Exposed: The Arab Agenda in Syria

Source: Asia Times
Pepe Escobar

Here's a crash course on the "democratic" machinations of the Arab League - rather the GCC League, as real power in this pan-Arab organization is wielded by two of the six Persian Gulf monarchies composing the Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf Counter-revolution Club; Qatar and the House of Saud.

Essentially, the GCC created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it. It's telling that Syria's neighbor Lebanon did not.

When the over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report ... surprise! The report did not follow the official GCC line - which is that the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.

The Arab League's Ministerial Committee had approved the report, with four votes in favor (Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and GCC member Oman) and only one against; guess who, Qatar - which is now presiding the Arab League because the emirate bought their (rotating) turn from the Palestinian Authority.

So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.

Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full.

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

PAKISTAN: ‘CIA drones deliberately target innocent people’

Source: Global Research and The News International
Noor Aftab

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they were used strictly to target terrorists. However the new report counters this claim, with international law specialists fiercely positing that the strikes amount to little more than state-sanctioned extra-judicial executions, and going on to question just how the US government would react if another state such as China or Russia started taking similar "justified" action against those they declared enemies.

The upsurge in Washington's unmanned war has been so dramatic that the US now has 7,000 drones in operation, with 12,000 more on the ground, while not a single new manned combat aircraft is under research or development at any western aerospace company.

ISLAMABAD: In what can only be described as a gross violation of the Geneva Convention, the CIA-sponsored drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of innocent civilians involved in either rescuing injured victims or partaking in funerals.

According to a report published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism with the Sunday Times, between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 minors, have been credibly reported as killed as a result of drone strikes since US President Barack Obama took office three years ago.

“A three-month investigation including eyewitness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims," affirmed the report. It went on to state that "More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners."

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they were used strictly to target terrorists. However the new report counters this claim, with international law specialists fiercely positing that the strikes amount to little more than state-sanctioned extra-judicial executions, and going on to question just how the US government would react if another state such as China or Russia started taking similar "justified" action against those they declared enemies.

'US Failure in Afghanistan Destabilizes Region'

Source: PressTV

A political analyst says that amid a US official's warning of a failed mission in Afghanistan, "all the neighbors have a responsibility to aim for a stable government."

Press TV has conducted an interview with Marvin Weinbaum, Middle East Institute, to further discuss the issue.

Greece Declares Emergency in Flood Hit North

Source: ZeeNews

A swollen river in Greece bursts its banks, flooding homes and forcing authorities to declare a state of emergency on Tuesday, officials said.

In Poland, meanwhile, the big freeze that is holding the rest of Europe in its icy grip killed another six people in the last 24 hours, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Ministry spokeswoman Malgorzata Wozniak said on Tuesday that three other people died of asphyxiation with carbon monoxide from heaters they were using to heat their homes. The temperatures in Poland have plunged as low as minus 32 C (minus 26 F) since the freeze began.

In Greece, rescuers had to extract five elderly people on Tuesday from their flooded homes after the river Evros burst its banks near the country’s northeastern border with Bulgaria. Sevaral elderly residents were also evacuated overnight from another three villages in the area.

Evros, which enters Greece from Bulgaria and runs along the border with Turkey, is swollen after days of heavy rainfall, compounded by a burst dam in southern Bulgaria.

The dam on Bulgaria’s Ivanovo Reservoir collapsed on Monday, sending a torrent into the nearby village of Bisser that killed eight people and flooded 700 houses.

Turkey: Attack on Iran "Would Be a Disaster"

Source: AlterNet

(Reuters) - Turkey and Qatar urged the West on Sunday not to attack Iran to solve a nuclear row, but to make greater efforts to negotiate an end to the dispute.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, a gathering of security officials and diplomats, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a "disaster" and the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme could be ended very rapidly. 

"If there is strong political will and mutual confidence being established, this issue could be resolved in a few days," he said. "The technical disputes are not so big. The problem is mutual confidence and strong political will. " 

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda. 

The West has since imposed much tougher sanctions on Iran, which it suspects of seeking nuclear weapons capability. Iran says its nuclear work is purely civilian and peaceful. 

Davutoglu added: "A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result." 

