Refugee Crisis | How Neocons Destabilise Europe

ꕤ Article SOURCE Robert Parry American investigative journalist breaking Iran-Contra affair for Associated Press (AP) & Newsweek breaking Psychological Ops in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) breaking CIA & Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal (1985) http://newcoldwar.org/refugee-crisis-how-neocons-destabilized-europe/ Refugee crisis: How neocons destabilized Europe By Robert Parry, Consortium News, September 7, 2015 Introduction by New Cold War.org: The neocon prescription of endless “regime change” is spreading chaos across the Middle East and now into Europe, yet the neocons still control the mainstream U.S. narrative and thus have diagnosed the problem as not enough “regime change,” as Robert Parry reports. Amidst the righteous humanitarian concern over the fate of millions of refugees in the Middle East seeking to flee the devastation of their homelands, Parry provides a needed reminder of the source of the crisis which mainstream news reporting and many analysts are ignoring, namely, the military interventions and austerity policies of the U.S., European Union and NATO military alliance into the region. Importantly, Parry explains the disastrous consequences of the extension of that intervention into Ukraine, leading to ‘regime change’ there in late 2013/early 2014. * * * The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe – dramatized by gut-wrenching photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi whose body washed up on a beach in Turkey – started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through “regime change”. On Aug 30, 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have proof that the Syrian gov't was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited [State Department photo] Instead of the promised wonders of “democracy promotion” and “human rights,” what these “anti-realists” have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn’t been enough “regime change”. For instance, The Washington Post’s neocon editorial page editor Fred Hiatt on Monday blamed “realists” for the cascading catastrophes. Hiatt castigated them and President Barack Obama for not intervening more aggressively in Syria to depose President Bashar al-Assad, a longtime neocon target for “regime change.” But the truth is that this accelerating spread of human suffering can be traced back directly to the unchecked influence of the neocons and their liberal fellow-travelers who have resisted political compromise and, in the case of Syria, blocked any realistic efforts to work out a power-sharing agreement between Assad and his political opponents, those who are not terrorists. In early 2014, the neocons and liberal hawks sabotaged Syrian peace talks in Geneva by blocking Iran’s participation and turning the peace conference into a one-sided shouting match where U.S.-funded opposition leaders yelled at Assad’s representatives who then went home. All the while, the Post’s editors and their friends kept egging Obama to start bombing Assad’s forces. The madness of this neocon approach grew more obvious in the summer of 2014 when the Islamic State, an Al Qaeda spinoff which had been slaughtering suspected pro-government people in Syria, expanded its bloody campaign of beheadings back into Iraq where this hyper-brutal movement first emerged as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” in response to the 2003 U.S. invasion. It should have been clear by mid-2014 that if the neocons had gotten their way and Obama had conducted a massive U.S. bombing campaign to devastate Assad’s military, the black flag of Sunni terrorism might well be flying above the Syrian capital of Damascus while its streets would run red with blood. But now a year later, the likes of Hiatt still have not absorbed that lesson and the spreading chaos from neocon strategies is destabilizing Europe. As shocking and disturbing as that is, none of it should have come as much of a surprise, since the neocons have always brought chaos and dislocations in their wake. When I first encountered the neocons in the 1980s, they had been given Central America to play with. President Ronald Reagan had credentialed many of them, bringing into the U.S. government neocon luminaries such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. But Reagan mostly kept them out of the big-power realms: the Mideast and Europe. Those strategic areas went to the “adults,” people like James Baker, George Shultz, Philip Habib and Brent Scowcroft. The poor Central Americans, as they tried to shed generations of repression and backwardness imposed by brutal right-wing oligarchies, faced U.S. neocon ideologues who unleashed death squads and even genocide against peasants, students and workers. The result – not surprisingly – was a flood of refugees, especially from El Salvador and Guatemala, northward to the United States. The neocon “success” in the 1980s, crushing progressive social movements and reinforcing the oligarchic controls, left most countries of Central America in the grip of corrupt regimes and crime syndicates, periodically driving more waves of what Reagan called “feet people” through Mexico to the southern U.S. border. Messing up the Mideast But the neocons weren’t satisfied sitting at the kids’ table. Even during the Reagan administration, they tried to squeeze themselves among the “adults” at the grown-ups’ table. For instance, neocons, such as Robert McFarlane and Paul Wolfowitz, pushed Israel-friendly policies toward Iran, which the Israelis then saw as a counterweight to Iraq. That strategy led eventually to the Iran-Contra Affair, the worst scandal of the Reagan administration. [See Consortiumnews.com’s When Israel /Neocons Favored Iran.] However, the right-wing and mainstream U.S. media never liked the complex Iran-Contra story and thus exposure of the many levels of the scandal’s criminality was avoided. Democrats also preferred compromise to confrontation. So, most of the key neocons survived the Iran-Contra fallout, leaving their ranks still firmly in place for the next phase of their rise to power. In the 1990s, the neocons built up a well-funded infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets, benefiting from both the largesse of military contractors donating to think tanks and government-funded operations like the National Endowment for Democracy, headed by neocon Carl Gershman. The neocons gained more political momentum from the U.S. military might displayed during the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. Many Americans began to see war as fun, almost like a video game in which “enemy” forces get obliterated from afar. On TV news shows, tough-talking pundits were all the rage. