Iran - Sanctions vs Nuclear Negotiations

IRAN Germany, France, UK tell Congress to hold back on Iran legislation WASHINGTON -- Top diplomats from Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the European Union are asking Congress to refrain from passing new nuclear-related legislation on Iran, warning a bill could derail negotiations over its nuclear program. In an op-ed published Thursday in the Washington Post, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and EU high representative for foreign affairs Federica Mogherini say a new bill would give Iranian opponents of a comprehensive nuclear accord "new arguments" for subterfuge. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Germany-France-UK-tell-Congress-to-hold-back-on-Iran-legislation-388602 "Israeli TV Shows Satellite Imagery of New Iranian Long-Range Missile On the Launch Pad - January 22, 2015... http://tmblr.co/ZC3D0x1bMbiCF " [via Matthew Aid] Give diplomacy with Iran a chance By Laurent Fabius, Philip Hammond, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Federica Mogherini January 21 at 8:27 PM  [...] Our objective remains clear. We want a comprehensive solution that both recognizes the Iranian people’s right to access peaceful nuclear energy and allows the international community to verify that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. Any agreement must provide concrete, verifiable and long-lasting assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful. Nothing less will do. It is now up to Iran to make a strategic choice between open-ended cooperation and further isolation. To be sure, difficult challenges lie ahead, and critical differences between Iran and the international community must be addressed. That is why we extended the negotiating window until later this year. In this context, our responsibility is to make sure diplomacy is given the best possible chance to succeed. Maintaining pressure on Iran through our existing sanctions is essential. But introducing new hurdles at this critical stage of the negotiations, including through additional nuclear-related sanctions legislation on Iran, would jeopardize our efforts at a critical juncture. While many Iranians know how much they stand to gain by overcoming isolation and engaging with the world, there are also those in Tehran who oppose any nuclear deal. We should not give them new arguments. New sanctions at this moment might also fracture the international coalition that has made sanctions so effective so far. Rather than strengthening our negotiating position, new sanctions legislation at this point would set us back. [...] EXTRACTS - FULL @ WASHINGTON POST - HERE. COMMENT This isn't looking all that good for the West. France, UK, Germany and the EU are virtually publicly begging for no disruption of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran's got some kind of massive long-range missile (middle article). And US Congress is running amok. At this point, I'm spooked and would go with anything Israel decides because they're probably better at assessing the pros and cons than anyone else. ---------------------------------------------- PS The European politicians could have done a direct appeal to the US government, without doing the dramatic public appeal in Washington Post. Is all this drama in Israel, in the US Congress and among European foreign ministers, just a bit of a show they're putting on?

HIT SQUADS, MUTINY, LOBBY-TOYS, A DEAD POPE, MORAL OUTRAGE -- WHAT 'FREE PRESS'? -- AND MOSSAD

HIT SQUADS, MUTINY, LOBBY-TOYS, A DEAD POPE, MORAL OUTRAGE -- WHAT 'FREE PRESS'? -- AND MOSSAD Started my browsing adventures off with looking for evidence of Iranian hit squads, cos I'm on a half-hearted mission to figure out who's knocked off Argentina's prosecutor, Alberto Nisman. Yet to find Iranian hit squads ... but I've been distracted by this find:  a hilarious 2011 article on Libyan & Iranian 'Greatest Hit Squads' in America: Libyan Phantoms & Iranian Assassins: Greatest Hit Squads 1981-2011 By Mark Ames If you’re feeling like you’re being taken for a ride with all this nonsense about Iranian-Narco-Mexican terror hit-squads infiltrating this great nation, read on… Think this is the guy who's written about American support for Chechen extremists. Yeah, checked and confirmed it's the same guy that wrote the Chechen article I liked.  Posted in relation to it here.  Remember also liking the humour that came across. Anyway, as I get distracted easily, the very next thing, I'm getting blown away by the news that John Boehner and Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer have teed up a Benjamin Netanyahu Congress speech on February 11th, having cut out the main man, Obama, and having seemingly rigged up a scandalous (and mutinous?) scenario, where Bibi gives a speech rebutting US foreign policy. Behind Obama's back: How Netanyahu's US trip was cooked up << Boehner initiated >>  http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.638396 > departure from protocol - Israel ambassador Ron Dermer & speaker John Boehner cook-up > Prevent Iran nuclear weapons shared goal John Boehner’s Bibi invite sets up showdown with White House >>> http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/john-boehner-invites-benjamin-netanyahu-congress-iran-114439.html <<< "Republicans & Democrats in the Capitol seem more closely aligned with Netanyahu than with Obama" >>> Bibi’s Congress speech Feb 11 = foreign leader, blocks from WH (invitation of Congress) to rebut the US foreign policy!! Boehner: "serious threat that exists" "serious conversation" "how serious the threat is" >> Going with 'serious threat', eh? The news seemed massive to me and I got super excited ... but nobody else seems as excited as I was. Just checked to see if it was reported elsewhere and found that The Guardian has also reported on Boehner's moves, rather coolly: John Boehner invites Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran next month   http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/21/boehner-netanyahu-invite-congress-iran-obama However, that's a rather mild take on what seems to be going on, when you consider that the authority of the President of the United States is being challenged here by some lobby-toy politican, Boehner. The Guardian continues: Invitation, provocative move by House speaker, came hours after Obama threatened during State of the Union address to veto any Iran sanctions bill 'Threatened'?  Sounds a rather extreme way to describe what is a statement of Presidential intent made during the President's SOTU address, and presumably within the President's authority. An odd way to convey what seems to be the other way around:  Congress threatening to pass a sanctions bill that the President considers counter-productive to furthering negotiations with Iran, who may well choose to walk, rather than negotiate, at the end of the day. As for 'provocative move', I'd have called it an underhand, backstabbing, embarrassing mutiny.  