| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: Another way to get war going with Syria and Iran for Israel |
| This is another way that a war with Iran can take place.. Going after Syria and Iran via Hezbollah in Lebanon.. Read pages 261-269/321 about the 'A Clean Break' war for Israel/agenda from esteemed US intelligence author/writer James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book via the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
It seems that everyone, at least who is quoted, is afraid to name the most obvious country responsible for Gemayel's killing and the only one that benefits unequivocally, namely, Israel. At the very moment that Syrian representatives are meeting in Damascus and Jamal Talabani is on his way to Iran, at the very time when it has become apparent that the US will be seeking the help of both Syria and Iran to help extricate itself from Iraq, the last thing that Syria would need is to be accused of another killing. Israel, either directly, or through intermediaries, many of whom may not have been aware who they were working for, has been assassinating people in the region for years and may have killed Hariri as well and made it look like it was done by Syria. The big question that no one seems to have raised in any of the media that I have seen is "Why was the murder of Hariri so important as to have resulted in UN sponsored international investigation while the more obvious murders of foreign heads of state (which Hariri was not) by the US over the past five decades and assassinations carried out by Israel have been ignored. The answer, I believe, is that Syria, beginning with the neocons Perle, Feith and Wurmser's Clean Break in 1996 was targeted for destruction by Israel, a position advanced by the American Jewish Lobby. and formulated in the Lebanese Restoration and Syrian Accountability Act, crafted by AIPAC, and overwhelmingly approved by the lobby's trained seals in Congress.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329640756-111416,00.html
Who benefits? Rival theories over the murder of Gemayel
Clancy Chassay
Thursday November 23, 2006
Guardian
There are two competing theories in Beirut for who killed Pierre Gemayel. They reflect Lebanon's deep cleavage since Syrian forces withdrew amid popular demonstrations after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
The US-backed government and its supporters accuse Syria and, in some cases, its ally Hizbullah. They say Syria wants to scupper an international tribunal to try those accused of killing Mr Hariri. A UN report links Lebanese and Syrian security services to the Lebanese prime minister's death, but Damascus denies involvement.
"Bottom line, there is one less minister in a government Syria and its allies want to bring down," said Michael Young, editor of the Lebanese Daily Star of Mr Gemayel's killing.
The theory suggests that, after six cabinet ministers resigned this month and the killing, Syria's agents in Lebanon need kill only two more and they will achieve a collapse of the government, because it will be constitutionally inquorate. A fresh government will block the tribunal, and Damascus will avoid the embarrassment of standing trial over Mr Hariri.
Other related theories suggest rogue elements in Syrian security acting outside President Bashar al-Assad's knowledge, seeking to intimidate Lebanese MPs in the run-up to ratification of the UN tribunal.
The other main theory accuses the US or its allies in Lebanon of killing Mr Gemayel to stop the opposition, led by Hizbullah, from bringing down the government and curtailing American influence. It also suggests an attempt to isolate Syria once again, just as the west wants to re-engage Damascus over possible help in Iraq. "The killing of Gemayel gave the embattled government a bit of breathing space and reinvigorated the pro-government forces' withering anti-Syrian cause, which has been primarily fuelled by the assassination of its leaders," said Amal Saad Ghorayeb of Beirut's Carnegie Middle East Centre.
Proponents of this theory believe the killing only makes it harder for Lebanese opponents of the tribunal in its current form to vote against, for fear of being associated with a pro-Syrian agenda. "If anything this assassination has expedited the decision in the UN to pass the resolution," said Mr Ghorayeb, referring to security council members Russia and Qatar, who had reservations, but came on board hours after Mr Gemayel's killing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: BBC: 'JINSA John' Bolton says Lebanon death 'may presage coup' (right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda!)
Lebanon death 'may presage coup' (says 'JINSA John' Bolton)
This week's killing of Lebanese politician Pierre Gemayel may be the first shot in a coup against the government, says a top US official.
John Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said recent probes into political killings in Lebanon suggested Syrian involvement.
He told the BBC that if Syria was deemed to have been involved, the implications were serious.
Saturday sees the second day of a strike protesting at the killing.
Many shops closed on Friday with business leaders saying they hoped the action would move Lebanon closer to a "national dialogue" and ward off the threat of division and street protests.
Mr Gemayel, a Maronite Christian who was the industry minister, was shot in his car in a Christian area of Beirut on Tuesday.
Many Lebanese accuse Damascus of orchestrating the 34-year-old's murder, although Syria explicitly denies any involvement.