In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards told the semi-official Fars news agency Iran would attack any country whose territory is used by "enemies" of the Islamic state to launch a military strike against its soil. 

Washington and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the standoff. Iran has warned of firm retaliation if attacked, including targeting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane. 

Another Reason War Must Be Avoided: Israeli Attack Will Prompt Pakistani Response

Source: YNetNews

European diplomat based in Islamabad says Israeli strike would force Pakistan to support Iranian retaliation, while EU official says 'political and economic consequences of attack would be catastrophic for Europe'

Is the world counting down to "D-Day"? After US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated that Israel would attack Iran by June, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned government officials against "Iran chatter," A European diplomat based in Pakistan said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation.

The diplomat's statement raised the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, which is widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.
 
Related stories:

• Op-ed: Raising the stakes on Iran
• 'Panetta believes Israel will strike Iran soon'
• Iran vows to hit any country that stages attack  

To some, the greatest risk of an attack was to the moribund world economy. Nick Witney, former head of the EU's European Defense Agency, said "the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe" since the likely spike in the price of oil alone "could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession."

Engdahl: 'No Question of US backing for Russian Opposition'

Source: RT

Saturday was a day for demonstrations in Russia. Over two hundred thousand people gathered across the country to voice their political views ahead of next month's presidential election. Two of the largest rallies took place in the capital with supporters and opponents of the current leadership braving the bitter cold to have their say. It was the third, and biggest, opposition gathering after the Parliamentary vote two months ago which protesters claimed was rigged. Now their main demand is for a fair presidential vote in March. Author and researcher F. William Engdahl says the West is funding the Russian opposition to minimise the country's influence on the world stage during a critical time.

Democide Mass-Murder and the New World Order

Source: Activist Post
Paul Adams, J.D.

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. -- Joseph Stalin

In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people. --  Zbigniew Brzezinski

Many people believe that governments are too bureaucratic, incompetent and lazy to accomplish anything substantial.  However, history has demonstrated that powerful elites have used governments to do one thing extremely efficiently: Democide.

According to Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.  Democide does not include soldiers killed in battle.  During the 20th Century (1900s) alone, Rummel calculates that government power was used to murder approximately 262,000,000 people.

Soviet Union
Approximately 61,911,000 people, 54,769,000 of them citizens, were murdered by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1987. Rummel writes:

Part of this mass killing was genocide, as in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of Don Cossacks in 1919, the intentional starving of about 5,000,000 Ukrainian peasants to death in 1932-33,² or the deportation to mass death of 50,000 to 60,000 Estonians in 1949.³ Part was mass murder, as of the wholesale extermination of perhaps 6,500,000 "kulaks" (in effect, the better off peasants and those resisting collectivization) from 1930 to 1937, the execution of perhaps a million Party members in the Great Terror of 1937-38, and the massacre of all Trotskyites in the forced labor camps.

Most people are unaware that all that death resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution would not have been possible absent the support of wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution.  Additionally, it was President Woodrow Wilson that provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to "carry forward" the revolution. 

Obama: Israel Undecided On Attacking Iran!?

Source: GreeneWave

Demonstrations in over 80 cities and 6 countries say: NO WAR, NO SANCTIONS, NO INTERVENTION, NO ASSASSINATIONS ON IRAN!

Source: Global Research
Sara Flounders

Anti-war organizations from across the United States and 6 other countries came together on Saturday, Feb. 4, to protest the rising crescendo of threats against Iran. In more than 30 states and 80 cities, large and small, groups joined forces to raise four key demands.

"No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations!" was the slogan on the lead banner of the New York demonstration, which was sponsored by an ad hoc committee of several groups. Many placards and hand-made signs also pointed to Wall Street and the banks as the real danger, not Iran.

The corporate media have been reporting for weeks that the Israeli regime is weighing an attack on Iran aimed at dismantling its nuclear program. Yet even former U.S. intelligence officers point out that Iran's nuclear development is entirely peaceful; it is not building any nuclear weapons. (See "Divining the Truth About Iran" by Ray McGovern, published by commondreams.org.) Yet totally unsubstantiated claims to the contrary form the basis on which Israel, which itself has a large nuclear arsenal and has been armed and financed by the U.S., is now publicly claiming its right to launch a military attack on Iran.