So what gives? The White House, meanwhile, is downplaying this by calling it a "break of normal diplomatic protocol".  Yeah, I'll say.  If this was happening in Russia, can you imagine the screaming headlines? Anyway, I wanted to know a bit more about Boehner and I found this fantastic Rolling Stone article: The Crying Shame of John Boehner He's a lazy, double-talking shill for corporate interests. So how's he going to fare with the Tea Party? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105 written by Matt Taibbi, who turns out to be another really clever and funny guy, who's co-edited The eXile with Mark Ames (of the 'Greatest Hit Squads' article fame, above). Not only that, turns out Taibbi's written a piece that was denounced by US politicians and talking heads: "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope"  http://konformist.com/archives/2005/03-2005/kn4m0311.txt At first I was like, dude, this is a bit sick ... but then I got reading and saw the humour in it. Personal favourites: 28. Bears everywhere shitting in woods.  8. Bush continued: "He touched all of us in places no one else could reach." Sure, it may not be to everybody's taste, but so what? This is the condemnation bandwagon list: Hillary Clinton (US lawyer, politician) Michael Bloomberg (businessman, magnate, mayor of NYC) Matt Drudge (political commentator, creator of news aggregate site Drudge Report) Abe Foxman (Soviet-born, US lawyer, national director of Anti-Defamation League) Anthony Weiner (New York politician, House of Reps, sexting scandal) Perhaps others also complained, but from the above list of denouncers (referred to in Wikipedia), there's not a single Catholic among those that took umbrage, so what's the real agenda? In addition to a pious whinge-fest, "the editor who approved the column was fired". A look-up elsewhere indicates that the New York Press editor, Jeff Koyen, was given two weeks unpaid leave but chose to quit, and: Koyen called his former publisher "a spineless alt-weekly weenie" for not standing up to the harsh criticisms the article received. Criticisms came from a variety of people such as U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, a spokesman for New York City Mayor Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph Guliani. Koyen also reacted to statements made by Rep. Anthony Weiner who was quoted by the New York Daily News calling on New Yorkers to "exercise their right to take as many of these rags as they can and put them in the trash." Interrupting the distribution of a newspaper -- even by purchasing a large quantity of them and throwing them out -- is illegal, koyen noted.  Ooh, look, finally a (thrice-married) Catholic among the condemning mob, the toothy Guliani, who caused some controversy by supporting: People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK, also PMOI, MKO), from the United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The group was on the State Department list from 1997 until September 2012. They were placed on the list for killing six Americans in Iran during the 1970s and attempting to attack the Iranian mission to the United Nations in 1992. [Wikipedia] Cool, Iranian assassins is what I was originally looking for! Uncertain why a bit of satire caused such political outrage at the time (guessing nearing April 2005). There was four different incidents of US gun violence leading up to that time and 22 people were killed within a short amount of time, but I guess 22 people among a population of over 300 million doesn't upset things as much as it might in a smaller population. Well, not enough to challenge the armaments manufacturers and the gun lobby.  During 2005, USA was 2 years into the Iraq invasion and had been in Afghanistan since 2001. The other thing happening at that time was the final stages of the Terri Schiavo drama being played out.  Basically, heart attack and severe brain damage in 1990; kept on artificial supports until 2005, when feeding tubes were finally removed.  What is horrific is the amount of time this person had to linger in a vegetative state, as well as the amount of time (13 days, I think it was) it then took to die after removal of feeding tubes.  It's like something out of a horror story. It's really doing my head in that something like that can happen to a person and that medical people are not permitted to step in to do the right thing and euthanase the vegetative person, who will exist (if supported) in a vegetative state (which nobody could possibly want as an existence) or otherwise die ... slowly. Anyway, there seems to be some interesting reflections of the past in the present. Currently there's a satire and freedom of press related hysteria that's done an outraged wave around the world (but not as much outrage at the barbaric slaughter of people who have a right to live, to express themselves politically or otherwise, and to work without the threat of violence or death).  The current touring Pope has tried to declare religion as off-limits (self-serving, or what?) and virtually justified the violence along the lines that it could be expected, given his rather stupid insult-my-mother analogy.  The mommy insult analogy makes it sound like some playground bit of bullying between children (unless his Holiness thinks it's fine for adults to go around assaulting or murdering one another because they don't like what's said).  Automatic weapons and a rocket launcher aren't a bit of school-yard 'you-said, so I'm getting even' bullying.  Why trivialise something so ugly and uncivilised that we should all despair for the future on this planet?  Opportunistic politicians and others have also tried to deny the right and merit of free speech, effectively blaming the victims of extremist violence.  A number of figures have also  tried to use this atrocity to further state control agendas of (a) suppression of free speech and (b) expansion of state controls, such as mass surveillance and denial of encryption services etc. Getting back to the Netanyahu and US Congress drama, a Bloomberg article indicates that Mossad has broken ranks with the Israeli PM, telling US officials that new Iran sanctions would 'tank' the nukes negotiations. Israeli Mossad Goes Rogue, Warns U.S. on Iran Sanctions http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee  -- supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- is pushing for his own legislation on the Iran nuclear deal, which doesn't contain sanctions but would require that the Senate vote on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva. The White House is opposed to both the Kirk-Menendez bill and the Corker bill; it doesn't want Congress to meddle at all in the delicate multilateral diplomacy with Iran. Israeli intelligence officials have been briefing both Obama administration officials and visiting U.S. senators about their concerns on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would increase sanctions on Iran only if the Iranian government can't strike a deal with the so-called P5+1 countries by a June 30 deadline or fails to live up to its commitments. Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister’s office has been supporting the Kirk-Menendez bill, as does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, ahead of what will be a major foreign policy confrontation between the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government in coming weeks. Evidence of the Israeli rift surfaced Wednesday when Secretary of State John Kerry said that an unnamed Israeli intelligence official had said the new sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade into the process.” But an initial warning from Israeli Mossad leaders was also delivered last week in Israel to a Congressional delegation -- including Corker, Graham, McCain and fellow Republican John Barrasso; Democratic Senators Joe Donnelly and Tim Kaine; and independent Angus King -- according to lawmakers who were present and staff members who were briefed on the exchange. When Menendez (who was not on the trip) heard about the briefing, he quickly phoned Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer to seek clarification. OK, what's going on here?  How is who Israeli intelligence (or Israeli politicians) favour in the USA sphere of national sovereignty even relevant, and why are these American politicians -- who are answerable to the American voters -- even in Israel on a 'congressional delegation'?  Don't know why Obama doesn't just step down so Netanyahu can take his rightful place at the helm of US politics, if Israel is pulling that many strings in the US through its intelligence services addressing a visiting congressional delegation, as well as addressing politicians in the US, while Israel's Foreign Minister is making arrangements directly with Boehner (rather than Obama), and even the pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, happens to be playing some role in the decision-making process in the US, by the look of things. American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC Annual budget $67 million @ 2010 America's powerful Pro-Israel Lobby Critics have accused AIPAC of acting as agent of Israeli govt, with a "stranglehold" on the US Congress. [Wikipedia] All of this congress squabbling, and appearance of rogue senators and rogue Mossad, sounds like crap to me.  We wouldn't be privy to any of this if the politicians didn't want us to know about it. I'm going to take a guess and say this is some kind of smokescreen for something.  But I'm not sure what, seeing the final decision can only go as follows:  1) either the US goes with sanctions against Iran or it doesn't.  2) either the Senate gets to vote on the results of any Geneva agreement with Iran or it doesn't. Well, that's that.  But I still don't know what the Iranians get up to, I'm no closer to finding out who killed Alberto Nisman and no wiser about the sport of US Congress.

ARGENTINA - Alberto Nisman

DAILY BEAST ARTICLE Did Iran Murder Argentina’s Crusading Prosecutor Alberto Nisman? An Argentine prosecutor died from a single gunshot wound to the head Sunday, hours before giving evidence about Iran’s involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center. PARIS — Since 2005 Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman has been crusading for his vision of justice in the horrific 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and injured hundreds more. He claimed that Iran was behind it and, more recently, that the Argentine government was trying to block his efforts to prove that. On Sunday night, Nisman was found dead in his apartment, only hours before he was set to testify before an Argentine parliamentary commission about his allegations.   [Accusations involved the President, the Foreign Minister and a phone tap (legal or not legal is open), as I understand.  Also, there has been something going on within the intelligence service of the country ... a new head was appointed.] The circumstances revealed thus far by the police suggest a suicide. The history of Iran’s operations overseas inevitably suggest otherwise. And there are disturbing echoes of the world 20 or 30 years ago when Tehran, often in league with its clients in Hezbollah, waged a global war on the enemies of the Islamic Republic, deploying hit teams second only to the Israelis in their skill at assassination.  [Not up on all of this.  Didn't think Iran was known for 'hit teams' ... thought that was Mossad.] First, let’s look at the official communiqué about Nisman’s death issued by Argentina’s Ministry of National Security on Monday morning, with the facts of the case as the ministry says they are known: Nisman’s lifeless body was discovered Sunday night in his apartment on the 13th floor of Le Parc Tower, which is part of a modern high-rise complex in the Puerto Madero neighborhood of Buenos Aires. Ten members of the Argentine Federal Police force had been assigned to him as bodyguards, but it seems they were not deployed when he was at home. According to the communiqué, members of the team alerted Nisman’s secretary on Sunday afternoon that he was not responding to repeated phone calls. When they learned that he was not answering the doorbell of his house either and that the Sunday newspaper was still on the step, they decided to notify his relatives. [Straight up, I'd be looking at the slap-dash security.  Why so loose?  Why leave openings?  Why so slow to react?] In the world of intelligence, as distinct from the world of criminal justice, there has been little question that Iran was behind the AMIA bombing. The bodyguards then collected Nisman’s mother at her home and took him to Le Parc. When they tried to enter, they found the door locked with the key on the inside. They called the building’s maintenance staff who then called a locksmith.  