Talking and listening
Speaking in a BBC interview, Mr Bolton said he did not want to pre-judge any investigation into Mr Gemayel's death.
Mr Bolton said that Washington would have to take such things into account when deciding whether to deal with Syria.
He said the Americans talked to the Syrians all the time -- the issue was whether Syria was going to listen.
The Lebanese cabinet is due to meet on Saturday to approve a United Nations plan for an international tribunal to try those accused of murdering the former Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri.
Syria has been implicated in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri last year, but denies involvement.
Shaky government
Correspondents say the Lebanese cabinet is expected to give its final approval to the tribunal, and this is likely to increase tensions with pro-Syrian politicians.
Earlier this month six pro-Syrian ministers resigned from the cabinet, saying they wanted a greater role in government.
The death or resignation of two more cabinet ministers would bring down the government.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council has agreed to a request from the Lebanese government to help investigate Mr Gemayel's murder.
His killing will be probed by the same tribunal that implicated senior Syrian officials and pro-Syrian Lebanese in the killing of Mr Hariri.
Correspondents say the government is accusing Hezbollah of exploiting the delicate political situation in Lebanon to try and block the UN-backed probe into the Hariri killing.
Pro-Syrian groups have already said the UN plan is illegal under Lebanon's constitution.
In 2005, Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon following 29 years of military and political rule over its smaller neighbour, after massive international pressure following the assassination of Mr Hariri.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6182800.stm
Published: 2006/11/25 05:16:50 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Take a look at 'JINSA John' Bolton's association with JINSA/PNAC Neocons like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and company of 'A Clean Break' fame
'JINSA John' Bolton nominated as US ambassador to the UN for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/03/07/jinsa-israel-firster-john-bolton-named-as-us-ambassador.php
Iran and Syria Helping Hizballah Rearm
As Lebanon's government tries to maintain its shaky grip on power, sources tell TIME that Tehran and Damascus are shipping weapons to the militant Shi'ite group
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1562890,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mossad hit meant to spark civil war in Lebanon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2006/11/27/mossad-hit-meant-to-spark-civil-war-in-lebanon.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews was too cowardly to address the Mearsheimer/Walt paper ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ) on the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) when he was given a copy of the Mearsheimer/Walt paper at USC in Los Angeles earlier this year, but he must have at least read such for its mention of the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda co-authored by Jewish JINSA/PNAC (war for Israel) Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser because Matthews went after Wurmser (who is in Dick Cheney's office) hard and mentioned the 'A Clean Break' agenda and PNAC in the process during his broadcast yesterday:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15830514/
Chris Matthews (host of MSNBC's 'Hardball' program) was given a print-out of the Mearsheimer/Walt study on the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby when he was at USC in Los Angeles recently (see the last few sentences of the following article) and is yet to address such on 'Hardball' - shows the power/influence of the lobby is alive and well still:
http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/04/12/News/Msnbcs.hardball.Films.Live.Segment.On.Campus-1845603.shtml?norewrite200611220358&sourcedomain=www.dailytrojan.com
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12448/index.php
Scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
Pro-Israel (AIPAC) lobby pushing hard for US to attack Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2006/06/08/the-sun-never-sets-on-aipac.php
Cheney and the Neo-Cons Plotting More War for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/18/cheney-and-neo-cons-plotting-more-wars.php
France Okays Firing at IAF over Lebanon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/23/france-okays-firing-at-iaf-over-lebanon.php
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:15 am; edited 7 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
I agree, Cynthia.. I am still very suspicious about the assassination in Lebanon as it would be right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda to expand the war to Syria and Iran via going after Hezbollah in Lebanon - especially if Netanyahu gets into power again as 'A Clean Break' was written for him by Perle, Feith and Wurmser (who is still in Cheney's office):
Another way to get war going with Syria and Iran via Lebanon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/23/another-way-to-get-war-going-with-syria-and-iran-for-israel.php
If the war doesn't get widened via the above, there is always the scenario where Israel could conduct strikes on Iran knowing that the US would come in to 'defend' Israel when Iran counterattacks:
Perfect storm building in the Persian Gulf:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/18/cheney-and-neo-cons-plotting-more-wars.php
I noted (from what I read) that Jim Lobe also didn't mention JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) in the piece - see the following URL for how Colin Powell has conveyed that the 'JINSA crowd' was in charge of the Pentagon:
Colin Powell believes that JINSA Neocons have hijacked the Pentagon:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/10/08/a-war-for-israel-colin-powell-seems-to-think-so.php
Iraq war was good for Israel: Olmert:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/24/iraq-war-was-good-for-israel-olmert.php
Olmert counting on Jewish lobby to foil Baker-Hamilton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/11/20/olmert-counting-on-jewish-lobby-to-foil-baker-hamilton.php
Neo-Cons or Just Plain "Cons"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/neocons-or-just-plain-c_b_34754.html
Cynthia wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/2006 2:45:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Many analysts, including some neo-conservatives, believe it was Baker who helped engineer Rumsfeld's replacement by Gates as part of a larger strategy to tilt the balance of power in the administration decisively in favor of the realists. Indeed, without Rumsfeld, Cheney, the neo-conservatives' main champion and protector within the administration, now appears more isolated than ever.