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you couldn’t go wrong taking the most macho position, what I sometimes call the “er-er-er” growling effect. Combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the notion that U.S. military supremacy was unmatched and unchallengeable gave rise to neocon theories about turning “diplomacy” into nothing more than the delivery of U.S. ultimatums. In the Middle East, that was a view shared by Israeli hardliners, who had grown tired of negotiating with the Palestinians and other Arabs. Instead of talk, there would be “regime change” for any government that would not fall into line. This strategy was articulated in 1996 when a group of American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign in Israel and compiled a strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Iraq was first on the neocon hit list, but next came Syria and Iran. The overriding idea was that once the regimes assisting the Palestinians and Hezbollah were removed or neutralized, then Israel could dictate peace terms to the Palestinians who would have no choice but to accept what was on the table. In 1998, the neocon Project for the New American Century, founded by neocons Robert Kagan and William Kristol, called for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but President Bill Clinton balked at something that extreme. The situation changed, however, when President George W. Bush took office and the 9/11 attacks terrified and infuriated the American public. Suddenly, the neocons had a Commander-in-Chief who agreed with the need to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – and Americans were easily persuaded although Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. [See Consortiumnews.com’s The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.] The death of ‘realism’ The 2003 Iraq invasion sounded the death knell for foreign policy “realism” in Official Washington. Aging or dead, the old adult voices were silent or ignored. From Congress and the Executive Branch to the think tanks and the mainstream news media, almost all the “opinion leaders” were neocons and many liberals fell into line behind Bush’s case for war. And, even though the Iraq War “group think” was almost entirely wrong, both on the WMD justifications for war and the “cakewalk” expectations for remaking Iraq, almost no one who promoted the fiasco suffered punishment for either the illegality of the invasion or the absence of sanity in promoting such a harebrained scheme. Instead of negative repercussions, the Iraq War backers – the neocons and their liberal-hawk accomplices – essentially solidified their control over U.S. foreign policy and the major news media. From The New York Times and The Washington Post to the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, the “regime change” agenda continued to hold sway. It didn’t even matter when the sectarian warfare unleashed in Iraq left hundreds of thousands dead, displaced millions and gave rise to Al Qaeda’s ruthless Iraq affiliate. Not even the 2008 election of Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent, changed this overall dynamic. Rather than standing up to this new foreign policy establishment, Obama bowed to it, retaining key players from President Bush’s national security team, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and by hiring hawkish Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, who became Secretary of State, and Samantha Power at the National Security Council. Thus, the cult of “regime change” did not just survive the Iraq disaster; it thrived. Whenever a difficult foreign problem emerged, the go-to solution was still “regime change,” accompanied by the usual demonizing of a targeted leader, support for the “democratic opposition” and calls for military intervention. President Obama, arguably a “closet realist,” found himself as the foot-dragger-in-chief as he reluctantly was pulled along on one “regime change” crusade after another. In 2011, for instance, Secretary of State Clinton and National Security Council aide Power persuaded Obama to join with some hot-for-war European leaders to achieve “regime change” in Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi had gone on the offensive against groups in eastern Libya that he identified as Islamic terrorists. But Clinton and Power saw the case as a test for their theories of “humanitarian warfare” – or “regime change” to remove a “bad guy” like Gaddafi from power. Obama soon signed on and, with the U.S. military providing crucial technological support, a devastating bombing campaign destroyed Gaddafi’s army, drove him from Tripoli, and ultimately led to his torture-murder. ‘We came, we saw, he died’ Secretary Clinton scurried to secure credit for this “regime change.” According to one email chain in August 2011, her longtime friend and personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal praised the bombing campaign to destroy Gaddafi’s army and hailed the dictator’s impending