Topics

91

News Items / ISIS Twitter Accounts Traced to British Government

« on: March 21, 2016, 03:36:21 PM »

 ISIS Twitter Accounts Traced to British Government
 By Rudy Panko, Russian Insider 
Mar 20

 Twitter has blocked users accused of ‘harassing' accounts linked to ISIS. Meanwhile, hackers have revealed that Twitter handles used by ISIS can be traced back to Saudi Arabia — and the British government. Surprise?

One of the central arguments used by governments looking to restrict internet freedoms and justify total surveillance is that social media and various other internet platforms allow "terrorists" to spread propaganda and incite violence. And of course, the only way to stop this horrible phenomenon — according to conventional wisdom — is to closely regulate speech on the internet, as well as adopt sweeping surveillance policies. Or at least so we're told. Made possible by Saudi Arabia and the UK

Made possible by Saudi Arabia and the UK

Which is why many were bewildered by Twitter's decision to block "hacktivists" accused of "harassing" accounts linked to ISIS and other terrorist groups. The move made headlines earlier this month:

 As quickly as ISIS sets up accounts and spreads propaganda, hackers from groups like Anonymous and Ctrl Sec are taking them down in their own online campaign #OpISIS.

 The group updates followers, linking to the accounts they have spotted, while calling on other to join them and report Jihadi profiles.

 But they have said the social media site is shutting them down.

In its own defense, Twitter has boasted that no less than 125,000 accounts linked to terrorist organizations have been removed. But internet activists say that Twitter has done little aside from acting on user-submitted complaints:

 A statement from WauchulaGhost, an anti-terrorist hacker with the hacker collective Anonymous, said: "Who suspended 125,000 accounts? Anonymous, Anonymous affiliated groups, and everyday citizens.

 "You do realise if we all stopped reporting terrorist accounts and graphic images, Twitter would be flooded with terrorists."

 After the announcement by Twitter angered Anonymous members revealed they have had their accounts banned – not ISIS.

 In one day in February 15 hackers had their accounts shut down on Twitter, despite months of finding and reporting jihadis.

Why would Twitter ban users reporting accounts linked to ISIS? Maybe because some of these accounts can be traced back to Saudi Arabia, and even the British government. As it was reported in December 16 December 2015:

 Hackers have claimed that a number of Islamic State supporters' social media accounts are being run from internet addresses linked to the [UK] Department of Work and Pensions.

 A group of four young computer experts who call themselves VandaSec have unearthed evidence indicating that at least three ISIS-supporting accounts can be traced back to the DWP.

Daily Mirror Website Headline

But the story gets weirder. The British government allegedly sold a larger amount of IP addresses to "two Saudi firms", which explains why ISIS uses IP addresses that can be traced back to the British government. Sounds legit:

 [T]he British government sold on a large number of IP addresses to two Saudi Arabian firms.

 After the sale completed in October of this year, they were used by extremists to spread their message of hate.

 Jamie Turner, an expert from a firm called PCA Predict, discovered a record of the sale of IP addresses, and found a large number were transferred to Saudi Arabia in October of this year.

 He told us it was likely the IP addresses could still be traced back to the DWP because records of the addresses had not yet been fully updated.

 The Cabinet Office has now admitted to selling the IP addresses on to Saudi Telecom and the Saudi-based Mobile Telecommunications Company earlier this year as part of a wider drive to get rid of a large number of the DWP's IP addresses.

So Saudi firms are using IP addresses purchased from the British government to spread ISIS propaganda on Twitter. Meanwhile, activists who try to get these accounts removed are themselves banned. To top it all off, David Cameron is now boasting of all the "brilliant" UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia. We're sure the Saudis will use those British weapons and British IP addresses for the greater good.

Any questions?
 

92

News Items / UK Joins NATO Force in Aegean to Crackdown on Refugee Flow

« on: March 08, 2016, 09:36:11 AM »

UK Joins NATO Force in Aegean to Crackdown on Refugee Flow
 telesurtv.net 
Mar 7
 

 The British prime minister said his army will send a warship to join the NATO force in the sea between Turkey and Greece.

The United Kingdom will join the NATO force in the Aegean Sea in order to intercept and return refugees trying to reach Greece and Europe from Turkey, Prime Minister David Cameron said Sunday.

The British Royal Navy is deploying the amphibious landing ship RFA Mounts Bay as the first U.K. contribution to the NATO deployment in the Aegean, The Guardian reported Sunday.

RELATED: In Desperation, 2 Refugees Attempt Suicide in Greece

Cameron said the NATO operation is "an opportunity to stop the smugglers and send out a clear message to migrants contemplating journeys to Europe that they will be turned back. That's why the UK is providing vital military assets to work with our European partners and support this mission."

The British ship could start operations within days and will spot smugglers taking refugees to Greece and pass information to Turkish coastguards so they can be intercepted.

RELATED: 13,000 Refugees Live Terrible Conditions in Greece

The NATO force includes ships from Germany, Canada, Turkey and Greece. More than 3,000 refugees arrive at Greek shores from Turkey everyday, according to official estimates by Athens.

The U.K.'s announcement came a few hours after 25 people drowned when their boat capsized off the Turkish coast.

IN DEPTH: Europe's Refugee Crisis

Turkey is hosting more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees and has warned that many more are expected to arrive amid fighting in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo.

Greece, which is the arrival point of most western Europe-bound refugees, has been calling on European countries to share the burden of the crisis. There are more than 35,000 people stranded on the Greek border as several eastern European countries have introduced border controls.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras slammed the decision to tighten restrictions and turn away refugees. "Europe is in the midst of a nervous crisis, primarily for reasons of political weakness," he told top officials of his Syriza party Sunday.

OPINION: Making and Moving: The Politics of Neoliberalism and Migration

The news comes a day before a critical EU-Turkey summit where Brussels hopes to finalize a deal with Ankara for stemming the refugee flow by offering billions of dollars in aid, a visa-free deal for Turks and speeding up Turkey's membership in the EU.


 

93

News Items / A petition accusing Barack Obama of war crimes and demanding he be prosecuted

« on: February 10, 2016, 01:40:18 PM »

A petition accusing Barack Obama of war crimes and demanding he be prosecuted has been published on the White House website. It has already gained about 4,000 signatures.


"We demand conviction of a war criminal Barack Obama and trial in the International Criminal Court in [The] Hague. He is guilty of crimes not only against the USA citizens, but against the whole world,” the petition states.


Read more

A U.S. soldier keeps watch as detainees spend time at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. © Atef Hassan US prisoners’ torture photos – ‘Meant to downplay what really happened’
The authors also note that “one of the most dreadful prisons in history – Guantanamo – continues to function.”

The US added to the de-stabilization of the situation in the Middle East, too, the petition’s authors state.

“Libya was destroyed as a result of Obama’s aggression. In Syria, Obama’s agents train, fund and organize terrorist groups, deceitfully naming them ‘moderate opposition,’ who, among other things, bear a relation to Al-Qaeda, implicated in crimes against the American people.”

Last but not least, the petition accuses the US government of constant illegal surveillance.

“Secret services collect the Americans’ personal data information on a 24-hour basis under the canopy battling terrorism, using electronic surveillance tools on political undesirables, effectively stomping on the Americans’ right for privacy.”

If the petition – published on Monday – gets 100,000 votes by March 9, the White House administration will have to respond to it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-conviction-usa-president-barack-obama-and-trial-international-criminal-court-hague

94

For Your Information / War games in Middle East could prepare UK for potential Russian war with NATO, r

« on: February 09, 2016, 09:46:14 AM »

War games in Middle East could prepare UK for potential Russian war with NATO, report

The British Army is to deploy 1,600 troops in Jordan to take part in war games as preparation for a potential ‘confrontation’ between Russia and NATO member countries in Eastern Europe, the Daily Telegraph has reported citing sources.

Army sources told the paper that the exercise, which will simulate an Iraq invasion for the first time in over a decade, is not a prelude to sending ground troops to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL), rather Exercise Shamal Storm could be seen as a practice routine to fight off any potential Russian invasion of Ukraine or Eastern Europe.

“This isn’t a counter-Isil exercise. If anything, this is much more about us being prepared to join the US in Ukraine than it is in Syria,” a source said as cited by the Daily Telegraph, adding, “This is not the sort of kind of force you expect to roll into Aleppo to take on a bunch of jihadists.”