The process has already begun in the major corporate media to give credibility to Israel's charges and soften up public opinion to accept such a criminal act, which would unleash yet another devastating war in this oil-rich region so coveted by imperialism. A large crowd marched in New York from Times Square to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and then to the Israeli Consulate. The French press agency AFP estimated the protest at 500. Groups participating included the International Action Center, No War on Iran, American Iranian Friendship Committee, United National Anti-War Committee and Answer.

Ron Paul Warns of Federal Reserve Power Grab

Source: Prison Planet
Kurt Nimmo

Not only was Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray to the misnamed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unconstitutional, but the newly minted federal leviathan itself is in direct violation of Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment.

In January, Obama thumbed his nose at Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” officers to the government.

But as Ron Paul notes in the above video, the new agency – founded under the Federal Reserve dominated Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – is itself an unconstitutional monster that will further degrade the financial health of the country.

Cordray will act as a czar answerable not to the American people, but his masters at the Federal Reserve. Like an EU or Soviet era committee, the CFPB will be run by unelected commissars who will exercise extraordinary power. The agency is part of the Federal Reserve and its budget is not subject to congressional control or oversight.

Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA

Source: NileBowie

For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected. The United States of America has long held the highest incarceration rate in the world, far surpassing any other nation. For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its history.

While miserable statistics illustrate some measure of the ongoing ethical calamity occurring in the detainment centers inside the land of the free, only a partial picture of the broader situation is painted. While the country faces an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, business is booming in other fields – namely, the private prison industry. Like any other business, these institutions are run for the purpose of turning a profit. State and federal prisons are contracted out to private companies who are paid a fixed amount to house each prisoner per day. Their profits result from spending the minimum amount of state or federal funds on each inmate, only to pocket the remaining capital. For the corrections conglomerates of America, prosperity depends on housing the maximum numbers of inmates for the longest potential time - as inexpensively as possible.

By allowing a profit-driven capitalist-enterprise model to operate over institutions that should rightfully be focused on rehabilitation, America has enthusiastically embraced a prison industrial complex. Under the promise of maintaining correctional facilities at a lower cost due to market competition, state and federal governments contract privately run companies to manage and staff prisons, even allowing the groups to design and construct facilities. The private prison industry is primarily led by two morally deficient entities, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation).  These companies amassed a combined revenue of over $2.9 billion in 2010, not without situating themselves in the center of political influence.

The Noose is Tightened Around Iran

Source: Global Research
Ilya Kharlamov

The US [says it] is against the strike and believes that the current sanctions are more than sufficient.

However, these statements are at odds with the growing US and NATO presence in the Persian Gulf. Their troops and military hardware have already been moved to bases in Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The campaign could also affect innocent bystanders like China, which is the biggest consumer of Iranian oil. Thus, Beijing is actively calling for a resumption of a dialogue on Iran’s nuclear program. Russia also strongly opposes violence.
   
Israel could strike Iran this spring, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated in an interview with The Washington Post. According to the official, the Israeli government seems to have already made a decision on this.

Panetta believes that Israel can strike Iran after the latter crosses into the so-called “zone of immunity” and starts building a nuclear bomb.

Earlier, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated that his country would consider launching a military operation if the sanctions fail to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program.

The US [says it] is against the strike and believes that the current sanctions are more than sufficient.

However, these statements are at odds with the growing US and NATO presence in the Persian Gulf. Their troops and military hardware have already been moved to bases in Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

LA Protesters Slam War Threats Against Iran

Source: PressTV

Hundreds of demonstrators are gathering in Los Angeles for a "No War on Iran" rally.

False Flag Looking Even More Likely as Israel Warns American Jews of Iranian Strike on US

Source: End The Lie
Madison Ruppert

Recently I covered the statements of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding the possibility of Iranian attacks on the United States; a prospect which I think is so unlikely that if it were to occur it would likely be a false flag attack.

The possibility of such an attack – which would promptly be blamed on Iran just like the September 11, 2001 attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden before any semblance of an investigation could take place – was reinforced today by a report from ABC News.

According to ABC News, Israel was internally circulating a security document amongst Israeli facilities in North America and around the world which claims that the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will continue to rise.

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” the letter said, which was circulated by Eliran Avitan, the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States.

