Awakening the World with Truth and Creating a Better Future.
Neo-Imperialists Grind Away at Syrian Sovereignty
editorial by Tony Cartalucci
April 24, 2012 - Western corporate-financiers have plotted since at least 1991 to overturn not only Syria's government, but to topple and co-opt the governments of every nation previously in the Soviet sphere of influence.
US Army General Wesley Clark made it known during a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California, that in 1991, then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony.
Clark would go on to say that shortly after September 11, 2001, while at the Pentagon, a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicated plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya.
More recently, US State Department is on record stating that millions of dollars have been spent recruiting, training, networking, and equipping armies of "activists" from these targeted nations since at least 2008 to return home and sow the very unrest seen at the beginning of the "Arab Spring" - unrest that has served as the very foundation for the violence now plaguing Syria.
And even as the UN's Kofi Annan disingenuously peddles his 6-point "peace plan," the US, European Union, and their Arab League junior partners, are funding and arming the rebels to continue the fight even while attempting to hold the Syrian government accountable to the peace deal they themselves brazenly flaunt.
Never has it been so obvious that "international law" and "humanitarian concerns" are merely the latest contrived rhetorical devices, institutionalized as "the responsibility to protect," to expand the financial, political, and tactical hegemony of today's imperialists across the globe.
Image: Brookings Institution's Middle East Memo #21 "Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)," makes no secret that the humanitarian "responsibility to protect" is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Yet despite brazen admissions by US policy think-tanks like the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution, that the latest peace deal in Syria is nothing more than a ploy to buy time to continue eroding the Syrian government in pursuit of Western orchestrated regime change, and political "commentators" drawn from Fortune 500 funded institutions like the Henry Jackson Society admitting that "diplomatic options" are merely the West paying lip service ahead of unilateral military intervention, there are still throngs of brain-addled pundits parroting the latest US State Department talking-points regarding a brutal regime mass murdering its own people and how it is the moral imperative of the West to intervene.
The latest, and perhaps most depraved grandstanding yet, comes to us from United States President Obama, who stood in front of the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum correlating Syria's President Bashar al-Assad's efforts to restore order to his nation to Adolf Hitler's US and British eugenics-inspired, Bush-bankrolled, IBM facilitated racial superiority death cult.
Worse than even the real history behind World War II, is the fact that since then, the United States has conducted a global campaign of systematic atrocities killing easily as many Vietnamese and Iraqis as Hitler did Jews.
To this day, the United States maintains an unparalleled global network of torture chambers and hit teams as it combs the planet extra-judicially executing and imprisoning people with absolute impunity.
Image: A particularly relevant exhibit at the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum. President Obama, using the museum as a backdrop, set the stage for the continuation of Wall Street and London's own crimes against humanity. Students of history however, will understand that Hitler's Nazis weren't pioneers of genocide and global domination, but merely clumsy imitators inspired by what the Anglo-Americans were already in the process of perfecting.
In fact, the very personalities behind the sort of atrocities carried out by the United States over the last 20 years are still dictating US foreign policy today.
Despite the charade carried on by Obama and his alleged "liberal" presidency, he has merely fronted for the continuation of a singular agenda meted out by Wall Street and London's think-tanks with but the flimsiest veneer of "progressive liberalism" laid over it.
For those that take a few minutes to look into the details of what is presented to them by a serially compromised corporate-media, they will see yet another "Iraq-style" pack of lies being paraded before them to justify continued meddling in Syria.
Just like in Libya before it, Syria will not face salvation by means of a NATO intervention, it will face total destruction.
Sanctions of "luxury goods" announced just this week by the White House are aimed at peeling away the Syrian government's supporters, hoping that, through basic game theory, the ruling elite across Syria will take the bait to "save themselves."
In reality, the collapse of the Syrian government will lead to the same perpetual instability, lawlessness, division, and murderous mayhem Libya has been plunged into- to the benefit of no one but the multinationals.
