Category: Wikileaks

About Wikileaks

Subscribe Feeds

Assad, de 2006 plannen voor de omverwerping van zijn bewind………

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Al vaker hier aangekaart: de westerse aanzet tot de opstand in Syrië. In het volgende artikel van Information Clearing House (ICH), wordt zelfs het jaar 2006 genoemd, als het jaar waarin de eerste aanzet tot de omverwerping van het Assad regime werd voorbereid (voor een vertaling, die wel wat tijd in beslag neemt, kan u onder dit artikel op Dutch klikken):


Divide et Impera

The Imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 3 of 7 – Part 1

By Kim Petersen and B. J. Sabri


 From The WikiLeaks Files:


 A December 13, 2006 cable, “Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006,” indicates that, as far back as 2006 – five years before “Arab Spring” protests in Syria – destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable, Roebuck wrote:

We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.

This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means, and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have. In public the US was in favor of economic reform, but in private the US saw conflict between economic reform and “entrenched, corrupt forces” as an “opportunity.” In public, the US was opposed to “Islamist extremists” everywhere; but in private it saw the “potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists” as an “opportunity” that the US should take action to try to increase.


 Roebuck lists Syria’s relationship with Iran as a “vulnerability” that the US should try to “exploit.” His suggested means of doing so are instructive:

Possible action:

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business….

Roebuck thus argued that the US should try to destabilize the Syrian government by coordinating more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia, including by the promotion of “exaggerated” fears of Shia proselytizing of Sunnis, and of concern about “the spread of Iranian influence” in Syria in the form of mosque construction and business activity.

By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the secretary of state and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government. At that time, no one in the US government could credibly have claimed innocence of the possible implications of such a policy…

It was easy to predict then that, while a strategy of promoting sectarian conflict in Syria might indeed help undermine the Syrian government, it could also help destroy Syrian society. But this consideration does not appear in Roebuck’s memo at all, as he recommends that the US government cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian tensions.1


 From the US Congress


 The US path to destroy Syria is long. On 12 April 2003, twenty-four days after the US invasion of Iraq, a Zionist representative from New York, Eliot T. Engle, sponsored the Syria Accountability Act (SAA). The charge was Syria’s involvement of terrorism, aiding Saddam Hussein (meaning Iraq) escaping sanctions, helping the insurgency against the US invasion of Iraq, supporting of Hezbollah, chemical weapons, and so on. (We have to go on record on an important issue. Saying “a Zionist representative” is not a vacuous namedropping—it is a political statement indicative of how Israel passes its policy aims in Syria and the Arab world through the American legislative system.) The Act was passed in December 2003. Invoking the omnipresent pretext of American national security and pretending “constitutional” presidential privileges on foreign policy, George Bush essentially turned the Israeli policy toward Syria into a policy of the United States. (For reading: Statement by the President on H.R. 1828)

In his article, “The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003: Two Years On,” David Schenker, from the Zionist-imperialist think tank, the Washington Institute, recalled his experience in testifying before the House of Representatives (7 June 2006). He wrote, “Syria has proven a tough nut to crack. The SAA has helped, although the Legislation itself is not sufficient to compel a change in Syrian behavior. The Bush Administration has adopted some steps, but the challenge is how to leverage the SAA in conjunction with other tools at the Administration’s disposal—multilateral efforts in particular—to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to force behavioral change.” “Ratchet up pressure” is the key phrase as to what US neocons/Zionists believe they must do in Syria, not only in connection to Lebanon, but also, obviously, in relation what Syria represents for Israel—a rejectionist state of Israel that must be destroyed.


 The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri


 The assassination of Rafiq Hariri (a billionaire, dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and a former prime minister of Lebanon) on 14 February 2005 is the paramount example of how the United States, Western Europe, and Israel plan their subversion against the Arab states that do not obey US diktat, or resist US-backed Israeli colonialist-imperialism. The assassination offers a very interesting angle with regard how pretexts are developed and used. Let us see why Hariri was killed. On 2 September 2004, the UNSC issued resolution 1559 calling on Syria to withdraw its remaining forces from Lebanon. Syria complied but only partially and slowly.