For those who are unaware, a “guarded site” is a facility protected by the government, such as an embassy or a consulate, while “soft sites” or “soft targets” are typically unguarded, non-government locations.

Soft sites could include synagogues, schools and community centers, along with more general targets like malls, sporting events, etc.

Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s internal security apparatus Shin Bet, reportedly disclosed to an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv that Iran is trying to strike Israeli targets because Iran believes Israel is attacking their nuclear scientists.

The basis for Iran coming to the conclusion that their nuclear scientists are being taken out by intelligence agencies like the Israeli Mossad or American CIA is quite strong indeed, but apparently Cohen would rather ignore that fact.

We have witnessed a coherent modus operandi consistent throughout all of the targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, something which can be easily linked back to Israel, likely acting in concert with the CIA and British intelligence.

With the Israeli Vice Prime Minister advocating continued support of what he called the “Iranian opposition” which is a not-so-subtle way of advocating continued support of terrorists in Iran, the Iranians have a right to be concerned.

Corbett Report Episode 217 - Against Technocracy

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

We are told that an elite class of experts (or perhaps some benevolent supercomputers) can transform our world of want and despair into a world of milk and honey. But this is not a new idea, and it has always been propounded by the very elites who have put the current system into place. Join us in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report as we go digging up the roots and examining the fruits of elite-sponsored technocracy.

DOCUMENTATION:

Brookings: 'Horrific Provocation' and 'Tehran Sponsored 9/11' Needed To Trigger Iran Invasion

Source: Infowars
Jurriaan Maessen

In a 2009 policy paper, published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia, including such measures as bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering in the shape of an all-out military assault on Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of an unwavering resolve by the Anglo-American establishment to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources at the same time. 

 

The group of authors — a cozy little convergence of globalists — contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but really amounts to little more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded into the trashcan of history. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.

To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran: 

‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’ 

This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):

‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’

But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favorable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.

The Anti-Empire Report: Please Tell Me Again … What is the War in Afghanistan About?!

Source: Boiling Frogs Post
William Blum

With the US war in Iraq supposedly having reached a good conclusion (or halfway decent … or better than nothing … or let’s get the hell out of here while some of us are still in one piece and there are some Iraqis we haven’t yet killed), the best and the brightest in our government and media turn their thoughts to what to do about Afghanistan. It appears that no one seems to remember, if they ever knew, that Afghanistan was not really about 9-11 or fighting terrorists (except the many the US has created by its invasion and occupation), but was about pipelines. 

President Obama declared in August 2009: “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” 

Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001. 

Never mind that the “plotting to attack America” in 2001 was devised in Germany and Spain and the United States more than in Afghanistan. Why hasn’t the United States bombed those countries?

Indeed, what actually was needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? A room with some chairs? What does “an even larger safe haven” mean? A larger room with more chairs? Perhaps a blackboard? Terrorists intent upon attacking the United States can meet almost anywhere, with Afghanistan probably being one of the worst places for them, given the American occupation.

The only “necessity” that drew the United States to Afghanistan was the desire to establish a military presence in this land that is next door to the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia — which reportedly contains the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world — and build oil and gas pipelines from that region running through Afghanistan.

Manipulating Us Into Believing We Have a Choice

Source: Phantom Report

When a voter is asked by a Corporate reporter which candidate they are going to cast their vote. The voters response is, “ I am voting for the politician who aligns with my beliefs, my views and my way of life”. They are not aligned to their candidate by any belief, any view or any way of life. They are programmed by a bombardment of corporate media psyops convincing them into believing they have choice. Audiences have no choice. The sub-conscious landscape of their minds have been manipulated, persuaded and influenced to ultimately alter their emotions, decisions and reasoning. Governments, corporations, globalist and elitist want to dismantle choice, decry individualism and create a collective of subordinates.

Source: Penumbral Report 

Why Do We Believe What We Believe?

There are perhaps many reasons why we hold the beliefs we do.  The education we’ve received, the homes in which we were raised, the experiences we’ve had, and the people we’ve met – often randomly – all contribute to shape our worldviews.   However, we also cannot escape the fact that we live in a media-saturated environment and that corporations, political leaders, governments, religions and media outlets are all very savvy in understanding this reality and more importantly they all excel at using various forms of “perception management” to gain power and control over us.