Imperialism throughout the ages has always been sold with rhetoric peddling a "higher cause." Whether it was taming the barbarians outside the gates of Rome, spreading "superior" Anglo civilization to the four corners of the globe, the big-oil and banker expansionism during America's manifest destiny, or today's "humanitarian wars," the underlying truth is one of megalomania, exploitation, and human depravity on an ever increasing scale.
It is peddled with simplistic rhetoric aimed at the most impressionable, weakest of minds. The support these gullible minds lend the powered elite results in catastrophic consequences not only for the victims of imperialism, but for the empires themselves - inevitably wrecked by insatiable, unchecked greed.
Syria is just one prize of many sought after by a long line of empires attempting to feed the world, its people, and resources into its ever-hungry maw.
And Syria itself has been the subject of imperial ambitions many times in the past, including those of the Romans, Ottomans, the French, and now the Anglo-Americans.
Unlike in the past, where information was difficult to come by for the average person, there is no excuse for ignorance, nor for believing the same tired lies told by the global elite in their quest to mobilize entire populations to sustain their own self-serving agenda.
While the allure to "fit in" with what we think the rest of the world is thinking is persuasive, it is illogical, and in reality an illusion.
What the TV tells us on a daily basis is not what the rest of the world thinks - it is what the rest of the world is told to think by an extremely small minority.
Image: Confessed liar Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi is proud that his politically motivated fabrications regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were eagerly used by the West as a convenient casus belli for their predetermined invasion and the subsequent death, maiming, and displacement of millions. There are "al-Janabis" in every nation waiting for the right climate in which to flourish - and an eager cadre of neo-imperialists seeking them out as they expand their corporate-financier empires across the planet. Libya's Sliman Bouchuiguir was one of them. Syria's human rights "Observatory" is another.
Syria's government could not stand for as long as it has with only a military backing it.
It has support across both the upper echelons of Syrian society, as well as across the myriad of minorities who all stand to lose should NATO's terrorist proxies, drunk on extremist doctrine and promises of dominion over their fellow Syrians, come to power.
This is precisely why NATO has adopted a two-prong strategy - terrorize Syria's minorities into submission and penalize Syria's elite until they defect.
More importantly, Syria has stood against insidious foreign meddling for over a year because the people see themselves, their nation, and their sovereignty, both personal and national, at risk.
Whatever transgressions they face under the Syrian government, it is ultimately still a Syrian government.
Whatever comes into being by NATO's blood-soaked hands will be entirely divorced from anything "Syrian."
In Libya, it took the form of Abdurrahim el-Keib - a long time US resident, chairman of the BP, Shell, Total-funded Petroleum Institute who has swiftly moved to sell the nation out from under the Libyan people.
Worst of all, he has done so as a first priority, even at the expense of Libya's security and territorial integrity.
Image: The "fruits" of NATO's regime change in Libya - a client state run by US resident, BP, Total, and Shell-funded Petroleum Institute chairman, Abdurrahim el-Keib whose policy is dictated by Wall Street and London, not the aspirations of the Libyan people. Neo-imperialists seek to turn Syria into a similar footstool of Western power.
The oligarchs of Wall Street and London will continue directing their vast propaganda networks to portray the violence they themselves are fueling as a one-sided atrocity carried out solely by the long-targeted Syrian government.
They will continue to use the UN as a willing tool to develop their casus belli for military intervention on behalf of known terrorists.
We will also see the West attempt various ploys to prod members of the Syrian government and military into defecting as Syria is slowly destroyed just as in Libya.
It is not enough for the world to simply ward off a military intervention by the Wall Street and London oligarchs.
Regardless, Syria will still be picked apart.
It must be made clear that as US President Obama stands before a memorial for victims of Nazi war crimes, he and the corporate-financiers he speaks on behalf of, are in the middle of carrying out their own vast crimes against humanity - on a scale far exceeding anything the Nazis could have hoped to accomplish - and they do so with UN and NATO complicity.
No matter how much power these self-proclaimed leaders garner, no matter how many people they succeed in turning to their cause, rationally, logically, historically, and morally, they are wrong.
No amount of contrived institutional approval or signed resolutions makes what is being done in Syria, or what was done to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan right.