ouster. “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. … You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’” Clinton forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.” Sullivan responded, saying “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. … You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.” However, when Gaddafi abandoned Tripoli that day, President Obama seized the moment to make a triumphant announcement. Clinton’s opportunity to highlight her joy at the Libyan “regime change” had to wait until Oct. 20, 2011, when Gaddafi was captured, tortured and murdered. In a TV interview, Clinton celebrated the news when it appeared on her cell phone and paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous line after Roman forces achieved a resounding victory in 46 B.C. and he declared, “veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Clinton’s reprise of Caesar’s boast went: “We came; we saw; he died.” She then laughed and clapped her hands. Killary Clinton Gaddafi was captured, tortured & murdered Presumably, the “Clinton Doctrine” would have been a policy of “liberal interventionism” to achieve “regime change” in countries where there is some crisis in which the leader seeks to put down an internal security threat and where the United States objects to the action.  [TokyRose Note:  similar scenario - done by Clinton No. 1:  Yugoslavia] But the problem with Clinton’s boasting about the “Clinton Doctrine” was that the Libyan adventure quickly turned sour with the Islamic terrorists, whom Gaddafi had warned about, seizing wide swaths of territory and turning it into another Iraq-like badlands. On Sept. 11, 2012, this reality hit home when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was overrun and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomatic personnel were killed. It turned out that Gaddafi wasn’t entirely wrong about the nature of his opposition. Eventually, the extremist violence in Libya grew so out of control that the United States and European countries abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. Since then, Islamic State terrorists have begun decapitating Coptic Christians on Libyan beaches and slaughtering other “heretics.” Amid the anarchy, Libya has become a route for desperate migrants seeking passage across the Mediterranean to Europe. A war on Assad Parallel to the “regime change” in Libya was a similar enterprise in Syria in which the neocons and liberal interventionists pressed for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, whose government in 2011 cracked down on what had quickly become a violent rebellion led by extremist elements, though the Western propaganda portrayed the opposition as “moderate” and “peaceful.” For the first years of the Syrian civil war, the pretense remained that these “moderate” rebels were facing unjustified repression and the only answer was “regime change” in Damascus. Assad’s claim that the opposition included many Islamic extremists was largely dismissed as were Gaddafi’s alarms in Libya.  On Aug. 21, 2013, a sarin gas attack outside Damascus killed hundreds of civilians and the U.S. State Department and the mainstream news media immediately blamed Assad’s forces amid demands for military retaliation against the Syrian army. On Aug 30, 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have proof that the Syrian gov't was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, but evidence failed to materialize or was later discredited  [State Department photo] Despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community about Assad’s responsibility for the sarin attack, which some analysts saw instead as a provocation by anti-Assad terrorists, the clamor from Official Washington’s neocons and liberal interventionists for war was intense and any doubts were brushed aside. But President Obama, aware of the uncertainty within the U.S. intelligence community, held back from a military strike and eventually worked out a deal, brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Assad agreed to surrender his entire chemical-weapons arsenal while still denying any role in the sarin attack. Though the case pinning the sarin attack on the Syrian government eventually fell apart – with evidence pointing to a “false flag” operation by Sunni radicals to trick the United States into intervening on their side – Official Washington’s “group think” refused to reconsider the initial rush to judgment. In Monday’s column, Hiatt still references Assad’s “savagery of chemical weapons.” Any suggestion that the only realistic option in Syria is a power-sharing compromise that would include Assad – who is viewed as the protector of Syria’s Christian, Shiite and Alawite minorities – is rejected out of hand with the slogan, “Assad must go!” The neocons have created a conventional wisdom which holds that the Syrian crisis would have been prevented if only Obama had followed the neocons’ 2011 prescription of another U.S. intervention to force another “regime change.” Yet, the far more likely outcome would have been either another indefinite and bloody U.S. military occupation of Syria or the black flag of Islamic terrorism flying over Damascus. Get Putin Another villain who emerged from the 2013 failure to bomb Syria was Russian President Putin, who infuriated the neocons by his work with Obama on Syria’s surrender of its chemical weapons and who further annoyed the neocons by helping to get the Iranians to negotiate seriously on constraining their nuclear program. Despite the “regime change” disasters in Iraq and Libya, the neocons wanted to wave the “regime change” wand again over Syria and Iran. Putin got his comeuppance when U.S. neocons, including NED President Carl Gershman and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife), helped orchestrate a “regime change” in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and putting in a fiercely anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border. F*ck the EU CIA Ukraine Coup   Victoria Nuland As thrilled as the neocons were with their “victory” in Kiev and their success in demonizing Putin in the mainstream U.S. news media, Ukraine followed the now-predictable post-regime-change descent into a vicious civil war. Western Ukrainians waged a brutal “anti-terrorist operation” against ethnic Russians in the east who resisted the U.S.