Nisman’s mother entered the apartment with one of the bodyguards, and they found Nisman in the bathroom, where his body was blocking the door when they tried to open it. They immediately called police crime scene investigators who entered the bathroom, apparently making as much effort as possible not to disturb the evidence. [Agile 'Houdini' assassin?] Nisman was on the floor with a .22 caliber pistol and one empty shell casing nearby. The official communiqué does not say explicitly that he died from a bullet wound to the head, but that has been widely reported in Buenos Aires, as has the detail that the documents for his testimony before parliament were arrayed on his desk. How a murderer might have staged this apparent suicide will doubtless be the subject of speculation and conspiracy theories for years to come, as, indeed, is the case with the investigation into the AMIA bombing itself. That never resulted in a single conviction and was called a “national disgrace” by the late President Néstor Kirchner in 2005. The former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, was among those who signed a petition ten years ago calling for justice, but to no avail. Nisman’s eventual focus on direct Iranian involvement, accusing Tehran of planning and financing the attack and Hezbollah operatives of carrying it out, was not universally supported, even by U.S. investigators who followed the case. “The guilt field was painted with a bit too broad a brush,” former FBI agent James Bernazzani told The New York Times in 2009. Bernazzani had led U.S. investigations of Hezbollah throughout the 1990s and said that while he was “convinced” of the group’s involvement, “we surfaced no information indicating Iranian compliance.” In the world of intelligence, however, as distinct from the world of criminal justice, there has been little question that Iran was behind the AMIA bombing in 1994 and the earlier car-bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 that killed 29 people. [Surely, even in the world of intelligence, conclusion has to be based on available facts.  But law enforcement said there were none pinning it on Iran.  So, the intelligence that Iran was behind it would just be a best guess?] At the time, the Israelis were attacking Hezbollah leaders and Iranian clients in Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran struck back wherever they thought they could. “It’s an ongoing game, playing by the rules of the Bible,” a senior official in Israeli intelligence told me at height of the carnage, meaning the rule of eye for an eye, “and at a certain point there is a balance of terror where everyone knows what’s expected.” The Iranians also targeted with a vengeance any opposition figures they thought might be dangerous. In 1991, after a failed attempt years before, they managed to talk their way into the home of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the Shah of Iran’s last prime minister. He thought they were friends. They were searched by police at the door. They killed him with a knife from his own kitchen. The younger brother of then-President Hashemi Rafsanjani was named as a suspect in the case.  [Doesn't sound too professional, although it's certainly merciless and barbaric.] Between 1987 and 1993, according a French government memo published in a very detailed study called Le Hezbollah Global, between 1987 and 1993 some 18 opponents of the Tehran regime were murdered in Europe, and the CIA estimated that between 1989 and 1996 the Hezbollah network carried out 200 serious attacks costing hundreds of lives.  [Can the French memo & CIA estimates be trusted?  As it's unlikely anyone else was knocking off opponents of Teheran, the French memo might get a pass but I don't know about the CIA estimate.] By the late 1990s, the Iranian government apparently decided to slow these operations after several of them started to bring down too much heat. The Germans conducted a relentless investigation of the murder of Kurdish leaders in Berlin in 1992, tracing them back to the then-head of Iranian intelligence, Ali Fallahian. The AMIA bombing in 1994 caused international outrage. And the bombing of the Khobar Towers apartments in Saudi Arabia in 1995, which killed 19 Americans, was eventually traced to another group of Iranian acolytes. [Kurdish targets sound more like something the Turkish would be involved in, rather than Iran.  Saudi Arabia and Americans I can't begin to decide.] Finally, Imad Mugniyeh, seen as the key Hezbollah operative in many of the group’s terrorist attacks, dating back to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, was blown up with a well-placed car bomb in Damascus in 2008. The Israelis generally are credited with that hit.  [Read about this some time ago.  Sounds pretty much what I'd read elsewhere.] But by then, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon had fought a successful war of attrition that led to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory in 2000 after decades of occupation. Building on that victory, Hezbollah became, and remains, the most powerful political party in the country. Since then it has focused its actions on a sustained but relatively controlled standoff with Israel, apart from a brutal war in 2006 when it fought the vaunted Israeli army to a standstill. And in the last two years it has deployed in Syria to fight against the Sunni-led rebellion there, including the forces of al Qaeda and ISIS, that threaten the Assad regime. Iran, for its part, has been trying to show itself a reasonable member of the community of nations by negotiating with the Americans and Europeans about the future of its nuclear program. Yet there have been signs within the last few days that the game as old as the Bible continues, and may once again grow very dangerous. Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted that his organization now has weapons that can strike anywhere in Israel. “We have made all necessary preparations for a future war,” he said. Then on Sunday, Israeli forces killed Jihad Mugniyeh, son of the late mastermind, and several other Hezbollah officers who were operating in the Syrian sector of the Golan Heights. The Israeli press reported they had been planning attacks on Israeli targets. Was Alberto Nisman somehow caught up in this long war of assassinations? Or did he decide for reasons we probably cannot know to end his own life? The investigation will continue, unless somebody stops it.  [LOL ... who would be game to continue to investigate?] SOURCE:  The Daily Beast - here. COMMENT Chose this article randomly.  Another piece I'd read on Saudi Arabia challenged what I think is the present pro Saudi status quo, so I figured I'd check out another article by the same publication. Wondering if publication may have a pro-Israeli bias given the headline. The first thought I had on learning of  Nisman's death was, wow, Argentina's totally corrupt ... as I first assumed that someone within Argentina's government or intelligence was responsible.  Later, I wondered who might benefit from destabilising the government & maybe doing a frame that taints the government with suspicion of the killing as well as the cover-up accusation.  Only vaguely thought about Iran at some point, but dismissed it because it didn't seem like they had anything to gain. But ... my knowledge is very limited, so I could be wrong about that.  As I read the article I wasn't that convinced it had anything to do with Iran.  