And, we find ourselves locked in a two-party system where the status quo is maintained even though that status quo doesn’t work for the vast majority of us.  It is doubtful that much will be different regardless of the outcome of the current election cycle here in the United States.  At the margins perhaps there will be some small differences in policy between an Obama administration and a Romney administration just as there were some small differences at the margins between the Bush administration and the current one.  But, the influence of Wall Street will continue unabated, just as we will have continued military misadventures abroad, an expansion of the bi-partisan surveillance state, a continuation of the failed policy called the Drug War, continuing and growing deficits, and a continuation of the standard of living for most American even though nearly all of us agree that these are not the things we want.

US, Britain, France Up for War

Source: Voice of Russia

The United States, Britain and France have begun to deploy troops in the Gulf in a move which experts say suggests preparations for a war with Iran. The first strikes could be carried out at the beginning of the summer, media reports say. 

According to reports, troops are arriving at Masirah Island in Oman which is located south of the Strait of Hormuz where a US air base is deployed. Two American strike groups are currently stationed in the Gulf. Some reports say that the grouping will be reinforced with one more aircraft carrier, the  destroyer Momsen and the nuclear submarine Annapolis. The US is also enhancing its presence in Israel and Kuwait. British troops and troops from the United Arab Emirates have been arriving in Saudi Arabia. The main target is Iran, whose nuclear program has long been an issue of particular concern in the West. Reports leaked out into the press that hundreds of penetration bombs capable of destroying heavily fortified underground bunkers have been delivered to an American base on the British Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.  

The Strait of Hormuz, a major waterway for the transportation of Gulf oil to regions across the world, serves as yet another pretext for going into open confrontation. Tehran has threatened to block it, and the allies are getting ready to strike if it keeps its word. However, none of the countries involved is prepared for war, Vladimir Sazhin of the Institute of Oriental Studies, says.

"All countries involved in this conflict are facing domestic problems. An election race has got under way in the US. Parliamentary elections in Iran have been set for March 2nd, and presidential elections have been scheduled for the summer of 2013. France’s presidential elections are just round the corner, and Europe as a whole is too preoccupied with its own economic problems to handle another war."

However, a concentration of military forces in the Gulf creates an explosive situation in the region. One accidental shot would be enough to trigger fire on both sides. If that happens, Vladimir Sazhin says, the allies will have a clear advantage.

Scientists Create Computer that Reads Thoughts and Puts Them into Words

Source: Natural Society
Andre Evans

Scientists have recently developed a complex process that allows them to seemingly decode and depict our brain activity as language.

Neuroscientists at University of California Berkeley used a technique where they monitored the brain activity of individuals as they listened to words being spoken. As the subjects listened to the words being spoken, a computer program analyzed brain activity in the temporal lobe, and how the brain interpreted and recreated specific words or sounds.

Using the information from this brain activity, scientists were able to ‘synthesize’ the actual sound, using the sounds themselves to determine what the words are. With more work and refining, this process could be used to effectively interpret thoughts of an individual and translate them into some understandable form of language.

This form of technology has a two-fold implication. On the one hand, this would prove to be incredibly useful for those with neurological diseases, physical impairment of speech (via smoking or otherwise) or brain damage, who have trouble speaking due to their injuries. This would effectively provide a medium for them to communicate effectively regardless of any impairment.

On the other hand, this has major negative implications for human relations and situations. If it were to progress to a true mind-reading level, it would threaten the integrity of human thought and individualism altogether. View the video below:

It’s reminiscent of some science fiction scenario, in which ‘thought crimes’ exist — the very nature of thinking about committing a crime or undesirable action. Man having the power to invade another man’s mind is hardly fair or acceptable, regardless of the circumstances. This influence could turn human relations into a controlled and predictable scheme where the individual would have no freedom of thought.

Russia and China Oppose West-backed Resolution on Syria

Source: The Hindu
Atul Aneja

Amid high drama at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Russia and China have spiritedly opposed a European-Arab draft that seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the first step towards the establishment of democracy in the troubled Arab nation.