This is modern day empire being propagated not by nation-states, but by corporate-financiers, fueled by our daily patronage of their goods and services, who see themselves as transcending the nation-state.
And because even imperialism in its purest form is beyond the understanding of many people, it becomes doubly so in its new, stateless form.
Thank you Tony Cartalucci for providing full copyright to your articles.
NSearch is a good source and good place to mirror your accurate articles like this kind.
Before carrying out this plan, Sharon needed to control Israel's intelligence survices and its "Temple" weapons -- the nuclear arsenal. Men loyal to him and his strategic goals were put into key positions. One of the first of the Old Guard to be shoved out was Binyamin Blumberg, who had served since the 1950s as head of the Office of Special Tasks, widely known in the early 1980s by its Hebrew acronym, LAKAM. The new head of LAKAM was a Sharon crony and a long-time clandestine operative named Rafael (Rafi) Eitan, who was then also serving as Begin's special assistant for counterterrorism. He would keep both jobs. The ambitious Eitan, known throughout Israel as "Rafi the stinker", had participated in the 1960 kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires and was a veteran of many operations inside the Arab world. He had been forced to resign, nonetheless, from Mossad years earlier, and was bitter about his stunted career and the failure of Mossad and Israel's other intelligence agencies to cooperate with his counterterrorism office.
Sharon did not hide his political agenda, but publicly spelled it out on many occasions after leaving the Israeli Army in 1973. His major goals included the overthrow of King Hussein of Jordan and the transformation of that country into a Palestinian state, to which Palestinian refugees would be "transferred" -- or driven. A few weeks after his return from Washington in the early fall of 1981, Sharon called together the senior officer corps of the Israeli Defense Force and told them for the first time about his specific plans to put his political agenda into effect -- Israel was going to invade Lebanon. One officer who was present recalled that he and others were dismayed to hear Sharon "talk about the need to go to Lebanon and destroy the 'capital of terrorism'". He talked of the long reach of the IDF and the need -- "not in such words", the officer said -- "to change regimes in the Arab world". The Israeli officer, a former intelligence specialist, further recalled Sharon's talk about the "need to change the structure of Israeli intelligence."
"I was sitting with a bunch of brigadiers [generals]", the officer added, "and I said, 'He's going to take us to war in the Middle Est'. There was nervous laughter all around."
There was one more distinct element in the Sharon briefing: "He returned [from Washington] anti-American, in a way I'd never detected before. He gave us his impression of Washington. He said, 'Americans treat us like an aircraft carrier -- a floating base. They don't understand our real significance: we're not one aircraft carrier. We are twenty aircraft carriers. We are much more important than they think. We can take the Middle East with us wheneveer we go.'" It was a strange and unsettling performance, the oficer thought, punctuated by Sharon's threat to "court-martal" anyone who publicly discussed what he had said.
Israel's strategic plan to dissolve the Arab states by breaking them down into smaller sectarian units was laid out openly in an 1982 essay by Oded Yinon, an Israeli strategist. Oded pointed to the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the ruling Shiite Alawi minority in Syria. He emphasized the Sunni-Shiite split in Iraq: Sixty five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. He made similar analyses of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf principalities, Iran, Turkey, and Sudan and wrote that the entire region extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems. Oded looked forward to Lebanon's dissolution into five provinces serving as a precedent for the entire Middle East, but he noted that Iraq's dissolution:
"is even more important for us than that of Syria In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious line as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, and Shiite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north." (31)
The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.
The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad.
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2002 9:22 am
Subject: Sharansky discusses his role in Bush's speech
July 15, 2002
Sharansky’s Quiet Role
What pushed Bush to demand that Arafat must go? Part of the answer lies on a forest path in Colorado
By Dan Ephron and Tamara Lipper
Natan Sharansky, one time Soviet dissident and now an Israeli cabinet minister, had been hammering at the same themes for years in lectures and private meetings with U.S. officials: peace would never be possible without democracy. Suddenly something clicked at a conference of conservative heavyweights in Beaver Creek, Colo., last month.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK Cheney was there, taking notes. So was Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Defense secretary. The two Americans had been working with others on a major Middle East policy speech for the president, and though they had both met Sharansky many times before, his address struck a chord. Dump the region’s dictators, and make democracy a precondition for peace. “It was pretty much the talk of the conference,” says Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon adviser who helped bring Sharansky to the forum. Two days later President George W. Bush announced the United States was fed up with the Palestinian leadership and effectively ended the era of American engagement with Arafat.