The aim of the exercise is to show, despite defense cuts, that the British Army would still be able to deploy a 30,000-strong force, which would include troops and military hardware, to any potential global hotspot.

In January, around 80 military vehicles were sent from the UK, bound for the Jordanian port of Aqaba. More than 300 will be used in total. The exercise will be held in the southwestern desert area of the country, while troops from three UK divisions will be taking part.The operation will look to simulate “theater entry tactics,” while also setting up a field hospital and dealing with chemical and biological weapons. It will be the biggest operation since 2001, when the British Army held a large-scale drill in 2001 called Saif Sereea in Oman.

A spokesman for the British Army told the Daily Telegraph: “The exercise will test key evolving concepts such as the air deployment of a very high readiness field hospital and the latest explosives ordnance disposal and search capabilities, all of which will enable us to be more agile in deterring threats to the UK and its interests.”

The Russian government has on numerous occasions accused the West of scaremongering. In July, President Vladimir Putin told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that a potential Russian attack on NATO would be “insane,” adding that the alliance’s defense budget is 10 times that of Moscow’s.

“I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid,” Putin said.

Putin stated that hypothetically the US may be looking to maintain a hypothetical external threat in order to maintain its leadership of the NATO community.

On February 2, the Pentagon announced it wanted to quadruple its budget for Europe from $789 million to $3.4 billion in 2017, in order to deter “Russian aggression.”

The budget boost is expected to allow more US forces to be stationed in Europe and for them to take part in more training and exercise routines with local troops in Central and Eastern Europe.

"While we do not desire conflict of any kind with any of these nations – and let me be clear, though they pose some similar defense challenges they are very different nations and situations – we also cannot blind ourselves to the actions they appear to choose to pursue," US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said.NATO has significantly increased its military presence along Russia’s borders, including in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, since Russia’s reunification with Crimea in 2014 and the outbreak of conflict in eastern Ukraine. The alliance accuses Moscow of providing support to Ukrainian rebels, who rejected the armed coup in Kiev.

In late August and September 2015, NATO conducted the biggest airborne drills in Europe since the end of the Cold War. About 5,000 soldiers from 11 NATO member states participated in the “simultaneous multinational airborne operations.”

Russia’s national security chief Nikolay Patrushev accused Washington of trying to weaken Russia and did not exclude the US of wanting to break up the country.

“The US leadership has set an objective – to dominate the world. Therefore they don’t need a strong Russia. On the contrary, they want to weaken our country as much as possible,” the head of Russia’s Security Council said in January.

He also added that NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders poses a threat to Moscow’s national security.

“To understand NATO’s objectives, one needs to realize that NATO’s leadership strictly sticks to the US agenda. Washington skillfully uses the anti-Russian stance of its eastern members to neutralize ‘excessively independent’ members of the alliance (France, Germany and Italy).”
 

95

For Your Information / As Yemen Bleeds, British Profits from Weapons Sales “Bury Human Rights”

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:29:02 PM »

As Yemen Bleeds, British Profits from Weapons Sales “Bury Human Rights”

By Felicity Arbuthnot

Global Research, February 04, 2016


Region: Europe, Middle East & North Africa

Theme: Law and Justice, US NATO War Agenda

David Cameron receives the King Abdullah Decoration One from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Jeddah. Cameron said: ‘The reason we have the relationship is our own national security. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Featured image: David Cameron receives the King Abdullah Decoration One from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Jeddah. (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

“Out of the mirror they stare,

Imperialism’s face


And the international wrong.”

(W.H. Auden, 1907-1973.)

It is more than possible to speculate why Prime Minister David Cameron has declared it his mission to scrap the Human Rights Act – which is incorporated into the European Convention on Human Rights – it appears he simply does not believe in human rights.

For example, the fact that Saudi Arabia executed – including beheadings – forty seven people in one day last month, displaying their bodies from gibbets, failed to deter him from having British military experts to work with their Saudi counterparts, advising on which targets – and which people, it seems – to bomb in Yemen. Parliament has not been consulted, thus, without a chance to debate and vote, democracy too has been suspended.

 The fact that in May 2013 Saudi also beheaded five Yemenis, then used cranes to display their headless bodies against the skyline (Al-Akhbar, 21st May 2013) also did not trouble him. Neither did that by 10th November 2015, the year’s total of executions had already reached one hundred and fifty one, the highest for twenty years, in what Amnesty International called “a bloody executions spree.”

 But why care about human rights or outright savagery when there are arms to be sold? As written previously, in one three month period last year UK arms sales to Saudi soared by 11,000%. From a mere nine million pounds the preceding three months: “The exact figure for British arms export licences from July to September 2015 was £1,066,216,510 in so-called ‘ML4’ export licences, which relate to bombs, missiles, rockets, and components of those items.”

Cameron’s government treats such barbarism with astonishing sanguinity. For instance it has come to light that in 2011 the UK drew up a list of thirty: “ ‘priority countries’ where British diplomats would be ‘encouraged’ to ‘proactively drive forward’ and make progress towards abolishing the death penalty over five years.’ “

Saudi Arabia was not on the list, an omission which Amnesty International’s Head of Policy, Alan Hogarth called “astonishing.” (Independent, 5th January 2016.) However, a Foreign Office spokeswoman told the Independent that: “A full list of countries of concern was published in March 2015 in the (UK) Annual Human Rights Report and that includes Saudi Arabia and its use of the death penalty.”

Wrong. In the Report (1) under “Abolition of the Death Penalty”, there is much concentration on countries in the (UK) “Commonwealth Caribbean” and a casual, subservient nod at the US, but no mention of Saudi.

Under “The Death Penalty”, Jordan and Pakistan, were mentioned, as was the: “particular focus on two … regions, Asia and the Commonwealth Caribbean.” Singapore, Malaysia, China and Taiwan, Japan (the latter, three executions in 2014) Suriname and Vietnam are cited. Saudi Arabia is nowhere to be found.

Under the heading Torture Prevention, there is a quote by David Cameron: “Torture is always wrong”, (9th December, 2014.) Paragraph one includes: “The impact on victims, their families and their communities is devastating. It can never be justified in any circumstance.” A number of countries are listed. No prizes for guessing, in spite of mediaeval torture practices, which is not.

However, under “Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law” there is:


“The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) issued revised guidance on the human rights aspects of OSJA (Overseas Security and Justice Guidance) in February 2014. The guidance ensures that officials do their utmost to identify risks of UK actions causing unintended human rights consequences.”

What an irony as David Cameron is currently moving heaven and earth to halt legal action against British soldiers accused of acts of extreme human rights abuses in Iraq. As Lesley Docksey has written (2):


“The said ‘brave servicemen’ are in danger of being taken to Court over their abusive treatment, and in some cases murder, of Iraqi detainees during the invasion of Iraq.  Hundreds of complaints have been lodged with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which was investigating between 1,300 -1,500 cases.  Many are simple complaints of ill treatment during detention, but some are far more serious:

        * Death(s) while detained by the British Army

        * Deaths outside British Army base or after contact with British Army

        * Many deaths following ‘shooting incidents.’ “

Worse, the British government is considering taking action against one of the law firms dealing with some of the cases, Leigh Day, with another, Public Interest Lawyers, in their sights. When it comes to hypocrisy, David Cameron is hard to beat.

Worth noting is that in the UK government’s own list of “countries of humanitarian concern”, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), the UK has sold weapons to twenty four out of twenty seven of them, with Saudi Arabia in a deal to purchase seventy two Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft in a deal worth an eventual £4.5 Billion. (3)


“Aside from the purchase of the Typhoon jets, major deals between Saudi Arabia and British companies include a £1.6bn agreement for Hawk fighter jets and bulk sales of machine guns, bombs and tear gas.

“In fact, Saudi Arabia have access to twice as many British-made warplanes as the RAF does, while bombs originally stockpiled by Britain’s Armed Forces are being sent to Saudi Arabia” – to currently decimate Yemen.

“The overriding message is that human rights are playing second fiddle to company profits,” said CAAT spokesperson Andrew Smith, adding: “The Government and local authorities up and down the country are profiting directly from the bombing of Yemen. Challenging them to divest from Saudi Arabia … is something people can do directly.”