-backed coup.   Thousands of Ukrainians died and millions were displaced as Ukraine’s national economy teetered toward collapse. Yet, the neocons and their liberal-hawk friends again showed their propaganda skills by pinning the blame for everything on “Russian aggression” and Putin. Though Obama was apparently caught off-guard by the Ukrainian “regime change,” he soon joined in denouncing Putin and Russia. The European Union also got behind U.S.-demanded sanctions against Russia despite the harm those sanctions also inflicted on Europe’s already shaky economy. Europe’s stability is now under additional strain because of the flows of refugees from the war zones of the Middle East. A dozen years of chaos So, we can now look at the consequences and costs of the past dozen years under the spell of neocon/liberal-hawk “regime change” strategies. According to many estimates, the death toll in Iraq, Syria and Libya has exceeded one million with several million more refugees flooding into – and stretching the resources – of fragile Mideast countries. Hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants have fled to Europe, putting major strains on the Continent’s social structures already stressed by the severe recession that followed the 2008 Wall Street crash. Even without the refugee crisis, Greece and other southern European countries would be struggling to meet their citizens’ needs. Stepping back for a moment and assessing the full impact of neoconservative policies, you might be amazed at how widely they have spread chaos across a large swath of the globe. Who would have thought that the neocons would have succeeded in destabilizing not only the Mideast but Europe as well. And, as Europe struggles, the export markets of China are squeezed, spreading economic instability to that crucial economy and, with its market shocks, the reverberations rumbling back to the United States, too. We now see the human tragedies of neocon/liberal-hawk ideologies captured in the suffering of the Syrians and other refugees flooding Europe and the death of children drowning as their desperate families flee the chaos created by “regime change.” But will the neocon/liberal-hawk grip on Official Washington finally be broken? Will a debate even be allowed about the dangers of “regime change” prescriptions in the future? Not if the likes of The Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt have anything to say about it. The truth is that Hiatt and other neocons retain their dominance of the mainstream U.S. news media, so all that one can expect from the various MSM outlets is more neocon propaganda, blaming the chaos not on their policy of “regime change” but on the failure to undertake even more “regime change. The one hope is that many Americans will not be fooled this time and that a belated “realism” will finally return to U.S. geopolitical strategies that will look for obtainable compromises to restore some political order to places such as Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Rather than more and more tough-guy/gal confrontations, maybe there will finally be some serious efforts at reconciliation. But the other reality is that the interventionist forces have rooted themselves deeply in Official Washington, inside NATO, within the mainstream news media and even in European institutions. It will not be easy to rid the world of the grave dangers created by neocon policies. http://newcoldwar.org/refugee-crisis-how-neocons-destabilized-europe/  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Ran into a problem formatting above copy article.   Best to go to original for easy read:  this copy's for me.  lol Lost my paragraph formatting while editing layout after highlighting (long story), not far off being ready to publish post.   Having spent ages highlighting, I've had to recreate the paragraphs.  Hopefully I've not put in too many additional paragraphs. The videos didn't appear in the linked-to article source. I really love this article.   I think Parry's being too kind to Obama.  Obama's on the same plutocratic / Wall Street team as everybody else: so the Ukraine coup came as no surprise to Obama. Those horrible women using 'humanitarianism' to destroy countries (and people), have never had anything to do with humanitarian concerns; that's just the cover and an excuse for destruction.  And these same neocon animals are now destroying Europe - with the cooperation of neocon swine European politicians who don't care about the future of their own people or nations. The proposed 'Clinton doctrine' goes way back to the early 1990s Balkans under Bill 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' Clinton (and probably earlier than that).  So, this is not that new. We're all screwed. What we see in the United States is pretty much what controls the entire West, via the US neocon foreign policy that is backed by various toady politicians in US-allied countries, who are replicas acting on behalf of the same monied interests (rather than national interests). The 'opposition' are just more replicas of these neocons and are their accomplices, no matter what they publicly pay lip-service to. Now I need to go away and digest all of this.  lol This means that Western governments don't care about us or our societies, and that they routinely lie to us. It also means that Western media routinely lies to us, as well. Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