Score one for Sharansky and his crusade to alter the course of American diplomacy. Bush’s speech, possibly the most significant Middle East policy announcement by the United States in a decade, was hardly his doing alone. Arafat fatigue in the Bush administration had been on the rise at least since January, when U.S. officials believe the Palestinian leader lied to Bush about an arms shipment from Iran. Israeli intelligence kept up a steady stream of information linking Arafat to the financing of suicide attacks. By the time Cheney and other delegates arrived at the June 20 conference, Bush advisers had been working on the address for weeks and written nearly 30 drafts, according to one official. Sharansky may have strengthened the resolve of officials who argued against wording that would keep lines open to Arafat. The decision to drop the Palestinian leader was made shortly before Bush spoke out. “Sharansky provided an important bit of last-minute affirmation,” says Perle.
Palestinians object that Arafat is no dictator. He was elected in a 1996 ballot deemed free and fair by observers. And though his regime has jailed political opponents and trampled free speech, Israelis have hardly done better. Palestinians never had full civil rights during decades of Israeli rule.
Sharansky is hoping he had a hand in reshaping U.S. policy. At the conference, he says, he spoke privately with Cheney for more than an hour Saturday, two days before the Bush announcement. “More than half our talk was devoted to what would be said in the speech,” he says. Later Saturday, Sharansky and Wolfowitz were due at a dinner reception, but as an observant Jew, Sharansky said he couldn’t drive on the Sabbath. Instead, he and Wolfowitz trudged through a forest on foot to get to the dinner, their bodyguards in tow. “It gave us a chance to talk about everything—Arafat, international terrorism, Iraq and Iran and, of course, Jewish history, our roots and so on,” Sharansky says.
That coziness reflects a meeting of minds between Sharansky and Bush’s chief ideologues. Sharansky reads the Bush speech as a broader policy statement about dictators everywhere and says the United States should withdraw support not only for Arafat but for regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia. That might be going too far for Washington, where officials say Bush had mainly Palestinians and Israelis in mind.
But as far as the Israelis are concerned, it’s a big step in the right direction.
With Daniel Klaidman in Washington
NOTE: Zionist leaders in the foreign state of Israel, in other words, can and do determine U.S. Foreign Policy.
Sharansky's motive is obviously not democracy for the Arab people. Read next about the deception behind Sharansky's influence on the "Bush doctrine" of using U.S. military force to "liberate" first Iraq and then force "progress" upon the several other Arab nations.
Sharansky was denied an exit visa to Israel in 1973. The reason given for denial of the visa was that he had been given access, at some point in his career, to information vital to Soviet national security and could not now be allowed to leave. After that Sharansky became a human rights activist and spokesperson for the Moscow Helsinki Group. Sharansky was one of the founders of the Refusenik movement in Moscow. In 1977 Sharansky was arrested on charges of spying for the United States and treason and sentenced to 13 years of forced labor in Perm 35, a Siberian labor camp (Gulag).
As a result of an international campaign led by his wife, Avital Sharansky (including assistance from East German lawyer Wolfgang Vogel, New York Congressman Benjamin Gilman and rabbi Ronald Greenwald) Sharansky and three low-level Western spies (Czech citizen Jaroslav Javorský and West German citizens Wolf-Georg Frohn and Dietrich Nistroy) were exchanged for Czech spies Karl Koecher and Hana Koecher held in the USA, Soviet spy Yevgeni Zemlyakov, Polish spy Jerzy Kaczmarek and East German spy Detlef Scharfenorth (the latter three held in West Germany) in 1986 on Glienicke Bridge. Sharansky was released in February 1986. He was the first political prisoner ever released by Mikhail Gorbachev due to intense political pressure from Ronald Reagan.