In the light of a fifty one page UN Report on the bombing of Yemen obtained by various parties on 27th January, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn called for an immediate suspension of arms sales to Saudi, pending the outcome of an independent Inquiry. David Cameron stated, farcically, that: “Britain had the strictest rules governing arms sales of almost any country, anywhere in the world.”

However, in one of the key findings, the UN Report (4) says:


“The panel documented that the coalition had conducted airstrikes targeting civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law, including camps for internally displaced persons and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian infrastructure, such as the airport in Sana’a, the port in Hudaydah and domestic transit routes.”

It adds: “The panel documented 119 coalition sorties relating to violations of international humanitarian law.”

It also reported cases of civilians fleeing and being chased and shot at by helicopters.

Moreover it stated that the humanitarian crisis was compounded by the Saudi blockade of ships carrying fuel, food and other essentials that are trying to reach Yemen.

The panel said that: “civilians are disproportionately affected” and deplored tactics that: “constitute the prohibited use of starvation as a method of warfare.” (Emphasis added.)

David Mepham, UK Director of Human Rights Watch commented: “For almost a year, (Foreign Secretary Philip) Hammond has made the false and misleading claim that there is no evidence of laws of war violations by the UK’s Saudi ally and other members of the coalition.”

The UK Ministry of Defence, declining to say how many UK military advisers were in Saudi Command and Control Centres, said that the UK was: “ … offering Saudi Arabia advice and training on best practice targeting techniques to help ensure continued compliance with International Humanitarian Law.” (Guardian, 27th January 2016.) Yet another quote from the ‘You could not make this up’ files.

It has to be wondered whether the Ministry’s “best practice targeting techniques” includes the near one hundred attacks on medical facilities between March and October 2015, a practice which compelled the International Committee of the Red Cross, in November, to declare the organization: “appalled by the continuing attacks on health care facilities in Yemen …” (5)

They issued their statement after: “Al-Thawra hospital, one of the main health care facilities in Taiz which is providing treatment for about fifty injured people every day was reportedly shelled several times …)

“It is not the first time health facilities have been attacked … Close to a hundred similar incidents have been reported since March 2015. (Emphases added.)

“Deliberate attacks on health facilities represent a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law (IHL).”

An earlier attempt to have the UN Human rights Council to establish an Inquiry failed due to objections from Saudi Arabia, who, with help from Britain, currently Chairs an influential panel on the same Human Rights Council. Farce is alive and well in the corridors of the UN.

The repeated attacks on a targeted medical facility and other IHL protected buildings and places of sanctuary is a testimony to the total disregard for International Humanitarian Law, by the British, US and their allies and those they “advise”, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and now Yemen.

However, in spite of the horrors under which Yemenis suffering and dying, and Saudi’s appalling human rights deficit, UK Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood, an American-born former soldier, in a visit to Saudi Arabia last month was quoted in the country’s Al Watan newspaper as revealing: “ the ignorance of the British to the notable progress in Saudi Arabia in the field of human rights, confirming throughout the visit of a British FCO delegation… that he had expressed his opinion regarding the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia before the British Parliament, and that the notable progress in this area has been obscured.” (See 6: “Saudi Arabia urged to make more of its human rights successes by Foreign Office minster Tobias Ellwood.”)

The Foreign Office strongly denied that Ellwood had expressed such a view.

The Saudi led, British advised and US ”intelligence” provided coalition is reported to have formed “an independent team of experts” to assess “incidents” (which should be described as outrages and war crimes) in order to reach “conclusions, lessons learned …” etc. (7) Thus, as ever, the arsonist is to investigate the cause of the fire.

Amnesty, Human rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières (who have had three medical facilities bombed) and The Campaign to Stop Bombing in Yemen have all called for an independent Inquiry with the power to hold those responsible for atrocities to account. None of which, however, would bring back the dead, restore the disabled, disfigured, limbless, or beautiful, ruined, ancient Yemen – another historical Paradise lost.

 Notes:
1.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2014/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2014
2.http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-abuse-of-iraqi-prisoners/5504852#sthash.jkA52JCt.dpuf
3.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-has-sold-56bn-of-military-hardware-to-saudi-arabia-under-david-cameron-research-reveals-a6797861.html
4.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/un-report-into-saudi-led-strikes-in-yemen-raises-questions-over-uk-role
5.https://www.icrc.org/en/document/yemen-attacks-health-care-facilities-must-stop
6.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-should-make-more-of-its-human-rights-successes-says-foreign-office-minster-tobias-a6837866.html
7.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/01/saudi-inquiry-war-claims-yemen-inadequate-say-rights-groups


The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, 2016

96

News Items / Peace Talks “Paused” after Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:20:32 PM »

Peace Talks “Paused” after Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo

By Mike Whitney

Global Research, February 05, 2016

CounterPunch




“This is the beginning of the end of jihadi presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war and terror, people can finally see the end in sight.”


A last ditch effort to stop a Russian-led military offensive in northern Syria ended in failure on Wednesday when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and heavy Russian air cover broke a 40-month siege on the villages of Nubl and al-Zahra in northwestern Aleppo province. The Obama administration had hoped that it could forestall the onslaught by cobbling together an eleventh-hour ceasefire agreement at the Geneva peace talks.  But when the news that Syrian armored units had crashed through al Nusra’s defenses and forced the jihadists to retreat, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended the negotiations tacitly acknowledging that the mission had failed.

“I have indicated from the first day that I won’t talk for the sake of talking,” the envoy told reporters, saying he needed immediate help from international backers led by the United States and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides of a war that has also drawn in regional powers.” (Reuters)  De Mistura then announced a “temporary pause” in the stillborn negotiations which had only formally begun just hours earlier. Developments on the battlefield had convinced the Italian-Swedish diplomat that it was pointless to continue while government forces were effecting a solution through military means.

After months of grinding away at enemy positions across the country,  the Russian strategy has begun to bear fruit. Loyalist ground forces have made great strides on the battlefield rolling back the war-weary insurgents on virtually all fronts. A broad swathe of the Turkish border is now under SAA control while the ubiquitous Russian bombers continue to inflict heavy losses on demoralized anti-regime militants. Wednesday’s lightening attack on the strategic towns of  Nubl and Zahraa was just the icing on the cake.  The bold maneuver severed critical supply-lines to Turkey while  tightening the military noose around the country’s largest city leaving hundreds of terrorists stranded in a battered cauldron with no way out.

For the last two weeks, the Obama team has been following developments on the ground with growing concern. This is why Secretary of State John Kerry hurriedly assembled a diplomatic mission to convene emergency peace talks in Geneva despite the fact that the various participants had not even agreed to attend. A sense of urgency bordering on panic was palpable from the onset. The goal was never to achieve a negotiated settlement or an honorable peace, but (as Foreign Policy magazine noted) to implement “a broad ‘freeze’ over the whole province of Aleppo, which would then be replicated in other regions later.” This was the real objective, to stop the bleeding any way possible and prevent the inevitable encirclement of Aleppo.

The recapturing of Nubl and Zahraa leaves the jihadists with just one route for transporting weapons, food and fuel to their urban stronghold. When loyalist forces break the blockade at Bab al Hawa to the northeast, the loop will be closed, the perimeter will tighten, the cauldron will be split into smaller enclaves within the city, and the terrorists will either surrender or face certain annihilation. Wednesday’s triumph by the Russian-led coalition is a sign that that day may be approaching sooner than anyone had anticipated.

It’s worth noting, that a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Michael O’Hanlon– whose plan to “deconstruct Syria” by using “moderate elements”  to “produce autonomous zones”–advised Obama and Kerry “not to pursue the failed logic of the current Syria peace talks but to explore a confederal model and seek buy-in from as many key players and allies as possible.”   In other words, the main architect of the US plan to break up Syria into smaller areas, (controlled by local militias, warlords and jihadists) thought the peace talks were “doomed” from the very beginning.

According to O’Hanlon the US needs to commit “20,000 combat troops” with  “the right political model for maintaining occupation”.   The Brookings analyst says  that “Any ceasefire that Kerry could negotiate…would be built on a foundation of sand” for the mere fact that the “moderate” forces it would support would be much weaker than either the SAA or ISIS. That means there would be no way to enforce the final settlement and no army strong enough to establish the authority of the new “unity” government.