The ruse to get Syria out of Lebanon—which was a part of Greater Syria in history until France, using its Sykes-Picot mandate over Syria, severed it and made it an independent state in 1943—had, therefore, to be achieved by other means. The assassination of Hariri was that specific means. With the accusation that Syria was behind the assassination, the stage was set to force Syria’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon under the threat of enforcing resolution 1559 by military means. Forty-five days after the assassination (5 April 2005), Syria began its withdrawal from Lebanon and completed it by the end of that month.


 Who ordered the assassination of Hariri?


 Since neither Syria nor Hezbollah had stakes in the assassination of Hariri, who benefited from it? Our logical answer is Israel and the United States. [2] Considering the long list of objectives of these two states in the situation of all Arab states, proving this assertion is a matter of deductive reasoning.

Having briefly described the path the United States took in the quest to destabilize Syria, it is important to see its current methods of war. If the US plans in Syria were insufficient to raise alarm, we have to deal with other features applied on the Syrian theater of death (and before that in Afghanistan and Iraq). We are talking about an imperialist instrument of war: vocabulary as a weapon of mass confusion. Many terms and phrases had been coined to make people conform to Washington’s indoctrination. But do terms such as “moderate,” “extremist,” “moderate Arab states—who are they?”, “Islamic,” Islamist,” “dictator,” “democracy,” “no role for Assad in the future of Syria,” “Sunni,” “Alawite,” “Shiite,” “ISIS,” “stop the Iranian occupation of Syria,” “IS,” “DAESH,” “U.S. hitting ISIS,” etc., have any tangible meaning outside the world of imperialist propaganda?


 Let us examine some of these terms. Does the diction “a future for Syria without Assad” have any meaning? Would that be a re-made Syria with a bankrupt sectarian system similar to the one a criminal named George W. Bush and his Zionist neocons installed in Iraq? Would the US bring Noah Feldman or others to write a “constitution” for Syria? (Feldman is a Zionist lawyer from New York and a theoretician on “Islamic terrorism,” “Jihad,” and on so-called Islamic democracy. He authored the sectarian constitution for Iraq while this was under active US military occupation led by Paul Bremer. Bremer’s constitution, as the Iraqis call it, has become the cornerstone and foundation for the partition of Iraq on approximate confessional and ethnic lines.3


 Or, would it be a so-called Islamic state swearing allegiance to US imperialism, to Al Saud, and to the British-installed al-Thani ruling family of Qatar? What is the implication of saying that Assad is the problem, yet names behind state policies such as Obama, Erdogan, Hollande, Merkel, Turki al-Faisal, or Bandar Bin Sultan go unmentioned in this context? What does the Syrian “moderate opposition” mean in the US imperialist lexicon, if not groups financed and supported by Washington? And for clarity’s sake, we ask, moderate in what?


 Again, what is the US game in Syria?


 Let us cite Condoleezza Rice. Rice is the quintessential dual-face American hypocrite when the issue is US interventions. Although the first quotation we cite below is about Iraq, its philosophy and intent applies to US policy in Syria.

Rice, describing in petty melodramatic terms (similar to those one can find in a cheap romance novel) how she confronted her master criminal boss on the sectarian violence that the United States designed and implemented in Iraq, wrote the following [Italics are ours]:

“So what’s your plan, Condi?” The president was suddenly edgy and annoyed. “We’ll just let them kill each other, and we’ll standby and try to pick the pieces?”

I was furious at the implication….”No, Mr. President,” I said, trying to stay calm. “We just can’t win by putting our forces in the middle of their blood feud. If they want to have a civil war we’re going to have to let them.”4

Comment: 1) Rice is shameful. She made her criminal boss look caring. 2) Rice, daughter of a Presbyterian minister who presumably taught her not to lie, lied big. First, calling sectarian infighting “civil war” is deception because these are two different entities. Sectarian strife within a nation pits a community against another with dissimilar beliefs or ethnic origins. Civil conflict is between political factions within a nation regardless of sectarian or confessional beliefs. The US uses both terms interchangeably to obfuscate the nature of its interference in the pursuit of specific policy objectives.