It was only when it got to the nuclear negotiations bit that had me wondering ... along the lines of maybe the motive being to preserve the edge Iran may presently have in negotiations.  But there's a warrant for eight Iranians (and one Lebanese) issued, so it isn't like this is something new and damaging to Iran.  Here's where it gets really interesting: Argentine government accuses prosecutor Nisman of working hand-in-hand with Jaime Stiusso, a former agent at Intelligence Secretariat (SI, formerly known as SIDE) who was reportedly removed when Oscar Parrilli was appointed to head the country’s intelligence services last month. Stiusso was said to be working behind the scenes against the memorandum of understanding —signed by the Kirchnerite administration and Iran in January 2013 to investigate the AMIA bombing. According to a Kirchnerite source, internal rifts within the SI started when the Federal Criminal Appeals Court declared unconstitutional the Memorandum in May last year. [mercopress] I had some other guy's name for the intelligence replacement:   intel head Héctor Icazuriaga replaced by Oscar Parrilli [here]. Sounds like the intelligence agency's been stirred up and it looks like the Foreign Minister has accused those in the intelligence agency of fabricating the complaint: statement by Foreign Minister Hector Timerman against Prosecutor Alberto Nisman describing his complaint as a fabricated product of a manoeuvre by Intelligence Service agents who have been removed from their positions [here] Another article reports that Nisman's Iran & Hezbollah accusations are based almost wholly on information from intelligence services -- and that the US embassy is responsible for pushing Nisman in that direction: Nisman is a prosecutor who devoted the past 10 years to push the accusations against the Iranian regime and Lebanon’s Hezbollah for the AMIA bombing, almost completely based on information provided by intelligence services. The US Embassy was the one that pushed Nisman toward that approach, at the expense of probing any other possible foreign or local responsibilities, as was exposed in the WikiLeaks cables. That thesis is also favoured by the Israeli government and the leadership of the Argentine Jewish community. In particular, the latter tried to lobby before the Embassy in favour of former DAIA President Rubén Beraja, who was convicted and then acquitted of perjury charges to cover up the attack, among other judicial proceedings against him. [here] The last bit of that paragraph doesn't mean much to me.  Who is this Beraja guy?  Quickie look:  businessman, Ruben Beraja, was president of the Delegation of Jewish Argentine Associations (DAIA). GreenLeft reported in 2011: The US pressured an Argentine prosecutor to halt investigations into former Argentine president Carlos Menem and a number of other officials suspected of being involved in a cover-up over the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, Argentine daily Pagina/12 reported on February 27. [here] Article goes on to say that a 1997 report by Argentina’s National Academy of Engineers indicated that a car bomb wasn't the cause of the explosion, as the epicentre of the explosion was within the building.  Not sure which building.  Looks like they're talking about the AMIA building, but I think another article referred to the embassy. Here's where the story becomes totally twisted.  Caught on video: federal judge Juan Jose Galeano offering [car dealer] Telleldin a US$400,000 bribe in return for providing witness testimony implicating the police officers [ibid] But that's not all: The court found that federal judge Luisa Riva Aramayo also offered to pay Telleldin for testimony implicating a number of police officers allied to Menem’s political rival, Eduardo Duhalde. [ibid] How corrupt is Argentina?  That's just put me off Argentina.  Not somewhere you'd go to settle down to a quiet life, is it?  Sounds like a nest of vipers. Here's more on the nukes: In a November 2006 report for the Asia Times Online, Porter said “The indictment [by Nisman and Burgos] shows the US put strong pressure on the Menem government to terminate all nuclear cooperation with Iran.” [ibid] US seems to be highly involved in the goings on in Argentina: The WikLeaks revelations also included cables criticising the Argentine government and showing a close relationship between the US and right-wing opposition figures. [ibid] Now that I've trawled through all this stuff, I'm somewhat confused. Argentinian author Adrian Salbuchi argues that it is more plausible that Israeli intelligence services may be responsible for the attacks in Argentina [here]. Without knowledge of all the related events, it's hard to assess the merits of the timeline or the proposal that it may have been Israeli intelligence services. Initially I found that option hard to believe.  But then I remembered King David Hotel bombing.  Even though this was pre Israeli intelligence services days,  it's hard to dismiss when early Zionist paramilitary organisations that were responsible for the KDH bombing also produced a Prime Minister (Menachem Begin), then head of the organisation associated with the Deir Yassin massacre. If my understanding is correct, David Shaltiel, the guy who gave the Deir Yassin massacre the go-ahead (despite a non-aggression pact signed by the villagers) was a paramilitary commander, who went on to become an intelligence officer and an Israeli diplomat: In the years 1950-1952 Shaltiel served as military attaché of Israel in France, and later fulfilled several diplomatic charges - as Israel's plenipotentiary minister in Brazil and Venezuela (1952–1956), then in Mexico (1956–1959) and ambassador in Netherlands (1963–1966). [wikipedia] I'm now more blown away by this information than I am by the convenient death of Prosecutor Nisman. Reading further, I've discovered an early example of assassination by Zionist paramilitary:  that of Jacob Israel de Haan.  First political murder.  Killed 1924 Jerusalem.  Haan's view of a Zionist future (negotiation with Arabs) didn't fit with the paramilitary organisation's view. What blows me away is that those who participated in extremist violence in Palestine became mainstream (and presumably accepted) figures. Pope Francis (former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio) gets a mention for having signed a petition for AMIA justice 10 years ago. Italian descent, worked as a chemical technician and a bouncer. Religion creeps me out in a big way.  Not for one moment do I believe in do-gooder 'holiness'.  Nor the we-must-revere-religion stance. In terms of the church generally, if you want influence in a place like Latin America you would probably want to play with the church.  