O’Hanlon’s comments suggest western elites are deeply divided over Syria. The hawks are still pushing for more intervention, greater US, EU, and NATO involvement, and American and allied “boots on the ground” to occupy the country for an undetermined amount of time. In contrast, the Obama administration wants to minimize its commitment while trying desperately to placate its critics.

That means Syria’s troubles could resurface again in the future when Obama steps down and a new president pursues a more muscular strategy.  A number of  powerful people in the ruling establishment are as determined-as-ever to partition Syria and install a US puppet in Damascus. That’s not going to change. The Russian-led coalition has a small window for concluding its operations, eliminating the terrorists, and reestablishing security across the country.  Ending the war as soon as possible, while creating a safe environment for Syrian refugees to return home, is the best way to reduce the threat of escalation and discourage future US adventurism. But Putin will have to move fast for the plan to work.

Excerpts from:  “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war“, Michael O’ Hanlon, Brookings Institute.


Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

97

News Items / United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the United Nations on the Syria Dono

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:09:07 PM »

Joint announcement from the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the United Nations on the Syria Donors Conference 2016





placeholder





We - the leaders of the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the United Nations - are increasingly concerned about the plight of the Syrian people.

We have been at the forefront of global efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to those displaced by the conflict.

The international community has a responsibility to help the 13.5 million vulnerable and displaced people inside Syria, and the 4.2 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and we must step up our efforts.

Current funding to the 2015 UN appeals has not even reached last year’s levels - $3.3 billion against an appeal of $8.4 billion. As an international community, we must do more.

Now is the time to act. So we will together host a conference on the Syria humanitarian crisis in London in early February 2016, building on previous conferences in Kuwait.

We will invite leaders from countries around the world, NGOs and civil society to come together to:

•raise significant new funding to meet the needs of all those affected by the Syria crisis within the country itself and by supporting neighbouring countries who have shown enormous generosity in hosting refugees to cope with the impact of the crisis.


•identify long term funding solutions, covering 2016 and subsequent years.


•address the longer term needs of those affected by the crisis by identifying ways to create jobs and provide education, offering all those that have been forced to flee their homes greater hope for the future.


The Syria Donors Conference will also pave the way for a broader discussion about how the international community responds to protracted crises, in advance of the UK, UN and World Bank High-Level Forum on Forced Displacement in Protracted Crises later in 2016 and the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May.

We continue to believe that a political solution is necessary to bring the Syrian conflict to an end and we commit to working with each other and international partners to achieve that and to support the development of an inclusive, peaceful and prosperous Syria.

98

News Items / London to host Syria donors

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:06:25 PM »

 

 London to host Syria donors
 PressTV 
Feb 2


 The capital of Britain, London is set to host world leaders who will come together to try to raise $9 billion for the millions of Syrians hit by the country's conflict and a refugee crisis spanning Europe and the Middle East.

The donor conference, the fourth of its kind is slated for Thursday. It hopes to meet the UN's demand for $7.73 billion to help in Syria plus $1.23 billion assistance for countries in the region affected by the crisis.

More than 70 international leaders are expected to take part in the summit including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Jordan's King Abdullah II, Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Jordan has accommodated more than 630,000 Syrian refugees and Abdullah warned earlier that his debt-riddled country needed help to ease the burden or Europe would face the consequences.

The Syrian war, which began in March 2011, has claimed more than 260,000 lives and caused a major humanitarian crisis.

The conflict has forced 4.6 million Syrians to seek refuge in countries in the region - Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands have attempted to reach Europe, sometimes paying with their lives while making the risky Mediterranean Sea crossing.

"We need to agree concrete action," Cameron said, calling for the provision of jobs and education in countries neighboring Syria as the living conditions of refugees deteriorate by the day.

"This is not just in the interests of Syria and her neighbors. It is in the interests of Europe too. The more we do to enable people to stay in the region, the less likely we are to see them coming to Europe," he said.

 

99

News Items / David Cameron calls with the Emir of Qatar and the Prime Minister of Canada - Su

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:04:55 PM »

David Cameron calls with the Emir of Qatar and the Prime Minister of Canada - Supporting Syria 2016
 supportingsyria2016.com 
Monday 1 February 2016

 The UK Prime Minister made calls to the Emir of Qatar His Highness Sheikh Tamim and to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about the London Conference. Number 10 Downing Street

A Number 10 spokesperson said:

 The Prime Minister made separate telephone calls to the Emir of Qatar and the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday evening to discuss preparations for this week's Syria donors conference.

 Speaking first to His Highness Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, the Prime Minister expressed his concerns over the Qatari hostages taken in Iraq. The Prime Minister and Emir also discussed the importance of seeing swift progress on the political track in Syria.

 Both the Emir and Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, agreed with the Prime Minister that it was very important that the international community were generous in their pledges to the Supporting Syria conference, to be held in London later this week.

 The Emir and the Canadian Prime Minister both confirmed they would be sending delegations to the conference and the Prime Minister said he looked forward to welcoming them to London.

100

News Items / US Army Launches Ground Offensive in Syria and Iraq

« on: January 28, 2016, 08:30:42 AM »

US Army Launches Ground Offensive in Syria and Iraq (101st Airborne Division deploys to Middle East)
 Peter Korzun, Strategic Culture Foundation 
Jan 27

 In a significant change of strategy, the United States has announced that it is going to deploy «boots on the ground» soon to assist local forces in fighting the extremist group Islamic State (IS).

With the Iraq and Afghanistan wars fresh in memory, the US has made public its decision to get involved militarily in another Middle East conflict.

US Vice President Joe Biden said on January 23 that the United States and Turkey were prepared for a military solution against the Islamic State in Syria should the Syrian government and rebels fail to reach a political settlement.

The Syria peace talks planned to begin on January 25 in Geneva are at risk of being delayed partly because of a dispute over the composition of the opposition delegation.

The US plans are detailed enough. «The storied 101st Airborne Division will soon deploy 1,800 troops to Iraq to aid in the fight against ISIL (Islamic State). They will head there with the support of the American people and armed with a clear campaign plan to help our allies deliver the barbaric organization a lasting defeat», writes US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in an article published by Politico.

The Secretary said the US focuses on three military objectives. One, to take back the cities of Mosul, Iraq and Raqqah, Syria – the objectives that constitute terrorists' centers of gravity. Two, fight the Islamic State (IS) group worldwide. Three, protect the homeland.

The same day CNBC quoted a statement by the US Secretary of defense Ashton Carter that the Western coalition to use ground troops in the fight against the terrorist group in Syria and Iraq.

Though the US military presence in Iraq has been steadily growing over the past year-and-a-half, this marks the first time a senior official acknowledged the presence of combat troops (not instructors) on spot. The policy shift is a clear turnaround from the Obama's previous stance of not deploying combat troops in Iraq and Syria and one sure to shape the foreign policy debate in the 2016 election. These announcements provoke experts into making a lot of hay over whether that meant the US was engaged in ground war in these countries. Secretary Carter told Congress members that American soldiers would be conducting raids in places including Syria as far back as last October.

The US War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war.

The US ground presence in Iraq, which began with the commitment of a mere 300 advisors in June of 2014, has increased to over 3,500. In Syria, the Obama Administration has moved to establish a permanent presence by US special operators, ostensibly to bolster the logistics of local fighters battling the jihadists. This isn't the first time US special operations units have been on the ground in Syria, but it is the first time they will stay. Like in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and a host of other locations, the commitment of ground troops gradually grows into an often ill-defined unpopular military campaign in a country of marginal consequence.

The new White House policy directly contradicts multiple promises personally made by President Barack Obama that he would not put combat boots on the ground in Syria.

«I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria», Obama said during a televised national address on September 10, 2013. «I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan».

During his 2013 address, Obama said one major reason for his firm, no-troops-in-Syria policy is that Americans are «sick and tired» of aimless, unending wars in the Middle East. The Obama administration is yet to publicly identify the goals it plans to achieve through the deployment of combat troops in Syria.