CyberSec News

ꕤ CyberSec SOURCE as indicated #cybersecurity malware, named XcodeGhost secretly collects info on devices / uploads data to servers WeChat instant messaging app exposed 600 million users to malware downloading the program from #Apple Inc XcodeGhost malware only affected WeChat version 6.2.5 for iOS {new versions of 6.2.6 or later not affected} http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-21/tencent-fixes-flaw-exposing-wechat-app-users-to-malicious-code How malware is building hacking corporations / underground market teams /  marketed kits http://www.cbronline.com/news/cybersecurity/how-malware-is-building-hacking-corporations-4673904 #cybersecurity DDoS extortion attacks -  new threat / mitigation =  on-premises & cloud-based anti-DDoS tech http://www.scmagazineuk.com/ddos-extortion-attacks--a-new-threat-to-look-out-for/article/439394/ China = one of Boeing's best customers = 25 percent of the Boeing's commercial aircraft http://steelerslounge.com/2015/09/china-wants-us-tech-companies-to-play-by-its-rules/11923/ #cybersecurity (June 2015) expect insurance lobby to seek changes New Zealand Privacy Act  1993 / no mandatory notification / no notification to data breach customers required, either http://www.cio.co.nz/article/577982/cyber-risk-put-it-agenda-before-it-becomes-agenda/ Israel #cybersecurity co:   enSilo /  data exfiltration prevention model shift from inbound / deals w. attackers on inside enSilo tech =  blocking malicious outbound comm. =  employees can continue working even if devices infected http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/09/20/ensilo-blocks-the-exit-door-for-data-thieves/ #cybersecurity #cloud 28% #SaudiArabia co's planning to use hybrid cloud services / mobility users & mobility of resources http://ameinfo.com/technology/it/software/saudi-companies-eye-hybrid-cloud ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Various that caught my attention. Boeing makes a lot of money out of China.  A quarter of their business is in China.  That's a huge reliance on one country. New Zealand doesn't require notification of data breaches to customers or reporting of breaches to authorities.   Judging by the input from the insurance guy in the New Zealand article (June article), if there's any lobbying for changes to the New Zealand Privacy Act  1993, it will most likely come from the insurance industry and business lobbies, I'm guessing. Israeli cybersec company has a different approach:  stopping data going out while hackers are in. Nothing super exciting here. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Boeing | here William Edward Boeing  |  here ꕤ

i ❤ twitter | David Cameron #PigGate

ꕤ i ❤ twitter ❤ #PigGate 'Call Me Dave' ... Depraved David Cameron Prime Minister United Kingdom ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. FUNNY GIF - Below https://twitter.com/Aidan_Kerr1/status/645935836123504641 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ

Video

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5xnc1p7BMk ❤ ❤ TITLE AC/DC  |  JailBreak ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Yeah, I know.  It's old and kinda daggy.  But I like it.  lol ꕤ

US-Coalition Trained Free Syrian Army Militants Enter Syria via Turkey - USD$500-million Destabilisation Mission