Looks like CIA's played with the church. Checking out the church, I've found this: "under Reagan, the CIA linked up with Pope John Paul II, and they attacked together, they attacked liberation theology based communities in Latin America and have really destroyed that whole movement" [Matthew Fox, Theologian] Oh, look.  Here's another article that links CIA with Pope John Paul II: John Paul II appears to have gone even further, allowing the Catholic Church in Nicaragua to be used by the CIA and Ronald Reagan’s administration to finance and organize internal disruptions while the violent Nicaraguan Contras terrorized northern Nicaraguan towns with raids notorious for rape, torture and extrajudicial executions. School of the Americas ('Coup School') got a mention in that one, as well. Must-read article by Robert Parry, investigative reporter, who broke Iran-Contra stories: Pope Francis, CIA and ‘Death Squads’ https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/16/pope-francis-the-cia-and-death-squads/ Pope Francis & Hollywood   Hollywood meets Vatican Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 Pope Francis and actress, film-maker meet after the screening of 'Unbroken' at the Vatican. Perfection. WWII hero Hollywood flick, Universal Studios, Hollywood & UN heroine, the head of the Catholic Church (wow, somebody powerful is pulling strings and it's not god), the oft repeated "strength of the human spirit", a keepsake rosary ... an almost perfect PR trip, were this not such an absurd concoction. Hollywood Pictures.  Movies. Money.  Money.  Money. Corporate America Wall Street.  Power.  Elite. Myth-makers.  Dreams-makers. Lies.  Propaganda. Humanitarian mantra.  Appropriation for political ends.  Trojan horse. US empire Politics Pontiff, god, & glamour Holy spirit Sport. War. Hero. "strength of the human spirit" Or  indifferent chance? Rosary Blessing Affirming American Empire 2015 For me, the beauty lies in the absurdity of the concoction presented for consumption. ---------------------------------------------------- Various links: *http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/did-iran-murder-argentina-s-crusading-prosecutor-alberto-nisman.html *http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179804/as-illconceived-as-it-sounds *http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/179518/gov%E2%80%99t-accusations-are-%E2%80%98ridiculous-inconceivable%E2%80%99 *http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/19/d-day-for-argentine-prosecutor-who-charged-cristina-fernandez-with-iran-cover-up *https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46996 *http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/19/d-day-for-argentine-prosecutor-who-charged-cristina-fernandez-with-iran-cover-up *https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/16/pope-francis-the-cia-and-death-squads/

Charlie Hebdo gunmen, Hollande & Assad

SYRIA Source:  Twitter Depicts the Charlie Hebdo gunmen, Hollande & Assad

Charlie Hebdo Massacre, France - War on Terrorism - Free Press & Mass Surveillance & Fascism

#Assange and #Snowden are not to blame for Paris bloodbath. Sat Jan 10 18:19:36 UTC 2015 In today’s Daily Mail, “Sir” Max “I have always loved Israel” Hastings claimed that me and Mr. Snowden are responsible for the bloodbath in Paris: “Traitors… Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping”. That a state security vampire like Hastings has pounced on the still warm corpses strewn about Paris is as grotesque as it is predictable. Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret services are no exception to this rule. Currently the French security state has tried to present the killers as super villains in order to hide its own incompetence — something the media has been only too willing to aid and abet. The reality is the Charlie Hebdo killers were bumbling Keystone terrorists, no-hopers, who crashed their car, left their ID, co-ordinated over the phone and swiftly died. To lose nearly two dozen people to them is unforgivable. That double digits were killed is no mark of super powers. A single idiot can do it. In Australia’s Port Arthur massacre, a man with the IQ of 66, literally an idiot, shot 58 people over the course of several hours—because he was armed with an AR-10 semi-automatic and his victims were not. The tragedy in Paris is another example of where competent targeted surveillance, not mass surveillance, was needed. The attackers were well known jihadis. This is not a case of needing to collect a global interception haystack in order to find a needle. The alleged needle in question, Cherif Kouachi, had already been convicted of terrorism offences and served 18 months in prison for it. Both brothers were already on terrorism lists. Far from hiding messages under rocks or using encryption, the alleged conspirators communicated hundreds of times before and during the attacks — on regular phones. The offices of Charlie Hebdo had received many death threats and had been firebombed in 2011 a week after publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The French mass surveillance system is already one of the most pervasive; its primary purpose, like all such systems, is geopolitics. Mass surveillance addiction doesn’t come for free. In France it thieved skilled human and financial resources from targeted monitoring of obvious—the front of the Charlie Hebdo building and people walking out of prison with a terrorism conviction in one hand and numerous jihadi contacts in the other. Yesterday French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said “There was a failing, of course” on French television, “That’s why we have to analyse what happened.”. Valls is right, Hastings is not. So conspicuous is the failure in the Charlie Hebdo killings that serious questions must be asked. Cherif Kouachi had previously been involved in furthering the Sunni insurgency in the Levant. Were the brothers protected by the French services as part of French adventurism in Syria, Libya and elsewhere—as a conduit to funnel money, guns and militants into Africa and the Middle East? Were the brothers protected because they were witting or unwitting informers? Were the brothers protected in order to conduct a mediagenic, budget-boosting arrest seconds before the attack began — but the attack was moved forward? Why was the security architecture of the Charlie Hebdo building so poor? How is it that semi-automatic weapons found their way into France and into the hands of known jihadis? And most of all why has France’s crazed Sunni adventurism in Syria, Libya and other parts of Africa been tolerated despite the inevitable destabalization, radicalization and blowback? https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html ASSANGE SOURCE - Twitter. Couldn't resist copying this over.  