Besides, there never was any sectarian infighting between Arab Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq until the US invasion and occupation fomented it to preempt resistance to its occupation. 3) Rice and her neocon masters thrive when sectors of a nation they occupy engage in violent infighting—it provides them easier means of control. This happened in the Philippines, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and it is now happening in Libya and Syria through mercenaries and proxies. That is why we often hear US imperialists and Arab stooges talking about things like “Assad wants to make an Alawite state,” “ISIS is a fact,” “Kurds want their own state and so do the Assyrians and the Armenians,” and so on. Regardless of terminology or concepts, the US strategy is unexceptional—it is an ancient Roman imperial and military strategy: Divide et Impera.


 With regard to how US duality works in the Syrian example, let us consider the exchange she had with Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Muollem:

“… I delivered my point about Syria’s interference in Lebanon, and its failure to stop terrorists in their country from crossing their borders into Iraq.”

“it’s hard to stop them,” he said, but I was having none of it.

“They’re coming through Damascus airport,” I countered.5

Comment: We know what US exceptionalism means: it is okay for the US to interfere in the affairs of every country in the world, but others are not permitted to do so except with US approval. It is not okay that volunteers cross Syria into Iraq to fight the US invasion force, but it is okay for America’s stooges to allow weapons and mercenaries to Syria through Turkish and Jordanian airports.


 In recalling the documented history of US interference in the affairs of myriad countries including its staunchest ally Britain (read, “Harold Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1964-68”), the present authors state the following:

The violence in Syria is not an accidental product of uncontrolled events, is not a result of a civil war, is not because the Syrian state is ruled by despotic elites—but it is a result of a combined American-Israeli geopolitical strategy to install a new Syrian regime at the order of Tel Aviv and Washington. Syria, therefore, is not but another link—after Iraq, Libya, and Yemen— in the US and Israeli quest to dismantle the Arab system of nation, and to end the Palestinian Question permanently.


 Let us now examine what was cooking in the US pot against Syria 60 years ago. In his outstanding research on the CIA plotting and machinations against the Arab nations including Syria during the 1950s, California State University history professor, Hugh Wilford, wrote the following:

On August 21, 1956, Foster Dulles convened GAMMA, a top-secret task force with representatives from State, Defense, and the CIA … GAMMA’s main contribution was to agree to a proposal to send the eminent foreign service veteran Loy Henderson on a tour of the Middle East that seemed intended to incite military aggression against Syria by its Arab neighbors…. Henderson told a meeting in the White House that he had discovered a deep sense of anxiety about Syria in the region, yet little concerted will to act; only Turkey, a NATO ally, showed much appetite for intervention….”6


 Let us fast forward to the US occupation of Iraq. On page 473 of his book, The Twilight War(Penguin Press, New York, 2012), David Crist (a historian from the US imperialist establishment) writes, “’Recock’ became the word of the day at CENTCOM. The United States would get out of Iraq and prepare for the next war in the global fight against terrorism, with rumors circulating that Syria was next. The U.S. military concurred.”

Why Syria “was next” on the US list of priorities? Has Syria ever harmed or threatened the national security of the United States? No. But because Israel strongly influences US foreign policy (read, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”) toward the Arab states, and because Syria is the last Arab state resisting Israeli imperialism there are two concrete answers.7

First, Israel wants to weaken Syria and dismember it, as it wanted done to Iraq by American neocon Zionists. Dismembering Syria should expose the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah that depends on Syria for support. The second is more complex. First, controlling Syria enters in the logic of American quest of global hegemony. Second, to carve out a Kurdish autonomous region to be joined with the areas controlled by Iraqi Kurds creating a Kurdish State potentially at the service of US imperialism and Israel.8, 9 Third, Syria’s eastern regions and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights have sizeable oil deposits. (Read, “World powers must recognize Israeli annexation of Golan Heights”; “Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights – Israeli media”). 4) From an imperialist perspective, the geopolitical re-design of the region would help expand plans for the strategic control of world resources and distribution.


 Crist’s revelation impels us to reflect on the motives and ideologies that underlie all anti-Arab actions taken by the United States. What we have today in Syria (and Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Palestine) is an accurate reproduction of age-old tested policies by the West at the expense of nations targeted for reasons rooted in the politics of imperialism, colonialism, Zionism, and piracy of resources. In Syria, however, the situation is a little bit more intricate due to the presence of a long list of operators never seen before in a single regional war, not even in Afghanistan.