The Islamic State became a major player in the region after US departure from Iraq. The US military had largely wiped out extremists in the province of Anbar before withdrawing. With US troops gone, the group was able to rebuild in what is often referred to by outsiders as the «vacuum» that followed America's presence. Winning war, the US fails to build peace with no local governments and militaries in place to effectively maintain law and order. The probability is great that injecting US ground forces into the fight against the Islamic State would result in the very same thing America has experienced all too frequently in recent years – a kind of perpetual war with little chance of reaching the expected outcome and the risk to spark broader escalation. This is confirmed by terrible outcomes of the recent operations in Libya and the mishandled ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a crucially important aspect of the matter that the US leaders have not mentioned in their statements. What other countries will commit ground forces? Have they made arrangements regarding the rules of engagement? What norms of international law exactly will be used to justify the action? It's hard to imagine the Syrian and Iraqi governments approve the idea of having US combat troops deployed on their soil. For instance, Iraqi leaders have said «no» on many occasions. Once the decision is taken and the operation actually started, the US has to make arrangements with the Russia-Syria-Iran coalition. The deployment of ground troops is impossible without coordinating activities with the Russian and Syrian forces. Even if the US and its NATO allies act in violation of international law, the deployment should be preceded by intensive talks between the Russian and military leaders. The establishment of a coordination cell is inevitable. It all makes intensive Russia-NATO military-to-military contacts an issue of paramount importance.

No doubt, it's not a pure coincidence that the US troops deployment takes place at the very same time the UN-sponsored negotiation process on Syria is about to kick off in Geneva.



 

101

For Your Information / Media More Outraged by Possible Murder by Putin Than Definite Murder by Obama

« on: January 26, 2016, 01:25:51 PM »

Media More Outraged by Possible Murder by Putin Than Definite Murder by Obama
 By Matt Peppe, Information Clearing House
 January 25, 2016

 The British government, whose foreign policy is overtly hostile to their Russian counterpart, declared last week that their investigation into the killing of a former Russian intelligence agent in London nearly a decade ago concluded there is a "strong probability" the Russian FSB security agency was responsible for poisoning Alexander Litivenko with plutonium. They further declared that Russian President Vladimir Putin "probably approved" of the act. The British investigation, which was likely politically motivated, seemingly raised more questions than it answered. But American corporate media were quick to use the accusations against Putin to demonize him, casting him as a pariah brazenly flaunting his disregard for international conventions.

The Washington Post (1/23/16) editorial board wrote that "Robert Owen, a retired British judge, has carefully and comprehensively documented what can only be called an assassination... Mr. Owen found (Andrei) Lugovoi was acting 'under the direction' of the FSB in an operation to kill Mr. Litivenko - one that was 'probably approved' by the director of the FSB and by Mr. Putin."

Actually, Owen did not find that former KGB operative Lugovoi was acting under the direction of the FSB to kill Litivenko. He found there was a "strong probability" this was the case. This means that even in Owens's view, there is not near certainty, which would meet the legal standard of reasonable doubt that would preclude a guilty judgement. There is even more doubt that even if it were the case the FSB ordered the murder, they did so on Putin's orders.

The New York Times editorial board (1/21/16) finds the investigation's results "shocking." For the Times, this confirms a pattern of Putin's rogue behavior. They claim Putin's "deserved reputation as an autocrat willing to flirt with lawlessness in his global ventures has taken on a startling new aspect."

Both of the prestigious and influential American newspapers argue that the British findings impugn Putin's respectability in international affairs. The Times says:

 Mr. Putin has built a sordid record on justice and human rights, which naturally reinforces suspicion that he could easily have been involved in the murder. At the very least, the London inquiry, however much it is denied at the Kremlin, should serve as a caution to the Russian leader to repair his reputation for notorious intrigues abroad.

The more hawkish Post says: "This raises a serious question for President Obama and other world leaders whose governments do not traffic in contract murder. Should they continue to meet with Mr. Putin as if he is just another head of state?"

Putin's alleged "sordid record on justice and human rights," which is taken for granted without providing any examples, is seen as bolstering the case for his guilt in the case of the poisoning death of Litivenko. This, in turn, adds to his "notorious" reputation as a violator of human rights.

The Post draws a line between the lawless Putin and the respectable Western heads of state, such as Obama. Though they frame their call to treat Putin as an outcast as a question, it is clearly intended as a rhetorical question.

It is curious that The Post draws a contrast between Putin and Obama, whose government is supposedly above such criminality. The newspaper does not mention the U.S. government's drone assassination program, which as of last year had killed nearly 2,500 people in at least three countries outside of declared military battlefields. Estimates have shown that at least 90 percent of those killed were not intended targets. None of those killed have been charged with any crimes. And at least two - Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdul Rahman - were Americans.

Obama himself is personally responsible for those killed by missiles launched from unmanned aircraft over the skies of sovereign countries. Several news reports have indicated that Obama is presented in meetings each week by military and national security officials with a list of potential targets for assassination. Obama must personally approve each target, at which point they are added to the state-sanctioned "kill list."

The British government has also assumed for itself the power to assassinate its own citizens outside a declared battlefield. Last fall, Prime Minister David Cameron ordered the deaths of two British citizens in Syria, who were subsequently disposed of in a lethal drone strike.

The Washington Post editorial board (3/24/12) claimed that Obama was justified in carrying out lethal drone strokes that kill American citizens "to protect the country against attack." Their lone criticism was that "an extra level of review of some sort is warranted."

After it was revealed that an American hostage was inadvertently killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, The Post (5/1/15) said that the issue of whether the American government continues to conduct drone strikes should not be up for debate. "(T)here is little question that drones are the least costly means of eliminating militants whose first aim is to kill Americans," they wrote.

While they tacitly accept the legal rationale for Obama's assassination program, the New York Times editorial board at least demonstrated some skepticism. In "A Thin Rationale for Drone Killings" (6/23/14), they called the memo "a slapdash pastiche of legal theories - some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law - that was clearly tailored to the desired result." They say that "the rationale provides little confidence that the lethal action was taken with real care."

Yet they do not chastise Obama for his "intrigues abroad" nor do they condemn this as an example of his "sordid record on justice and human rights," language they used for Putin. The idea that relying on what are transparently inadequate legal justifications for killing an American citizen without due process would merit prosecution is clearly beyond the limits of discussion for the Times.

 Recently Faheem Qureshi, a victim of the first drone strike ordered by Obama in 2009 (three days after his induction as President), who lost multiple family members and his own eye, told The Guardian that Obama's actions in his native lands are "an act of tyranny. If there is a list of tyrants in the world, to me, Obama will be put on that list by his drone program."

Surely both The New York Times and Washington Post disagree with Qureshi, because they believe the U.S. government is inherently benevolent and its motives are beyond reproach. But based on their editorials about the British investigation of the Litivenko poisoning, if Putin was responsible and was described by Qureshi in the same way, they would wholeheartedly agree.

The U.S. government and its allies in NATO, like Great Britain, have a clear agenda in vilifying Russia and its President. The US-NATO alliance supported the government that came to power in Ukraine in 2014 through a coup. After provinces in Eastern Ukraine - the vast majority of whose population is ethnically Russian and Russian-speaking - refused to recognize the NATO-backed coup government in Kiev, the Russian government supported them.

It should be easy to see how, from Russia's perspective, the Ukranian conflict can be understood as an extension of NATO encroachment towards Russia's borders that has continued unabated since James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 NATO would move "not an inch east."

"We're in a new Cold War," Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and politics, told Salon. "The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders, within its own civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there are no rules."

Additionally, Russia's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since 2011 throughout that country's civil war, and more recently its direct military intervention in the conflict that has turned the tide against US-backed rebels, has strongly rankled Washington.

The language used by top government officials to describe Russia has been astoundingly combative. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the man in charge of the entire US military, claimed Russia is responsible for aggression and is "endangering world order."

The U.S. government's hyping of the Russian "threat" has been used to justify massive spending on the U.S. space program and other military expenditures, such as $1 trillion to upgrade nuclear weapons.

One could even argue that the narrative of an aggressive and belligerent Russia is the principal justification for the continued existence of the NATO itself, two and a half decades after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The alliance allows the US military to be stationed in hundreds of bases throughout Europe under the guise of a purely defensive organization.

The U.S.'s most prominent media organizations should demonstrate the strongest skepticism towards the policies and actions of their own government. At the very least, they should hold their own country's leaders to the same standards as they do others. But time and again, the media choose to act as a mouthpiece to echo and amplify Washington's propaganda. They do the government's bidding, creating an enemy and rallying the public towards a confrontation they would otherwise have no interest in, while allowing the government to avoid accountability for its own misdeeds.