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/20/429968/Syria-US-Turkey-SOHR-Rami-Abdel-Rahman 75 US-trained militants enter Syria via Turkey: Report Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:38AM  Militants from the so-called Free Syrian Army take part in a military training in Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, May 4, 2015. ©AFP Militants from the so-called Free Syrian Army take part in a military training in Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, May 4, 2015. ©AFP Dozens of militants, who were newly trained by the US-led coalition purportedly fighting Daesh Takfiris, have entered Syria from Turkey, a report says. The so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said in a report on Sunday that 75 militants have crossed into northern Syria over the past few days in a convoy of a dozen cars with light weapons and ammunition. The militants that were “trained in a camp near the Turkish capital, entered Aleppo province between Friday night and Saturday morning,” said SOHR Director Rami Abdel Rahman. They were later assigned to the so-called Division 30 and Suqur al-Jabal (Falcons of the Mountain), two units for the US-trained forces. The US-led train-and-equip program in Turkey was launched in May to train up to 5,400 so-called moderate militants a year in the alleged battle against Daesh in Syria. [ie  versus ISIS / Islamic State pretext] Washington claims that the USD-500-million mission aims only to target Daesh elements. Analysts, however, argue that the project actually seeks to create more chaos in Syria and weaken the Syrian government. Before the new dispatch of militants to Syria, the program had only managed to train some 60 militants. Last month, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem slammed the US for making a distinction between the Takfiri groups fighting against the Damascus government, saying, “For us in Syria, there is no such thing as moderate or non-moderate opposition. Whoever that takes up arms against the Syrian state is a terrorist.” Since September 2014, the US, along with some of its allies, has purportedly been conducting airstrikes against Daesh extremists inside Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate. The airstrikes in Syria are an extension of the US-led aerial campaign against alleged Daesh positions in Iraq, which started in August 2014. Many have criticized the ineffectiveness of the raids. This is while many members of the same US-led alliance have been among the staunch supporters of the terrorist groups operating to topple the Syrian government over the past four years. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/20/429968/Syria-US-Turkey-SOHR-Rami-Abdel-Rahman ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT The West is has been fully invested in 4 years of producing Middle Eastern mayhem, to weaken Syria. As Western proxies causing destabilisation in Syria continue to receive Western support via US-allied military training (and presumably armament) in Turkey (on Syria's northern border; Syria is the cream coloured region with cities marked), Germany's Merkel is pitching in by spending a staggering amount on absorbing what you might call the 'blow-back'  consequences of Western assaults on Syria and beyond.   Syria in relation to Turkey ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Germany's proposed spending on immigration: @ 1 million refugees per year next 2  years could cost Berlin [ie 2 million refugees @ 2yrs] 25 billion euros ($28.25 billion) (@ 12,500 euros per migrant) http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N11N12820150917 Japanese investment bank Mizuho calculation. Over half a dozen banks contacted by Reuters broadly agreed with Mizuho's calculations.   [ibid] If that's what a single country is spending on what amounts to a 'blow-back' mop-up op, imagine the amount of potential profit and strategic value that is really at stake to Western corporate interests, and how determined the West really is to possess control of Syria ... at any cost.  What Germany, Europe and other US allies are spending is probably just 'petty cash', compared to the expected rewards that follow the destruction of a target nation. Remember, the impact of what the West has been engaged in has spread right around Europe and through to US allies as far-flung as Australia. Australia is spending the following for her part in participating in the 5-year Middle Eastern refugees mop up: AUD$44-million - ie US$31-million (by my estimation, taking in 138,750 persons 2015-2019 incl) Whatever Syria has got, the Western powers (representing corporate interests) want badly. According to this article, it's oil wars that are being waged by the West against Syria: Cables released by Wikileaks demonstrate that control of the world's strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror" http://t.co/vCJoqadlFs Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

International Law - 1998 Rome Statute - International Criminal Court (ICC) - US & Western War Crimes

ꕤ Law 1998 Rome Statute (ICC) Adopted:  adopted on 17 July 1998 Signatories 1998 Rome Statute Post  |  here  #1 Dec 2, 2014 Prosecutor International Criminal Court (ICC) report re:  War Crimes in Afghanistan  – including US interrogation techniques - War Crimes Committed by Western States Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2014 II Situations Under Phase 2 (subject-matter jurisdiction) *Honduras *Iraq *Ukraine III Situations Under Phase 3 (Admissibility) *Afghansitan *Colombia *Georgia *Ginea *Nigera IV Completed Preliminary Examinations *Central African REpublic *REpublic of Korea *Registered Vessels (ie ships) - of Comoros, Greece & Cambodia ICC Report - Dec 2, 2014 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Pre-Exam-2014.pdf#search=afghanistan%20torture #2 Dec 9, 2014 US Senate - CIA Torture Report  Washington Post article re above & chances of USA facing ICC for violation of international law re war crimes: Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues: Insists that:  as USA not a member-state (signatory) to Rome Statute, the court has no right to investigate alleged war crimes committed by its citizens. Eugene Kontorovich professor at Northwestern University School of Law expert on constitutional & international law: ... observes, the torture report “gives significant impetus and ammunition to the ICC’s investigation." Afghanistan War Crimes Prosecution of USA - Requires: going high up the political food chain ie.  Bush administration “most responsible” for deploying torture as a means of war [Mark Kersten, WashingtonPost] NOTE There's provisions in international law that enable states to prosecute those that admit to having committed crimes in other states (or something like that).  But I can't see any takers challenging the imperial might of USA. Related Blog Post & link to Washington Post article | here USA & Israel Not Party to Rome Statute USA refused to ratify on the basis that this is assignment of SOVEREIGNTY ISRAEL signed and withdrew - fear of interpretation that following a war cime:  transfer civilian population by occupying power to occupied territory 2002 United States +   Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute [wikipedia] NOTE Afghanistan War commenced:  2001 Other 31 States have not ratified Blog Post | here ꕤ