 Kim Petersen is a former editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached atkimohp@inbox.com

B. J. Sabri is an observer of the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism, Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com

Next: Part 4 of 7

NOTES


  3. See Kim Petersen, “Syria in the Imperialist Crosshairs,” Dissident Voice, 26 October 2005.

  4. Note: since the dawn of Islam in Iraq (early 7th century) until the US invasion (2003), and regardless what administrative geopolitical form distinguished it, there have never been confessional lines in all Arab regions of Iraq or ethnic lines separating the various communities. However, historically, and during the rule of the Ottoman Turks, Arab Shiite Muslims formed a relative majority in the South of Iraq and Sunnis in the rest. After WWII, the lines between Arab Shiite and Sunni Muslims became integrated due to internal migrations and economic development. The US deliberately created the lines when it imposed a No-Fly Zone on specific regions of Iraq in 1991 after the war for Kuwait. As for the Kurdish regions, with the exception of Sulaymaniya and Erbil with a Kurdish Majority, most of the north of Iraq was inhabited by a mixture of ethnic Groups including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkoman, Kurds, and Yezidis. The US arbitrarily delineated Kurdish areas when it imposed the non-fly Zone on the north of Iraq in 1991.

  5. Condoleezza Rice, No Higher Honor, Crown Publishers, New York, 2011, p. 544, 561

  6. Rice, 561

  7. Hugh Wilford, America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Basic Books, New York, 2013, p. 273

  8. Note: Lebanon cannot be described as a resister state. Resistance to Israel in Lebanon follows confessional lines. 1) The Saudi-controlled faction led by Saad Hariri is in line with the policy of accommodation adapted by Al Saud vs. Israel. 2) Christians are divided in two camps: the Faranjia and Aoun camp that opposes Israel; and the Geagea and Jmail (supported by Saudi Arabia) that seeks accommodation and had very close relations with Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon). The Jumblatt Druze faction (supported by Al Saud) has been known for continuous zigzagging on the issue of the resistance to Israel. This leaves only Hezbollah as the real opponent of Israeli settler-imperialism. Outside the Arab world, Iran is the only other remaining state that opposes Israel.

  9. The Kurdish Question in Iraq goes beyond the scope of this work. Succinctly, there is a US-Kurdish connection in the context of imperialism, dependency; Iraqi Kurdish politician Masoud Barzani has collaborated in turning a potential Kurdish state into a tool at the service of US imperialism and Israel.

  10. In his article, “To defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State,” John Bolton stated, “The Kurds still face enormous challenges, with dangerously uncertain borders, especially with Turkey. But an independent Kurdistan that has international recognition could work in America’s favor.” [Italics added]
Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Zie ook: ‘Jan Jaap de Ruiter (Tilburg ‘University’): Assad is een groter gevaar dan IS…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Koenders: ‘Assad moet terecht staan in Den Haag………’ OEI!!!‘

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Hezbollah’.

Jemenitische rebellen en Iran slachtoffer van internationale leugens, aanvankelijk zelfs uit VN burelen……..

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Mensen hier een vergeten concept, maar nog even actueel: de beschuldiging dat Iran de Houthi rebellen zou voorzien van wapens en munitie. Deze leugen is al eerder doorgeprikt maar gezien het feit dat men in de reguliere media deze leugen nog steeds propageert, kan het niet genoeg herhaald worden, vindt u ‘ook niet?’ Hier het artikel van Information Clearing House (u kunt onder dit artikel klikken voor een vertaling, dat kost wel wat tijd) :

How False Stories of Iran Arming the Houthis Were Used to Justify War in Yemen

By Gareth Porter
January 02, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Truth Out” – Peace talks between the Saudi-supported government of Yemen and the Houthi rebels ended in late December without any agreement to end the bombing campaign started by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies with US support last March. The rationale for the Saudi-led war on Houthis in Yemen has been that the Houthis are merely proxies of Iran, and the main alleged evidence for that conclusion is that Iran has been arming the Houthis for years.
The allegation of Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis – an allegation that has often been mentioned in press coverage of the conflict but never proven – was reinforced by a report released last June by a panel of experts created by the UN Security Council: The report concluded that Iran had been shipping arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen by sea since at least 2009. But an investigation of the two main allegations of such arms shipments made by the Yemeni government and cited by the expert panel shows that they were both crudely constructed ruses.

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that the story of the arms onboard the ship had been concocted by the government.