Nice response to Max Hastings' assertion in Daily Mail, which (in my opinion) could also serve as a notice to others trying to shift blame away from the issue of long-standing Western & European government policies and practices -- including imperialism, colonialism and interventions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) --  which I believe are some of the factors at the root of the Islamic extremist violence that Europe is experiencing. Disturbances caused in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for large movements of people from their homelands, which leads to issues associated with identity, religion and culture, resistance to assimilation versus assimilation, and difficulty integrating a clash of cultures, identity and values, which is exploited by nationalists, fundamentalists and extremists in host countries and elsewhere, for political and other gain. This is just my overall impression at the moment, based on my limited knowledge at this time. In an article in Haaretz, I found it interesting that the 'free press' as a whole, are clubbed together as Assange and Snowden supporters. The Haaretz article starts off with a statement posing as question.  It questions: (a) whether 'closer state surveillance' could have prevented the Charlie Hebdo massacre and, if so, it asks: (b) would the 'free press', who have supported Snowden and Assange (presumably the free press as a whole, because the author is not referring to specific publications or journalists), feel like crap (implication), if 'closer state surveillance' could have prevented the massacre (which is contentious, given that experts in that field argue that mass surveillance is *not* the answer, that it is a hindrance and that targeted surveillance is required).  Article Haaretz strikes me as casting very subtle aspersion on free press, as well as Assange and Snowden,  as figures supporting or representing freedom of press (Assange) and freedom from mass surveillance (Snowden & Assange). The Haaretz article also characterises Charlie Hebdo publication as follows: The target can, in Charlie Hebdo, be seen as a kind of marker of the ideology of secular France. That's quite sweeping statement to make about a satirical magazine, even if it is couched in 'can ... be seen' terms. So satire has become a representation or symbol of 'ideology' and this 'ideology' is depicted as a prevailing one in secular France, so presumably the target of Islamist extremist violence is the 'ideology' of  'secular France', is the gist of that sentence? Difficult for me to come to grips with the statement because I don't see the content of a satirical magazine as being a representation of secular cultural 'ideology'; rather, it is (in my view) social or political comment made by the originators of the material, who are entitled to a voice in society that values freedom of expression. The article continues: The big question in the wake of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo is whether the slaughter will bring France out of its corner in the war on Islamist terror. France has seen some appalling crimes – including attacks against Jews – that could be linked, broadly, to the global war against Islamist terror. ... the Internet appears to capture gunmen shouting "Allahu Akbar"("God is greatest" in Arabic) – all eyes will be on France to see what happens next. It’s not that France has been entirely out of the fight on Islamist terror. A few hours before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Agence France Press reported that the Charles de Gaulle, the aircraft carrier that is the flagship of the French fleet, would be deployed to the Gulf to take part in operations against the Islamist State. France, though, has always seemed to hang back a bit. Gurfinkiel calls this a “tradition,” with the French authorities “hoping to know more” by leaving hostile elements at large in France while keeping an eye on them. That starts to look like a risky strategy in an era of so-called “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. [Gurfinkiel, referred to above, is "Michel Gurfinkiel, a Paris-based pro-Israel journalist"] The focal point seems to be the "global war against Islamist terror" but there are a number of factors beyond that which are not discussed (eg corporate imperialism in the Middle East, the arming of 'moderate'-designated 'rebels', the regime changes in the Middle East that the West is responsible for (eg Libya and, now, pushing for a regime change in Syria), which can be viewed as actually fostering Islamist terror organisations in the region (and, by extension, extremism in regions beyond). The article states: The press has sought largely to stay neutral in the global war on terrorism or has tilted against the hawkish camp. and that view of the supposedly 'neutral' (and/or anti 'war on terrorism') press, is then linked to the original question/statement regarding the position of the press (in light of what amounts to the earlier Assange and Snowden negative association), tied in with the supposed antidote that 'could' have prevented the massacre:  'closer state surveillance'. So the agenda here is to accuse the press of not supporting 'war on terrorism' by (a) not supporting mass surveillance (and by extension, a police or a totalitarian state solution, and therefore large-scale violation of civil liberties) and, presumably, (b) accuse the press of not putting 'war on terrorism' promotional spin on the news; as well as pointing out how lax France tends to be, before committing to military intervention in regions beyond its borders, in addition to dragging its feet implementing law enforcement type controls within its borders.  Therefore, it could be seen as an article perhaps lobbying for pro totalitarian and interventionalist action by (a) France and (b) the press (who is expected to support this). I think that's a reasonable inference to make, but this is just my impression of what I read in Haaretz and I am new to looking at politics, so this is an amateur point of view.  Someone else may see the article and this whole scenario entirely differently.  Here's the Haaretz article headline and link: Will the Charlie Hebdo attack bring France out of its corner in the war on Islamist terror? And how will the free press feel, after it supported Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, if it discovers that closer state surveillance could have foreseen the Paris massacre? By Seth Lipsky | Jan. 7, 2015 | 7:58 PM | 5 Final word on the conclusion (below): But what position will the newspapers take after having expressed support for Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, if it turns out that this attack could have been foreseen by more aggressive collection and mining of the metadata? Thought it was clever to raise a 'question' (but really make a statement) at the beginning of an article and reinforced at the end, kind of 'tarnishing' Snowden and Assange (and the press freedom and freedom from surveillance push), without getting one's hands dirty by bothering to construct an argument that aggressive collection of metadata (mass surveillance) is a proven extremist violence preventative measure (see William Binney, who argues otherwise). Getting back to the Assange post, I'm going to have to pass on the attack 'moved forward' proposition, because I simply cannot believe that this happened.  