Europe
Image Credits: Mikhail Klimentyev via RIA Novosti
by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | August 29, 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks on Russia’s nuclear arsenal appear to be partly in response to a U.S. claim Russia has violated a 1987 nuclear missile treaty.
“It’s best not to mess with us,” Putin said at a youth camp near Moscow.
On August 1, prior to the unverified claim Russia has invaded Ukraine, Obama mentioned the alleged treaty violation during a telephone call between to the two leaders.
The U.S. claims Russia tested a cruise missile prohibited under the treaty signed by President Reagan and General Secretary of the Soviet Union Gorbachev on December 8, 1987.
The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges.
During coverage of the alleged treaty violation, the establishment media neglected to mention that the United States has violated and abrogated a number of international treaties, including the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The U.S. considered the ABM treaty a “Cold War relic.”
In 2002 then president George W. Bush announced the treaty is “now behind us” and declared his commitment to deploy missile defenses “as soon as possible.”
In 2007, then Russian Prime Minister Putin said the so-called NATO missile “defense shield” would lead to a new arms race and enhance the probability of mutual destruction.
Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania have indicated they would host anti-missile systems, but in 2009 Obama said a defense against short- and medium-range missiles using AEGIS warships would be deployed instead.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, contender Mitt Romney said Obama’s move represented a “gift to Russia,” a remark reflecting the attitude of Republicans and many in the establishment toward nuclear deescalation.
In addition to placing anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, Russia is concerned about the United States using the situation in Ukraine as a pretext to introduce troops near its border.
Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. has deployed hundreds of troops in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
U.S. Violates Treaties with Russia
According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, the United States routinely violates international treaties.
“The United States has violated, compromised or acted to undermine in some crucial way every treaty that we have studied in detail,” said Nicole Deller, principal editor and co-author of a report produced by the two organizations.
In addition to the ABM treaty, the U.S. has violated the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
The Bush administration undercut the NPT when it insisted reductions in strategic weapons previously agreed upon with Russia can be reversed.
The U.S. reached this conclusion after a Nuclear Posture Review expanded “options for using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.”

China paying for corruption crackdown

China Business
     Aug 5, '14


China paying for corruption crackdown
By Michael Lelyveld

China's widening anti-corruption campaign has unsettled officials at all levels, stalling the government's economic agenda and administrative reforms, experts say.

The mounting toll of probes, prosecutions and punishments for offenses ranging from bribery to moral misbehavior has sent officials running for cover, slowing implementation of new economic policies to a crawl.

Local bureaucracies are "effectively on strike", wrote forbes.com contributor Gordon Chang, quoting John Fitzgerald, director of the



Asia-Pacific Center of Australia's Swinburne University of Technology.

Deals and decisions have reportedly been delayed by officials who are afraid to issue approvals or disapprovals in the absence of a safe political course.

"In this environment, those in government feel endangered," Chang wrote. "While all this happens, economic activity is beginning to suffer," he said.

There may be no way of estimating the economic impact of the corruption crackdown since President Xi Jinping took over as general secretary of the ruling Chinese Communist Party in November 2012. But disincentives for risk-taking have risen at a time when the government has called for market-oriented reforms.

One reason is the growing scope and sheer volume of anti-graft cases, convictions and party expulsions this year.

Although official tallies do not necessarily jibe, the counts of corruption cases suggest punishments on a colossal scale. More …

Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Asia. For original article, see here

Copyright (c) 2014, Radio Free Asia.

Russia requires secure buffer: Opposing view


Russia requires secure buffer: Opposing view

Paul Goncharoff8:46 p.m. EDT August 28, 2014

Kiev has asked the West for arms. That would not be a wise decision.

 114 7LINKEDIN 34COMMENTMORE
As an American who has been doing business with Russia since it emerged as a market-driven economy, I see the following: Russia has a very real national interest in maintaining a strong, protective sphere of political and economic influence along its vast borders.
It is exactly like the USA, which over time has expanded its influence beyond its immediate borders and now maintains zones of influence in many regions of the planet.
The news media say that the Russian Federation has invaded Ukraine, that Russian soldiers and mechanized armor are crossing Ukraine's border.
Not likely.
Yes, many Russian citizens have crossed the Ukrainian border and joined with armed anti-Kiev rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk. Last I heard, there were 3,000. Perhaps more.
Most are trained veterans who have seen action in Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. These veterans train, strategize and directly help the rebel forces in eastern Ukraine. They are not active-duty Russian Federation troops.
In the late 1970s, when I was working in Africa, I met dozens of Americans, all ex-Vietnam War veterans, fighting for various sides — some for money and quite a few for beliefs. The same situation repeats worldwide today.
Kiev has asked the West for arms, and NATO is raising the issue. That would not be a wise decision. Russia requires an unaligned Ukraine, a secure buffer, which in this case is populated mostly by culturally aligned Russians.
[SOL: WHY HAVE THE U.S. ISOLATED CUBA FOR DECADES? THE U.S. REFUSES TO ALLOW RUSSIA TO EXPAND IN THE AMERICAN HEMISPHERE AND YET THE U.S. HAS EXPANDED GLOBALLY. WHY IS THAT??]
The track record of NATO encroachment on Russia's historically oft-challenged borders does not reflect the way "ethical partners" are supposed to behave. Supplying arms to a wobbly, high-strung Kiev seeking "democratic" entitlements from the United States and the European Union will only serve to give false hopes to that politically unstable state, which cannot be securely satisfied.
If there really is a desire to end this civil war in Ukraine, it will require Kiev to accept the de facto independence of Donetsk and Luhansk as separate republics, and get on peacefully with life and business.
Paul Goncharoffan American businessman living in Moscow, is chairman of the ethics and membership committeesOrganization of Corporate Directors and Managers, Russian Federation.