The government of the Republic of Yemen, then dominated by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, claimed that it had seized a vessel named Mahan 1 in Yemeni territorial waters on October 25, 2009, with a crew of five Iranians, and that it had found weapons onboard the ship. The UN expert panel report repeated the official story that authorities had confiscated the weapons and that the First Instance Court of Sana’a had convicted the crew of the Mahan 1 of smuggling arms from Iran to Yemen.
But diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in Yemen released by WikiLeaks in 2010 reveal that, although the ship and crew were indeed Iranian, the story of the arms onboard the ship had been concocted by the government. On October 27, 2009, the US Embassy sent a cable to the State Department noting that the Embassy of Yemen in Washington had issued a press statement announcing the seizure of a “foreign vessel carrying a quantity of arms and other goods….” But another cable dated November 11, 2009, reported that the government had “failed to substantiate its extravagant public claims that an Iranian ship seized off its coast on October 25 was carrying military trainers, weapons and explosives destined for the Houthis.”
Furthermore, the cable continued, “sensitive reporting” – an obvious reference to US intelligence reports on the issue – “suggests that the ship was carrying no weapons at all.”
A follow-up Embassy cable five days later reported that the government had already begun to revise its story in light of the US knowledge that no arms had been found on board. “The ship was apparently empty when it was seized,” according to the cable. “However, echoing a claim by Yemen Ambassador al-Hajj, FM [Foreign Minister] Qaairbi told Pol Chief [chief of the US Embassy’s political section] on 11/15 the fact that the ship was empty indicated the arms had already been delivered.”

President Saleh had hoped to use the Mahan 1 ruse to get the political support of the US for a war to defeat the Houthis.

President Saleh had hoped to use the Mahan 1 ruse to get the political support of the US for a war to defeat the Houthis, which he was calling “Operation Scorched Earth.” But as a December 2009 cable noted, it was well known among Yemeni political observers that the Houthis were awash in modern arms and could obtain all they needed from the huge local arms market or directly from the Yemeni military itself.
Unlike the government’s story of the Mahan 1 and its phantom weapons, the official claim that a ship called the Jihan 1, seized on January 23, 2013, had arms onboard was true. But the totality of the evidence shows that the story of an Iranian arms shipment to the Houthis was false.
The ship was stopped in Yemeni waters by a joint patrol of the Yemeni Coast Guard and the US Navy, and an inspection found a cache of weapons and ammunition. The cargo including man-portable surface-to-air missiles, 122-millimeter rockets, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, C-4 plastic explosive blocks and equipment for improvised explosive devices.
Some weeks later, the UN expert panel inspected the weaponry said to have been found on board the Jihan 1 and found labels stuck on ammunition boxes with the legend “Ministry of Sepah” – the former name of the Iranian military logistics ministry. The panel report said the panel had determined that “all available information placed the Islamic Republic of Iran at the centre of the Jihan operation.”
But except for those labels, which could have been affixed to the boxes after the government had taken possession of the arms, nothing about the ship or the weapons actually pointed to Iran. All of the crew and the businessmen said to have arranged the shipment were Yemenis, according to the report. And the expert panel cited no evidence that the ship was Iranian or that the weapons were manufactured in Iran.

The expert panel cited no evidence that the ship was Iranian or that the weapons were manufactured in Iran.