Citing the principle of sovereignty and advocating a peaceful internal dialogue, Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin said during an animated debate on Tuesday that there were alternative ways to end the bloodshed in Syria other than by the eviction of Mr. Assad by foreign powers through the U.N. route.

Questioning the legality of the proposed resolution, Mr. Churkin said the UNSC did not have the mandate to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. “The Council cannot prescribe ready recipes for the outcome of domestic political processes. It is not in the [U.N.] Charter”. Mr. Churkin warned that the U.N.'s intrusion into the internal affairs of a country would set a dangerous precedent. “Then you will start telling what king needs to resign and what Prime Minister needs to step down. This is not the business of the Security Council.”

Observers say the Russians are apprehensive that if validated, the principle of U.N. interventionism in internal conflicts can be used to target them if the domestic situation in Russia deteriorates for some reason.

Fear and Loathing in the American Gulf

Source: Asia Times
Pepe Escobar

Persian Gulf? Khaleej-e-Fars? Forget it; time to call it the American Gulf - to the delight of the vultures, jackals and hyenas of war, Israeli and Anglo-American. The House of Saud wouldn't be too displeased either.

So much for the Pentagon's "pivoting" strategy from the Middle East to East Asia - recently announced by United States President Barack Obama. The confrontation against China starts in Southwest Asia - in the American Gulf; and goes way beyond Washington cheerleading the hardcore Sunni sectarian killers of Jundallah in Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province, Israeli Mossad agents posing as US Central Intelligence Agency operatives, serial assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, computer viruses, and ludicrous accusations of Tehran helping al-Qaeda and vice-versa. 

MOP it all up
Time to review the evidence. In roughly one month, no less than three US aircraft carriers and their strike groups will be sloshing around the American Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea; the USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Carl Vinson and USS Enterprise, plus good ol' French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. And yet one more Pacific-based US aircraft carrier can be swiftly dispatched.

Apart from this naval hajj of US aircraft carrier groups, the 40-year-old USS Ponce is being retrofitted into a special ops amphibious hub - to be dispatched to the American Gulf.

The Pentagon's CENTCOM is fast upgrading the 14,000-kilogram Orwellian bunker-buster monster known as Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), theoretically capable of taking out Iran's underground nuclear installations.

A certain Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Project - one of those myriad revolving doors in Washington mixing politicians and military-complex types - wants to give Israel some 200 additional MOPs and three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers to "increase the credibility of a military strike" against Iran.

DEBKA-Net is a digital front for Israeli propaganda/disinformation - so it's essentially untrustworthy. But its latest bombast deserves scrutiny. DEBKA is peddling that the Pentagon is in fast and furious mode in two strategic islands; the paradisiacal Socotra, 380 kilometers southeast of Yemen (where the Pentagon has been building a giant base since 2010); and Camp Justice in Masirah, 70 km south of the Strait of Hormuz, in Oman.

Experts Say Gingrich Moon Base Dreams not Lunacy

Source: Sci-Tech Today

At a recent debate in Florida, Newt Gingrich promised that "by the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon." Sound far out? Actually, the idea of returning to the moon and building an outpost there is not new. Until three years ago, it was U.S. policy and billions of dollars were spent on that idea.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich wants to create a lunar colony that he says could become a U.S. state. There's his grand research plan to figure out what makes the human brain tick. And he's warned about electromagnetic pulse attacks leaving America without electricity. 

To some people, these ideas sound like science fiction. But mostly they are not. 

Several science policy experts say the former House speaker's ideas are based in mainstream science. But somehow, Gingrich manages to make them sound way out there, taking them first a small step and then a giant leap further than where other politicians have gone. 

Gingrich's promise that "by the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon" got amped up in a recent debate in Florida, which lost thousands of jobs with the end of the space shuttle program. By then, the lunar base had become a colony and even a potential state, and his moon ideas were ridiculed by rival Mitt Romney. 

Returning to the moon and building an outpost there is not new. Until three years ago, it was U.S. policy and billions of dollars were spent on that idea.

Staying on the moon dates at least to 1969, when a government committee recommended that NASA first build a winged, reusable space shuttle followed by a space station and then a moon outpost. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush proposed going to the moon and staying there. 