Matt Peppe writes about politics, U.S. foreign policy and Latin America on his blog. You can follow him on twitter

102

For Your Information / CIA staged suicides in Gitmo: Ex-guard

« on: January 26, 2016, 01:24:03 PM »

CIA staged suicides in Gitmo: Ex-guard
 PressTV 
Jan 24


 The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has staged suicides to cover up inmate deaths at the notorious US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, says a former guard.

Nearly 10 years ago, the Pentagon announced that three Guantanamo inmates "killed themselves in an apparent suicide pact."

"Two Saudis and one Yemeni, each located in Camp 1, were found unresponsive and not breathing in their cells by guards," Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF) said June 10, 2006, adding that "all lifesaving measures had been exhausted."

The camp was quickly shuttered the next day.

However, former Guantanamo guard Joseph Hickman says the alleged suicides were in fact staged by the CIA, saying the US government might have had an interest in silencing the prisoners who "caused a lot of problems."

In an interview with Russia Today, which was published on Saturday, Hickman unveiled what he saw in the few hours leading up to the deaths.

He said he witnessed hunger strike "leaders" being brought to a secret CIA "black site," where CIA agents would make their deaths look like suicide by hanging.

"I witnessed a van – we used to call it paddy wagon – it was a detainee transport van," he said. "The van came into the gate, backed up to Camp 1 and took a detainee out of Camp 1 Alpha Block and put him into the paddy wagon and drove [him away]."

This happened two more times over 20 minutes, he said, suggesting that there were "a total of three out of Camp 1 Alpha Block."

Hickman said that the unusual transfer became more suspicious when the van went to a facility called "Camp No, which is a CIA black site on Guantanamo at the time."

At the time, the JTF command interrogated up to 200 prisoners per week, according to Hickman. However, detainees made this difficult as they knew Washington-approved Guantanamo interrogation policies would prohibit questioning inmates if they were on a hunger strike.

Consequently, starting from 2005, detainees held long-term hunger strikes.

"All three of those detainees that went to that CIA black site that night were all leaders of the hunger strikes, massive hunger strikes," Hickman said. "There were constant hunger strikes since they arrived. They caused a lot of problems for the command."

The US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) claimed then that all three were preparing for the suicide and hanged themselves with torn sheets and T-shirts, while their hands were tied.

"After those three deaths, there were two other detainees that committed suicide," Hickman told RT. "I wasn't there to say exactly what happened, but I knew from my experience. Those men did not commit a suicide. It brought up questions, which brought up nightmares. It just haunted me until I came forward."

Guantanamo was established by former president George W. Bush's administration in 2002 as a prison for alleged foreign terrorism suspects following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

A Senate report in December 2014 revealed that the CIA has used a wide array of torture as part of its interrogation methods against Guantanamo prisoners.




 

103

News Items / Britain will permanently station 1,000 military personnel in Poland from next ye

« on: January 24, 2016, 09:54:28 AM »

Reuters

Britain will permanently station 1,000 military personnel in Poland from next year, Poland's defence minister said late on Thursday, in apparent contradiction of an announcement by Britain about plans for temporary exercises on Polish soil.

On Wednesday, the British Ministry of Defence said London would send nearly 1,000 military personnel to take part in NATO exercises in Poland.

But Poland's Antoni Macierewicz told Catholic broadcaster Radio Maryja that Poland and Britain had agreed at a meeting of foreign and defence ministers in Scotland that troops would stay in Poland permanently.

"One of the decisions, which resulted from yesterday's talks (is) a permanent presence of the British forces on Polish territory, that is 1,000 soldiers, who will permanently station on Polish territory from next year," Macierewicz said.

"They will switch around, it will be a rotational, but permanent presence of 1,000 soldiers."

The Ministry of Defence in London declined to comment on Friday.

Warsaw, which is due to host a NATO summit in July, has repeatedly pressed for more NATO forces on its soil and elsewhere in former communist-ruled Europe, arguing it needed a stronger response to Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

But some of its NATO allies are reluctant to permanently station troops in the region, wary of violating a 1997 NATO-Russia agreement on the size of forces the alliance can have in former Warsaw Pact countries.

Moscow has previously signalled it would regard the establishment of a standing NATO presence on its borders as a hostile act.
 

"PERMANENT BASES"

Some Western governments are also concerned about the cost of permanent new bases at a time when defence budgets are strained by fiscal austerity or costly engagements elsewhere.

Macierewicz said, however, that having British troops in Poland meant that a permanent NATO presence in Poland was "realistic".
 
"Not so long ago we were told that it will be impossible to get permanent bases, NATO presence ... that it's an unrealistic demand," he said.

"Well, it turns out it's realistic."

Macierewicz's spokesman was not immediately available to comment about the apparent contradiction with the British announcement.

Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said earlier this month Poland could be open to compromise over British demands to limit the rights of EU migrants if London helped it bolster the NATO presence in central Europe.
 
In a statement issued on Wednesday after a meeting between Macierewicz and his British counterpart Michael Fallon in Edinburgh, the Ministry of Defence said Britain would send around 800 military personnel to NATO's Exercise Anakonda.

The statement said that for Exercise Swift Response, Britain would commit 150 personnel to "elements of a Brigade HQ, Battlegroup HQ and a Company".

Britain will also commit around 1,000 personnel to the Polish-led Very High Readiness Joint Task Force in 2020, the statement said. The force has no permanent base.

The frigate HMS Iron Duke will visit Poland as part of NATO's Standing Naval Maritime Group this summer, the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean will participate in Exercise BALTOPS in the Baltic Sea over the summer, and a Royal Navy minehunter is due to visit Poland in the autumn, the statement also said.


For an analysis, click on


(Reporting by Wiktor Szary and Pawel Florkiewicz; Additional reporting by Estelle Shirbon in London; Editing by Andrew Roche)

104

News Items / Selma village. Finally, after so many years, and so many martyred Syrian Arab Ar

« on: January 16, 2016, 02:50:38 PM »

Selma village. Finally, after so many years, and so many martyred Syrian Arab Army soldiers, and civilians, we have victory

Following are the words of a friend in Syria, on the recently-liberated Syrian village of Selma (also spelled Salma), with news reports on its liberation at bottom. This is a very personal account of Selma and the recent history of its occupation by terrorist forces, as well as some interesting history on the region:

“Selma is a very small village on the Turkish-Syrian border, just 1 hour drive North East from Latakia. With good hiking shoes you could walk to Turkey, and there was never any border fence, or guards or anything to prevent the free movement between Syria and Turkey at the location.

The local, native population of Selma numbered in the dozens. They were mainly Syrian citizens of Kurdish ancestry. They were not Turkman. Selma was strictly Sunni Muslim. Selma was not a famous place, or even a pretty place, or even a scenic place. Selma’s claim to fame was the fact it got cool evening breezes, coming in from the North and East, during the HOT and HUMID summers in Latakia (June-October).

There is a village close to Selma called Slounfa. Slounfa is higher elevation, and is even colder, but the native population are Alawi. By car it is a 15 minute drive from Slounfa to Selma. Slounfa was never in the hands of the rebels. Slounfa is a mountain resort, of the type that you find in Lebanon. Stone houses, oak trees, cedar trees, church and mosque. Slounfa’s claim to fame was also the cold evening air temperature all summer, and snow in winter, because of the high elevation. But, Slounfa is pretty, scenic and every panorama is a beautiful picture postcard scene. Selma never had the beauty, but had some of the cool temperatures during summer, and no winter snow.

Slounfa has summer house, summer cottages, and summer palaces. Slounfa’s resort status dates back to Ottoman days, and the French occupation of 1920-1946 saw added resort building, and the French built a CASINO, not meaning gambling, but a resort hotel with musical (orchestra and singer) facility. Some of the singing legends of the Arab world did perform in Slounfa, even as early and the 1940’s and onward.

Selma was the ugly ‘sister’ to Slounfa. However, during the period of 1990-2011 a steady real estate development went on there. People from Aleppo and Latakia and other places (including Saudi Arabians and Qataris) built homes, apartments and palaces there. Selma, just like Slounfa, is full to capacity in summer, and deserted in winter. Both places were “summer-use-only”.