The case rested on the testimony of the Yemeni crew members of the Jihan 1 – then still in government custody – who said they had sailed from Yemen to the Iranian port of Chabahar, had been taken to another Iranian port and then ferried by small boat to the Jihan 1 sitting off the Iranian coast. But although the panel said it had access to “waypoint data retrieved from Global Positioning System (GPS) devices,” it did not cite any such data that supported the crew members’ story. In fact, the panel acknowledged that it had “no information regarding the location at which the Jihan was loaded with arms….”
A crucial fact about the cargo, moreover, points not to Iran but to Yemen itself as the origin of the ship: The weapons on the ship were hidden under diesel fuel tanks and could be accessed only after those tanks had been emptied. The expert panel referred to that fact but failed to discuss its significance. But the June 2013report of a UN Security Council Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea said that Jihan 1’s crew members had “divulged to a diplomatic source who interviewed them in Aden that the diesel was bound for Somalia.” An unnamed Yemeni official confirmed that fact, which the crew members had kept from the Security Council expert panel, according to the UN Monitoring Group report.
The fact that the Jihan 1 was headed for Somalia indicates that the ship was engaged in a commercial smuggling operation – not a politically motivated delivery. The lucrative business of smuggling diesel fuel from Yemen to Somalia had long been combined with arms smuggling to the same country across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, as the Monitoring Group report made clear. The Monitoring Group report explained that the reason authorities in the Puntland region of Somalia had made it illegal to import petroleum products was that arms had so often been smuggled into ports on its coast hidden under diesel fuel.
The same UN Monitoring Group report also revealed that a series of arms shipments had been smuggled to Somalia in late 2012 – just before the Jihan 1 was seized – in which rocket-propelled grenade launchers were the primary component and IED components and electrical detonators were also prominent. Those were also major components of the Jihan 1 weapons shipment. The report said information received from the Puntland authorities and its own investigation had “established Yemen as a principal source of the these shipments.”
A key piece of evidence confirming that those arms had originated in Yemen was a communication from the Bulgarian government to the UN Monitoring Group indicating that all the rocket-propelled grenade rounds and propellant charges in one lot manufactured in Bulgaria and seized in Somalia had been delivered to the Yemeni armed forces in 2010.
The information in the Monitoring Group report thus points to Yemeni arms smugglers as the source of the cargo of weapons and diesel fuel aboard the Jihan 1. When the arms were seized by the joint US-Yemen patrol, the Yemeni government evidently decided to exploit it by creating a new story of an Iranian arms shipment to the Houthis, and later used the Yemeni crew to provide the details to the UN expert panel.
The Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group’s report created an obvious problem for the official story of the Jihan 1, and the Yemeni government’s anti-Iran, Western backers sought to give the story a new twist.Reuters quoted a “Western diplomat” as citing the Jihan 1 arms shipment as evidence that Iran had actually been involved in supplying arms to al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia. The anonymous source noted that the cargo had included C-4 explosives such as were used by al-Shabaab for terrorist bombings, whereas the Houthis were not known to carry out such operations. But that claim was hardly credible, because al-Shabaab had close ties to al-Qaeda and was therefore an enemy of Iran. It has not been repeated except in pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli media outlets.
The Jihan 1 story and the broader narrative of intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis, as recycled by the UN Security Council expert panel, have nevertheless become key pieces of the widely accepted history of the regional conflicts involving Iran.
Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter) is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in February 2014.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dat geldt niet voor het label ‘Ali Abdullah Saleh’.

FBI beschuldigt China van economische spionage…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Telmo Claro

In de VS hebben politiediensten en geheime diensten een totaal gebrek aan schaamte, sterker ze bezitten een uiterst grote dosis goor lef….. Zo liet de FBI gisteren weten, dat China zich op zeer grote schaal schuldig maakt aan economische spionage……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Hè, hè, die durven, godallemachtig! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Dit terwijl de hele wereld weet, dat m.n. de VS zich op zeer grote en uiterst grove manier schuldig heeft gemaakt en maakt aan bedrijfsspionage, dat hebben de geheime documenten die Snowden doorgaf aan Wikileaks, meer dan voldoende aangetoond. . Sterker nog: het is algemeen bekend dat de VS dit nog steeds doet, waar bijvoorbeeld het uiterst disfunctionele kabinet Rutte 2 weigert om ook maar één stap te nemen tegen de VS en hun te gebieden te kappen met grootschalige spionage op bedrijven en personen. Onze geheime diensten maken zelfs gebruik van de gegevens die de VS verzamelt, al zullen deze diensten de AIVD en MIVD (respectievelijk geleid door een ex-militair en een militair….) vooral geen waarschuwing uitgeven aan Nederlandse bedrijven, dat ze bespioneerd worden door de VS, iets dat ze eigenlijk van de daken zouden moeten schreeuwen…….. Vandaar dat u als ondernemer met een bedrijf, nooit in de ‘cloud’ moet werken (zelfs niet via KPN!!), want dat is de ‘VS kat’ op het spek binden!!

Ongelofelijk, wat een schoftentuig!!!!

Voor meer berichten met Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, spionage, bedrijfsspionage, AIVD, MIVD en/of FBI, klik op het desbetreffende label, onder dit bericht.