Drones for Peace, Scary Charts, Morality Pills - New World Next Week

Source: Corbett Report and Media Monarchy

Welcome back to http://NewWorldNextWeek.com – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Corbett Report Radio - Around the World with Michael Vail

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

Tonight, the Corbett Report breaks down all the latest news from around the globe with Michael Vail of StratRisks.com. From global geopolitics and the great game to inner space and our sci-fi reality, StratRisks is a thoughtfully curated archive of news and open-source intelligence.

 

Works Cited:

US Intelligence: India may be drawn into ‘limited war’ with China
‘Great power’ politics making a comeback in the Middle East
The Dangerous Idea of NATO Expansion Will Not Die
Smaller ‘stans fret at Russia’s dominance
Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?
DNA Hackers: Synthetic biology weaponized virus, zero-day exploit to infect your brain?
U.S. to send floating base to Mideast for quick strikes
Who is Accountable when Drones Kill?

Google to Censor Blogger Blogs on a ‘Per Country Basis’

Source: Threat Level
David Kravets

Google has quietly announced changes to its Blogger free-blogging platform that will enable the blocking of content only in countries where censorship is required.

Twitter announced technology last week addressing the same topic. It said it had acquired the ability to censor tweets in the countries only where it was ordered removed, instead of on an internet-wide basis.

Twitter’s announcement via its blog sparked a huge online backlash. The microblogging service was accused of becoming a censoring agent.

Yet Google’s announcement three weeks ago — buried in a Blogger help page — went unnoticed until it was highlighted by TechDows on Tuesday.

Google wrote Jan. 9 it would begin redirecting Blogger traffic to country-specific URLs, meaning whatever country you’re in, you’ll get that country’s domain for Blogger-hosted blogs.

TechDows reports that this is now happening in India, for example. So when you’re there and click on a Blogger blog, the URL will end .in.

Doing that, Google wrote, means content can be removed “on a per country basis.”

“Migrating to localized domains will allow us to continue promoting free expression and responsible publishing while providing greater flexibility in complying with valid removal requests pursuant to local law,” Google wrote.

Twitter did not announce how its new technology functions, but said Twitter has the ability to remove tweets only in countries where that content was barred.

US Intelligence: India May Be Drawn into ‘Limited War’ with China

Source: DomainB via StratRisks

Noting that India’s increasing concern about China’s posture on its border, a top US intelligence official today said that the Indian Army is strengthening itself for a “limited conflict” with China.

“Despite public statements intended to downplay tensions between India and China, we judge that India is increasingly concerned about China’s posture along their disputed border and Beijing’s perceived aggressive posture in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region,” director of national intelligence James Clapper said in his prepared testimony before the Senate Select Committee on intelligence.

“The Indian Army believes a major Sino-Indian conflict is not imminent, but the Indian military is strengthening its forces in preparation to fight a limited conflict along the disputed border, and is working to balance Chinese power projection in the Indian Ocean,” a PTI report quoted him as saying.

Clapper said India has expressed support for a strong US military posture in East Asia and US engagement in Asia. He said China in 2011 appeared to temper the assertive behavior that characterised its foreign policy the year before, but the internal and external drivers of that behaviour persist.

“Moreover, although Chinese leaders have affirmed their commitment to a peaceful and pragmatic foreign policy – and especially to stable relations with China’s neighbours and the rest of the world – Beijing may take actions contrary to that goal if it perceives that China’s sovereignty or national security is being seriously challenged,” he said.

Many of Beijing’s military capability goals have now been realised, resulting in impressive military might.

Other goals remain longer term, but the Chinese army is receiving the funding and political support to transform it into a fully modern force, capable of sustained operations in Asia and beyond, he said.

Chossudovsky: Iran and the Globalization of War

Source:  KPFA


"Iran and the Globalization of War" with Michel Chossudovsky. Recent developments in the Middle East including the wider implications of the destabilization of the entire area; the current global war as a different kind of conquest than that of World War I and II; US military deployment in the area; the role of Israel; Iranian Defenses; US war planning and war scenarios since 2003 concerning the nation of Iran, including Austere Challenge 12, Theatre Iran Near Term, Global Strike 2003, Concept Plan 8022, and Vigilant Shield; the effect of sanctions; and The Responsibility To Protect.