When the terrorists became mobilized and organized in 2011, they quickly set up head quarters in Selma. They were some Syrians, and many foreigners. The Australian cleric Sheikh Fedaa Majzoub , who was born in Latakia, set up shop in Selma, and his brother was killed fighting not far from there. Sheikh Fedaa was identified as one of those involved in the Ballouta massacre in August 2013, which kidnapped 100 small children, and held them underground in Selma. 9 months later 44 of the 100 were released, and the remaining are either dead, or still in Selma? Soon we will know….

[more on the Ballouta massacre here]

The terrorists were able to hold Selma and use it as a strategic location because of the tunnels they dug to connect them with the Turkish military, who were over the border, and officially supporting the terrorists in Selma.

It is a huge blow to the Syrian Opposition, their armed wing, the Free Syrian Army, and all their allied Al Qaeda type terrorists. The fall of Selma is a huge event.

Here in Latakia, we all could not believe that a tiny, tiny place like Selma would be so difficult to take control of. For almost 5 years we have only heard about “The Battles in Selma”. It became a story of epic proportions, like the legendary “never ending story”. Finally, after so many years, and so many martyred Syrian Arab Army soldiers, and civilians, we have victory.

It appears the next step is to march Eastwards to Idlib, then Jisr Al Sughour, and finally to march into Aleppo. After Aleppo, set sights on Reqaa. One step at a time.

It can not be underestimated the value of the Russian Air Force. The ‘boots on the ground’ are still mainly Syrian men, but the Air power is Russian. The Russian intervention in late September, early October, has changed the course of the Syrian war.

I spent 30 days in a rented house in Sloufa, from Aug 15 to Sept 15 (I was not really brave, I just wanted to find a COOL place to sleep. Latakia had a real heat wave last summer. It was terrible. My summer house in Kessab was destroyed March 2014. So I had no where to go to cool off. I went 7 days without sleep. The doctor gave me some sleeping pills, but said I couldn’t stay on them because they were habit forming. I couldn’t sleep at night because of the heat. There was no electricity, so no fans or air conditioners. I went to Slounfa to SLEEP.). [NOTE: See “The liberation of Kassab” and “testimonies from Kasab, attacked by Turkish and foreign mercenaries March 21“]

I was literally watching the battles at Selma, but from a safe distance. I left Sloufa and returned home to Latakia prepared to evacuate at any moment, because the Army was losing ground, and there was real panic in the air, among the civilians up there.

We had one evening in Slounfa when the residents all came up onto their roofs with hunting rifles, used for shooting birds and rabbits. When I saw I was faced with real possibility of being over run by the terrorists, who were very close, I had to calculate how I and my guests could evacuate in the night, without any car available. We passed that night and were not attacked, but we will never forget the look on the local residents up there who were prepared to fight to the death and stand their ground. After I returned home to Latakia, it was just days later the Russians arrived. Since then, everything changed here. Latakia breathed a collective sigh of relief, and now we can see real progress and hope that an end to the war is possible.”

****Syrian Army establishes control over four villages near Salma in Lattakia and another in Aleppo, Jan 13, 2016, SANA

“Al-Marouniyat, Bait Miro, Sheikh Khalil and Marj al-Khokha villages under army controlAn army unit, in cooperation with the popular defense groups, established on Wednesday control over al-Marouniyat village, 1 km north of Salma town in the northeastern countryside of Lattakia province, a military source announced.

Taking control of the village followed fierce clashes with the terrorist organizations last night and today morning that ended up in killing many terrorists, according to the source.

Tens of terrorists fled towards Rabiaa town, near the Turkish borders.

The engineering units swept the village completely for explosive devices and mines, dismantling dozens of bombs and seizing large amounts of arms and ammunition left behind by the terrorists.

An army unit, aided by the popular defense groups, assumed full control of Bait Miro village after eliminating gatherings of terrorists to the last one.

Later, a military source told SANA that Army and Armed Forces units, in cooperation with popular defense groups, established control over Sheikh Khalil and Marj al-Khokha village east of Salma town….”

**

Syrian Army liberates the strategic town of Salma in northeast Latakia, Jan 12, 2016, Al Masdar News

“Moments ago in the Latakia Governorate’s northeastern countryside, the Syrian Arab Army’s 103rd Brigade of the Republican Guard – in close coordination with the National Defense Forces (NDF), the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), Liwaa Suqour Al-Sahra (Desert Hawks Brigade), the Russian Air Force, and Muqawama Souri (Syrian Resistance) – liberated the strategic town of Salma after a short battle this morning with the Islamist rebels of Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda group) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA).The loss of Salma for the Islamist rebels will prove devastating in the coming weeks, as the town overlooks much of the Latakia Governorate and the western countryside of the Idlib Governorate, where Jaysh Al-Fateh (Army of Conquest) has enjoyed unrivaled control.

The next step for the Syrian Armed Forces will be to take the rebel stronghold of Al-Rabiyah in the Turkmen Mountains (Jabal Al-Turkmen); if captured, the Islamist rebels will likely retreat from the entire province, as they will no longer possess any high ground.

The military operation in Salma did not take a toll on the Syrian Armed Forces, as a local source reported that 6 soldiers were killed this morning, with another 8 reportedly wounded after intense fighting with the Islamist rebels inside the town….”

**
Video of the National Defence Forces and Syrian Arab Army in Salma. Please do note the that soldiers range from young to old, defending their country against the terorrism delivered by the western-zionist-saudi-qatari-turkish alliance.**the chant at the end, heard throughout Syria: “With our blood and our souls, we , we sacrifice in order to preserve/protect Syria”

**

Russian Air Force destroyed around 1,100 terrorist positions in Syria since beginning of 2016, Jan 11, 2016, SANA

“The General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Air Force destroyed around 1,100 terrorist positions in Syria since the beginning of 2016.

Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Forces Lt.Gen. Sergei Rudskoy, stated on Monday that within the first 10 days of 2016, the Russian Air Force carried out 311 sorties targeting 1,097 terrorist positions in the countryside of Damascus, Aleppo, Idleb, Lattakia, Hama, Homs, Deir Ezzor, Hasaka, Daraa, and Raqqa provinces.

He said that the airstrikes targeted petroleum infrastructure controlled by terrorists, sites for extracting and refining oil, positions where terrorist groups were stationed, and military equipment, asserting that the airstrikes focus on weakening the capabilities of terrorist organizations and providing direct support to the Syrian Arab Army and other formations fighting ISIS.

Rudskoy noted that the most significant successes in battle against terrorists were achieved in Aleppo, Lattakia, Hama, Homs, and Raqqa provinces, adding that the Syrian Army reestablished control over 153 towns and villages with the support of the Russian Air Force.

The Russian Air Force has been carrying out sorties targeting terrorist sites in Syria since September 30th 2015 as per an agreement signed by Syria and Russia to fight terrorism and eliminate ISIS.”
 

105

News Items / Not-Tweetworthy. UN selectively tweeting, ignores Foua, Kafarya, Nubl, Zahara

« on: January 16, 2016, 02:48:46 PM »

Not-Tweetworthy. UN selectively tweeting, ignores Foua, Kafarya, Nubl, Zahara

-Eva Bartlett

On December 28, 2015, the United Nation’s OCHA made its first express Twitter mention of two northern Syrian villages, al-Foua and Kafarya (also transliterated as Kafraya).

first mentionThe belated Decembar mention is in spite of the fact that the two villages of rerportedly 30,000 people have been locked under siege by terrorist factions Jebhat al-Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria), Jaysh al-Fattah (the so-called “Army of Conquest”), and Ahrar al-Sham (Liberation of the Levant Movement), among other terorist factions, since March 2015. The siege has meant that the isolated villages have had limited to no access to food and medical supplies since then. Additionally, terrorists have been daily firing mortars and hell cannons at the villages, killing and maiming residents, destroying homes and infrastructure.

In October, 2015, the ICRC reported that al-Foua and Kafarya were among several areas to receive humanitarian assistance.

OCHA’s tweets around that time made no specific mention of al-Foua and Kafarya, instead simple tweeting: “UN and partners deliver critical relief supplies to besieged areas of Syria.”

ocha21

The tweet-linked report, however, does mention at least mention the two villages by name, although it does not at all mention the terrorists’ bombings of the villages, nor the immensely dire situation there.