Assange en de verborgen agenda van Zweden

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Steeds meer hotemetoten zetten vraagtekens bij de beweegredenen van Assange, zo van: “waarom gaat hij niet naar Zweden voor een verhoor?” en: “De Wikileaks gaan toch wel erg ver”. Over dat laatste is al genoeg gezegd, echte geheimen die voor personen een gevaar voor hun leven kunnen opleveren, zijn niet gepubliceerd.

Als het Zweden alleen om een verhoor te doen is, waarom is er dan niet allang een verzoek aan Assange gedaan, zich in Groot Brittanie te laten verhoren door een Zweedse officier van Justitie?
Het is duidelijk, de geheime agenda van Zweden is uitlevering aan de VS.

Wikileaks, Drinkman en de Telegrof

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Ron Gonggrijp was afgelopen maandagavond op bezoek bij Pauw en Witteman. Aanleiding het strafrechtelijk onderzoek van de VS overheid naar Wikileaks en de leugencampagne van de Telegrof tegen Gonggrijp (de Telegraaf, u weet wel de meest foute krant tijdens WO II en die een verschijningsverbod kreeg, dat met hulp van bruine Bernhard werd opgeheven). Ter sprake kwam het filmpje van Wikileaks, waar te zien is hoe onschuldigen in Irak door een helikopter werden beschoten. Gevraagd aan Tricky Dick Berlijn, die ook aanwezig was, of het goed is dat dit filmpje openbaar is geworden, antwoord hij bevestigend. Hij durfde daar aan toe te voegen, dat Nederland zoiets niet doet en zowel, dan zou dit onmiddellijk aan het parlement bekend gemaakt worden. Dat hebben we gemerkt tricky Dick, wat een openheid over de burgerdoden die wij in Afghanistan en Irak, mede onder jouw bewind, hebben gemaakt, tjonge jonge! De Telegrof leugen ging onder andere over het leuren van Gonggrijp met 1 miljoen euro om webhosts te bewegen Wikileaks te steunen. Gongrijp haalde dit feilloos onderuit, voor 1 miljoen euro koop je een aantal van dit bedrijfjes op! Hero Drinkman (PVV, Ik meld het nog maar eens) ook al aanwezig, nam het op voor de Telegrof, ze zouden goed beslagen ter ijs komen en o.a. Siebelt opvoeren, de fantast misdaad/terreurdeskundige. Gonggrijp haalde ook dit weer onderuit, Siebelt heeft het over eind jaren 70, Gonggrijp zou toen contacten hebben gehad met diverse fundi-islamieten, helaas was Gonggrijp toen 11 jaar!
Drinkman werd gevraagd naar de schietpartij in de VS en wat de sherrif van Tucson daar over meldde (het gif dat door rechtse media over dombo’s wordt uitgegoten). Drinkman kan maar één groep bedenken in Nederland, die last heeft van ‘demonisering’ en dat is natuurlijk de PVV en die maakt zichzelf niet schuldig aan deze praktijken. Ja Drinkman, dat hebben we gemerkt, inderdaad weinig op de persoon gespeeld, maar net als de nazi’s in Duitsland in de jaren 20 en 30 van de vorige eeuw, telkens haat en angst zaaien met minderheidsgroepen als de grote schuldigen aanwijzen.
Huilie huilie? Liegie liegie, drinkie drinkie, klappie klappie, koppie koppie (van kopstoten, niet van verstand, enige vorm van verstand is ver te zoeken bij de PVV), dat is in het kort de PVV.