Visit http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25185 for more info

"Guns & Butter" investigates the relationships among capitalism, militarism and politics. Maintaining a radical perspective in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, "Guns & Butter: The Economics of Politics" reports on who wins and who loses when the economic resources of civil society are diverted toward global corporatization, war, and the furtherance of a national security state.

Produced and hosted by Bonnie Faulkner
Originally aired on KPFA, January 18, 2012
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77020

Empire, Power and People with Andrew Gavin Marshall - Episode 4

Source: Boiling Frogs Post
Andrew Gavin Marshall

What is the Nature of Power?

How does power function? What are the effects of power? Is it necessary? This episode seeks to introduce the listener to some thoughts on the concept of power, in both the concentration of it on one hand, and the lack of it on the other. Power can be concentrated in both institutions and individuals, but if we seek to solve the big problems of our time, we cannot focus simply on changing those individuals, or abolishing specific institutions. We must, instead, come to ask questions about the nature of power, itself, and thus, how such institutions and individuals are able to exist in the first place.

Russia Warns NATO, Gulf States Against Intervention In Syria

U.S. Sixth Fleet flagship USS Mount Whitney

Source: Xinhau News and Stop NATO

“We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force.” 

“We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council’s toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future.”

The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a “political transition” in the Middle East country.

UNITED NATIONS: Russia on Tuesday warned foreign countries against meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, saying that “the Syrian crisis can only be resolved within the Syrian-led political process.”

Standing NATO Maritime Group 1

The statement came as Vitaly Churkin, the Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, was addressing an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria.

“The solution to the crisis can be found only through a Syrian-led, inclusive political process,” Churkin said. “If all key players of the international community were to concentrate their efforts on implementing these provisions we are convinced that the crisis would long be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case.”

“We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force,” he said. “No, it should be fostering dialogue so as to seek an optimally effective and smooth resolution with a view to a cessation of violence and establishing a Syrian-led inclusive political process.”

“Russia, which has enjoyed close, friendly contacts with the Syrian people and the Arab world from the very beginning, fought to ensure that the Syrian people would be able to decide for themselves without bloodshed and violence and set a course, a format for necessary social, economic, and political reforms,” he said.

US Nuclear Sub Heads Toward Persian Gulf

Source: Prison Planet
Paul Joseph Watson

Following the announcement that a third US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, would be heading to patrol waters near the Strait of Hormuz in March, it has also been revealed that the nuclear submarine USS Annapolis and the destroyer USS Momsen are also likely to heading towards the Persian Gulf in the build up to a possible attack on Iran.

“Two ships of the US Navy, the nuclear submarine USS Annapolis and the destroyer USS Momsen have passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Although their destination is confidential, they are now getting dangerously close to the Persian Gulf,” reports RT, citing Interfax News Agency.

With the likely destination of the two ships being the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of operations, they will be joined next month by the USS Enterprise, the third aircraft carrier to be stationed in the region along with the USS Vinson and the USS Abraham Lincoln. The US also has a 15,000-men force deployed in Kuwait comprising of an expeditionary marine battalion and an amphibious landing group. British and French warships are also acting as escorts to the US aircraft carriers.

What all this means is that the United States will have a massive naval presence just off Iranian waters to coincide with rhetoric concerning an attack reaching a crescendo. Earlier today a prominent bipartisan think tank, ostensibly a front for the US military-industrial complex, called on the Obama administration to increase pressure on Iran by sending even more naval firepower to the tense region.

The US is currently conducting its biggest naval exercises in over a decade. The Bold Alligator joint Navy and Marine Corps exercise, taking place off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina, is clearly geared towards simulating a naval conflict with Iranian forces despite official claims to the contrary.

“Navy and Marine forces involved with the exercise will work scenarios involving mine warfare, countering small boat attacks and other irregular threats and fighting in shallow coastal waters, (Command chief Adm. John) Harvey pointed out. Those threats, among others, are the hallmarks of Iranian naval forces,” reports AOL News.

Corbett Report Radio - World Government and You

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

From “R2P” to “Peacekeeping” to “global governance,” the globalists love to dress up their worldwide tyranny as something good. But under the veneer is all manner of debauchery, atrocities and the specter of total dictatorship. Join us tonight as we explore the global government agenda and those who are promoting it.