This in spite of the fact that the UN did acknowledge, back in March 2015, that al-Foua and Kafarya had just been besieged. Yacoub el-Hillo, the UN Resident Coordinator for Syria, himself in a March 30, 2015 statement, declared:

 I am gravely concerned by the ongoing fighting taking place in Idleb governorate and its possible impact on hundreds of thousands of civilians.



Hillo didn’t apparently sustain his concern.

In fact, since that March 30 statement of concern, OCHA’s twitter feed did not once mention al-Foua and Kafarya by name, although it heavily specifically mentioned various terrorist-occupied areas, like Yarmouk, al-Waer, al-Zabadani, and of late, al-Madaya–the new Yarmouk. Frequently, when tweeting about Yarmouk, OCHA made vague reference to “fighting in Idleb” or simply tweeted the latest “Idleb Humanitarian Report.” You’d think that after the UN Resident Coordinator’s “grave concern” OCHA might have taken a stronger interest in al-Foua and Kafarya.

Then again, reporting on the suffering of civilians locked down and bombed by western-backed terorists doesn’t serve the NATO-agenda, which the UN dances along to.

Consider that the areas that the UN’s OCHA did tweet about–Yarmouk, al-Waer, Zabadani, Madaya, to name but some–are occupied by terrorists as criminal as Da’esh which the west purports to fight. All these factions are terrorists, none of them moderates.

Somehow, the UN is able to visit Madaya, Waer… but cannot get to al-Foua and Kafarya. Defies logic. If the UN representatives are able to enter into terrorist hotbeds, they can exert pressure on their mercenaries to allow them into civilian areas surrounded by the terrorists. IF they wanted to. Which they don’t.

Consider a January 7, 2016, UN statement in which the UN adds eastern Ghouta, another hotbed of terrorism, to the list of areas to protect. Take note of this excerpt from the last two paragaphs of the statement:

 The UN welcomes today’s approval from the Government of Syria to access Madaya, Foah and Kefraya and is preparing to deliver humanitarian assistance in the coming days.

 International humanitarian law prohibits the targeting of civilians. It also prohibits the starvation of civilians as a tactic of war.

Regarding the first cleverly-crafted sentence, I refer to the Syrian Ambassador the UN (in NYC), who stated on January 11, 2016:

 The Syrian government has already requested, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from the office of resident coordinator of the United Nations in Syria, by its note #3746, dated 27th December, 27 December, 2015, to URGENTLY deliver humanitarian assistance, including medical assistance and fuel, to al-‪#‎Foua‬ and ‪#‎Kafraya‬, in the governorate of Idlib, and to ‪#‎Madaya‬, in the governorate of Damascus countryside.

 We would like to highlight that the humanitarian assistance sent to Madaya in mid-October was sufficient for two months. And this testimony was corroborated by the representative of the ICRC in Syria a few days ago.

…The Syrian government aproved the requests of the resident coordinator of Unicef, WFP and ICRC to deliver humanitarian and relief assistance, including medical assistance, to Madaya, al-Foua and Kafraya, on 8 January, 2016.

…The Syrian government previously approved the requests of the United Nations and ICRC to deliver humanitarian assistance to ‪#‎Zabadani‬, Madaya, al-Foua and Kafraya on 18 October, 2015. We would like to add here that some of the humanitarian assistance sent to restive areas has been looted by the armed terrorist groups on several occassions. And this is exactly what happened in Madaya and al-Zabadani.

 Furthermore, the Turkish authorities hindered the delivery of humanitarian assistance through the borders to other restive areas.

…On October the 18th, we sent enough humanitarian assistance for more than 2 months, and the representative of the ICRC corroborated this 2 days ago on Syrian TV saying that there is no starvation problem in Madaya.

 December 27th, we asked the resident coordinator to send immediately convoys of humanitarian assistance again to Madaya, and to Kafraya and al-Foua. The UN did not send. When we asked them why you didn’t, they said ‘we were facing logistical problems. We are not responsible of this.’

 …There is a problem, yes. But the problem is this. The terorrists are stealing the humanitarian assistance from the Syrian Red Crescent as well as from the United Nations, and they are keeping this assistance in their warehouse, and then they use it as a leverage of political and financial gain for them to survive.”

The UN intention with their statement of welcoming the Syrian government’s approval to access Madaya, Foua and Kafarya is to imply that the Syrian government was the cause of aid not getting in, when clearly it has been the case of terrorists preventing and/or stealing aid. This has been corroborated by testminonies of Madaya residents to Russia Today reporter Murad Gazdiev, who was on the ground in Madaya talking to residents. Some of his tweets include:

-“More on #madaya: #syria military sent 42 tons of food there on 27 november. All of it was seized by Islamist rebels; the are reselling aid”

-“#madaya civilians say rebels charged 100,000 SP ($250) for kilogram of rice”

-“Many #madaya civilians weeping for joy at finally leaving this place. Say #ISIS in town, fight together with rebels”

-“Fleeing #madaya civilians blame rebels for cruelty, theft..”

Regarding the UN’s January 7 statement which includes “International humanitarian law prohibits the targeting of civilians. It also prohibits the starvation of civilians as a tactic of war,” it is thus baffling that since the March 2015 full-siege on al-Foua and Kafarya, the UN’s OCHA neglected to tweet about the near-daily terrorist bombing of those villages’ citizens, nor the starvation-by-siege of Kafarya and al-Foua residents.



Loaded Narrative, and the Tweets That Weren’t:

The narrative the UN and like agencies, and corporate media, put forth regarding Madaya, and the Yarmouks before Madaya, is one which obfuscates on the suffering caused by western-backed terrorism, and inflates stories of civilians’ suffering in terrorist-hotbeds. It is a false narrative that pulls heartstrings of well-intentioned but less-informed readers who believe in the long-shot credibility of the UN. Although there is indeed suffering in places like Madaya, the civilians themself have said what the cause is: the terrorist factions within stealing aid and goods and selling at extortionist rates.

From December 28, 2015, when OCHA first tweet-uttered Foua and Kafarya’s names until today, January 14, statistics regarding the number of times OCHA tweeted the names of Madaya, Foua/Kafarya and others are as follows:

-Madaya: 17 times

-Foua/Kafarya: 6 times

-Nubl, Zahra: 0 times

Noteworthy are the points already mentioned:

-Foua/Kafarya are besieged by al-Qaeda and other western-backed terrorists. Madaya is infested with them

-Foua/Kafarya residents are lacking food and medicines due to the siege of western-backed terrorists; any shortage of good in Madaya is due to the theft and mafia-esque extortions of terrorists infesting Madaya.

Of course, there are areas other than Foua, Kafarya, Nubl, Zahra which are suffering immensely due to terrorist attacks and siege, and which get little or no UN tweetage…But given the current media campaign regarding Madaya, I am looking here just at the discrepencies between UN focus on the two areas.

The UN and so-called “humanitarian”groups/agencies will not tweet or speak the truth of the massive suffering in al-Foua and Kafayra, much less of the long-suffering of the people of Nubl and Zahraa and everywhere else terrorized by NATO’s mercenaries. Therefore we must, and we must continue to reveal the deceptions and not-even-slick propaganda at play, as well as to recognize that the timing is not coincidental.

Ambassador al-Ja’afari pointed this out, on January 11, 2016, to the annoyance of the corporate journalists on the vilification bandwagon:

…whenever there is a step forward towards a political solution in Syria, certain incidents are fabricated to de-fame the Syrian government and to negatively impact the political process….

The examples of such incidents are many and happened before certain United Nations Security Council meetings, as well as before Geneva 2 meeting, and Moscow 1 and Moscow 2 consultative meetings.

 Now, and when the Syrians are going to meet in Geneva, end of this month, certain regional and international parties supporting terrorism in Syria are not satisfied that the Syrian government is engaging positively in the political process. And thus are trying to demonize it…torpedoing the meeting in Geneva.

In his recent article on Madaya and the media manipulation of facts, Finian Cunningham noted:

 The Western news media are the propaganda arm of the state-sponsored terrorist assault on Syria….The plain truth is that people in Syria are being held siege by Western-orchestrated terrorists. …A siege of another kind is also being forced on the minds of the Western public by the Western media; it involves starving them of the truth.

He is absolutely correct. And the UN is just as complicit in the lies, the manipulation of facts, the whitewashing of terrorists in Syria, and in the obfuscation of true suffering at the hands of said-terrorists.