De roep om censuur in Nederland en de EU

Posted on by Telmo Claro

De ‘censuur’ rukt steeds verder op in Europa, nadat de centrumrechtse (en christelijke) partij Fidesz in Hongarije de pers en daarmee de vrijheid van meningsuiting aan banden wil leggen, willen Opstelten, minister van Justitie en de Jager, minister van Financiën, in Nederland de oproep tot een ‘bankrun’ strafbaar stellen. Dus de heren hebben hun werk wat betreft toezicht niet gedaan, maatregelen om te voorkomen dat banken op dezelfde manier gaan opereren zijn zwaar onvoldoende. Daarnaast worden er weer fikse bonussen uitgedeeld, ondanks de miljarden aan belastinggeld, die de banken ontvingen. Maar ja als je maar een kleine 700 duizend euro per jaar verdient, heb je ook wel een extraatje verdiend. Terug naar de voorgestelde maatregelen: Opstelten en de Jager nemen dus geen of te weinig maatregelen, maar om het klootjesvolk te laten geloven dat het ze menens is, gaan we censuur toepassen, het volk moet vooral niet achter de waarheid komen. De voorganger van Opstelten de CDA schijnheilige en gereformeerde kakzever Piet Hein ‘godverdomme’ Donner, riep een paar maanden geleden al op tot het aan banden leggen van de vrijheid van meningsuiting op het internet. Ook wat betreft Wikileaks laten de regeringspartijen niet onbetuigd, uit alle macht probeert men Wikileaks als misdadige organisatie aan te merken.
Wat betreft Hongarije hebben Nederlandse politici, zelfs CDA politici, de mond vol van schande en niet te tolereren, maar in het EU parlement is het doodstil, zeker bij de EVP, de Europese christenen, waar zowel Fidesz als het CDA lid van zijn. Het gaat al net als met Berlusconi (Balkenende’s grote vriend) en zijn partij in Italië, veel commentaar aan de koffietafel, maar de zusterpartij van de maffioos en pedo Berlusconi (die ook niet vies is van censuur) aanspreken en desnoods de EVP uitdonderen is er niet bij. Dan is het ineens een interne aangelegenheid. Bah!

De vruchten plukken van het westerse geweld in Irak en Afghanistan

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Weer een ‘mooie’ oogst van afgelopen weekeinde, dit keer in Stockholm. Afgelopen zaterdag vonden daar 2 bomaanslagen plaats. Terreur volgens de Zweedse autoriteiten. In het westen mogen we nog in onze handen knijpen, dat dit ‘incidenten’ zijn, dat is anders in Irak en Afghanistan. Dagelijks zijn daar aanslagen, waarvan er maar enkele in onze ‘pers’ verschijnen. De oorlogen die het ‘westen’ voerden en voeren in Afghanistan en Irak (in het geval van Irak ook nog eens gebaseerd op leugens), hebben daar meer haat gezaaid tegen ons westen, dan wij in onze stoutste dromen konden voorzien. Dit ondanks alle waarschuwingen van deskundigen niet aan die oorlogen te beginnen. De bevolking is in beide landen onevenredig hard getroffen, ondanks alle verzekeringen dat ‘wij’ ons best deden en doen om de burgers te ontzien. Erger nog zijn de moorden die door het westen gepleegd zijn in die landen, neem het laatste filmpje op Wikileaks over de moord op een aantal Irakese burgers. Nederland zat in Afghanistan voor ‘wederopbouw’, dat werd er bij ons voor en tijdens de eerste uitzendingen van onze troepen, keer op keer ingepeperd. Na een paar jaar was dit bedrog niet langer vol te houden en sprak men dat e.e.a. natuurlijk niet zonder vechten kan. Over de halleluja verhalen die over de bevrijding van de Afghaanse vrouw werden vertelt, hoor je intussen ook niemand meer en dat Karzai een corrupte club misdadigers leidt is voor niemand nog een geheim.
Wij hebben ons gemengd in maatschappijen waar wij niets van begrijpen en waar wij ook niets te zoeken hadden en hebben. Gevolg van dit alles is het opstaan van meer en meer gefrustreerden die het heft in eigen hand nemen en op hun beurt de terreur, die het westen zaaide en zaait, met ‘gelijke’ munt terugbetalen.
Reken maar dat dit niet de laatste aanslag in het westen was.

CDA’s Ormel over Wikileaks

Posted on by Telmo Claro

Henk Jan Ormel, de nitwit van het CDA zit nu bij Standpunt NL te vertellen hoe fout het lekken van geheime documenten in Wikileaks wel niet is. Ja dat snapt iedereen, het CDA heeft nogal wat te verbergen: de bemoeienis met de Irak oorlog (ook het vergaren van inlichtingen door een Nederlandse onderzeeër voorafgaand aan de illegale inval in Irak), de JSF, het voorzitterschap van de leugenachtige CDA zak de Hoop-Scheffer en de oorlog in Afghanistan plus alle verborgen ‘ongelukken’ aldaar.