Way too hard to believe that whoever is running intelligence in France would protect these these guys and, effectively, become a co-conspirator plotting a staged media event that went wrong. On the other hand, CIA were involved in bombing attacks in Italy (Operation Gladio), so anything's possible, and the idea can't be totally ruled out, I suppose. Not sure why there's no mention of the rocket launcher (unless it was a false initial report).  The report that these guys had a rocket launcher blew me away.  Anyway, I thought this might be of interest.  Too bad I can't articulate my impressions clearly. ......................................................................................... LINKS *  Sir Max Hastings Journalist, foreign correspondent, editor. Cousin:  war hero, MI6 operative (Stephen Hastings) August 2014: Hastings one of 200 public figures / signatories to a letter to The Guardian opposing Scottish independence. *  Plan Vigipirate France's national security alert system.  Created in 1978. Regularly gets updated whenever there's 'terror bombing campaigns' in France. The fact that this alert system was introduced in the late 70s, gets updated and continues to be required in France, surely poses some questions related to French foreign policy.  * Daily Mail Article:   "MAX HASTINGS: Why the liberals who defended traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools" DAILY MAIL EXTRACTS: The price of living in an open society, with the precious freedoms we take for granted, is that all of us, great and small, are vulnerable to attackers consumed by hatred for our culture, its values, and manifest superiority to those from which they come. Globalisation places a disturbing number of such people in our midst, rather than far away in Somalia or Iran. Ummm, I somehow don't think that those who take to enacting terrorist activities merely do so because they hate our manifest cultural superiority.  While 'globalism' did get a mention, what's missing is corporate imperialism combined with geopolitical imperialist ambition. Jihadism, he says, represents a response to ‘the challenge of a secular, urban civilisation that threatens to destroy their traditional values and beliefs’ Yes, but does this pertain to all fundamentalist extremists in all circumstances, or is this just a facet of the fundamentalist extremism?  Also, why is the West arming extremists -- eg currently arming and training Syrian 'moderate rebels', and the West is known to have armed and supported the Mujahadeen. Our principal weapons against terrorists are not tanks, Typhoon fighter jets or warships, but instead intelligence officers using electronic surveillance. Much cant has been peddled recently about the supposed threat to liberty posed by government eavesdropping on our lives. Here we go again.  Another pusher of mass surveillance, which has been given a legal nod in Britain, anyway. I'm starting to get the impression that those who argue for mass surveillance are just closet fascists demanding a totalitarian state -- not because totalitarian mass surveillance is going to prevent terrorist attacks, but because it serves the purposes of those in power. In truth, Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping. Don't know why Assange has been dragged into the 'electronic eavesdropping' alerting of mortal enemies argument; it was Snowden who released the NSA mass surveillance information rather than Assange (although Assange is opposed to mass surveillance). Seeing that mass surveillance didn't even prevent the Boston bombing (which the Russians warned the Americans about), we can give the mass surveillance cheering routine a rest:  mass surveillance is not effective.  But its a great tool when it comes to political assassination:  see General Petraeus. Public safety demands a perpetual balancing act between collective security and the rights of the individual. And it is terrific for surveilling members of the 'free press'.  Also, you'll hear a lot about 'safety' and 'national security' when it comes to government trying to erode civil liberties. Old Max goes on to talk about WWII situation (has anyone declared WWIII yet?), and plays a accompanying violin, romantically depicting brutal wartime assault on civil liberties as:  50 million British people against Hitler.  Yeah, Max, all well and good in WWII Britain, but there's been no declaration of WWIII to justify the gross violations perpetrated by Western totalitarianism. This is the most disgusting war-drums propaganda piece ever. What this guy wants is a totalitarian state and, quite possibly, seeing he would have insider knowledge, that state is perhaps really preparing for outright war (rather than 'war on terrorism'). Here's a reminder of pre-WWII Britain: British Union of Fascists Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet Leader of British Union of Fascists Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. Looks like fascism tends to precede war.

PIMPING UKRAINE

Source:  TWITTER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 Victoria Nuland offering up the Ukraine Maidan cookies is too good not to share.

Western hypocrisy & Ukraine neo Nazi US-puppet Regime Thuggery

UKRAINE Western hypocrisy & Ukraine neo Nazi US-puppet Regime Thuggery: Source:  Twitter Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 Note that: Patrick Lancaster has a lot of photographic and video evidence that the Ukraine military is deliberately targeting civilians and civilian homes, thereby committing extensive war crimes. That information was sourced at Global Reasearch - Article: Genocide In Eastern Ukraine: Eye Witness Account Confirms that Ukraine Armed Forces Are Deliberately Targeting Civilians V: It’s shocking that you don’t have this all over the news in the West. Why do you think the media has been [systematically] blocking all this information? P: Hmm. I think…(pause) because it’s not Russia doing the atrocities, it’s the Ukrainian government. If it had been Russia doing this, it would be a whole different story. LINK:  here. VIDEO:  The ruins of Donetsk locals tell their story Part 1 : A walk to Luba's home (Eng) Link to Patrick Lancaster's YouTube channel for more videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbjTWVaRx6jMN5ZYgbqe2_w/videos?view=0&sort=dd&flow=list&live_view=500