The neocons won't allow it. Look at the carnage in Iraq today and the assassination in Lebanon for your proof.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html
The rise and decline of the neo-cons
By Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn
Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, an influential, neo-conservative-led pressure group called the Project for the New American Century issued a letter to the president calling for a dramatic reshaping of the Middle East as part of the "war on terror".
Although many of the items on the neo-conservatives' agenda, including ousting Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, were eventually adopted....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Retreat from Iraq? The Secret Story
By Tom Hayden
Special to the Huffington Post
11/22/06 "HP" -- - - According to credible Iraqi sources in London and Amman, a secret story of America’s diplomatic exit strategy from Iraq is rapidly unfolding. The key events include:
First, James Baker told one of Saddam Hussein’s lawyers that Tariq Aziz, former deputy prime minister, would be released from detention by the end of this year, in hope that he will negotiate with the US on behalf of the Baath Party leadership. The discussion recently took place in Amman, according to the Iraqi paper al-Quds al-Arabi.
Second, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice personally appealed to the Gulf Cooperation Council in October to serve as intermediaries between the US and armed Sunni resistance groups [not including al Qaeda], communicating a US willingness to negotiate with them at any time or place. Speaking in early October, Rice joked that if then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld “heard me now, he would wage a war on me fiercer and hotter than he waged on Iraq”, according to an Arab diplomat privy to the closed session.
Third, there was an “unprecedented” secret meeting of high-level Americans and representatives of “a primary component of the Iraqi resistance” two weeks ago, lasting for three days. As a result, the Iraqis agreed to return to the talks in the next two weeks with a response for the American side, according to Jordanian press leaks and al-Quds al-Arabi.
Fourth, detailed email transmissions dated November 16 reveal an active American effort behind the scenes to broker a peace agreement with Iraqi resistance leaders, a plot that could include a political coup against Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Fifth, Bush security adviser Stephen Hadley carried a six-point message for Iraqi officials on his recent trip to Baghdad: include Iraqi resistance and opposition leaders in any initiative towards national reconciliation;general amnesty for the armed resistance fighters;
dissolve the Iraqi commission charged with banning the Baath Party; start the disbanding of militias and death squads;
cancel any federalism proposal to divide Iraq into three regions, and combine central authority for the central government with greater self-rule for local governors; distribute oil revenues in a fair manner to all Iraqis, including the Sunnis whose regions lack the resource.
Prime Minister Al-Maliki was unable to accept the American proposals because of his institutional allegiance to Shiite parties who believe their historic moment has arrived after one thousand years of Sunni domination. That Shiite refusal has accelerated secret American efforts to pressure, re-organize, or remove the elected al-Maliki regime from power.
The Back Story
Underlying these developments are three American concerns: first, the deepening quagmire and sectarian strife on the battlefield; second, the mid-year American elections in which voters repudiated the war; and third, the strategic concern that the new Iraq has slipped into the orbit of Iran. It remains to be seen if Iran will exercise influence on its Shiite allies in Iraq{the Grand Ayatollah Sistani was born in Iraq, and the main Shiite bloc was created in Iran by Iraqi exiles]. But that is the direction being taken by Baker’s Iraq Study Group and former CIA director John Deutch in a New York Times editorial. The principal US track, in addition to a declared withdrawal plan, should be to work towards a hands-off policy by Iran, at least for an interval, according to Deutch.
This possible endgame has been in the making for some time. Even two years ago, US officials were probing contacts with Iraqi resistance groups distinct from al-Qaeda. Recent polls indicate sixty percent Iraqi support for armed resistance against the United States, while approximately eighty percent of Iraqis support some timetable for withdrawal, an indispensable indicator for Iraqi insurgents laying down some arms.
Even before the 2003 US invasion, peace groups like Global Exchange and the newly-forming Code Pink sent delegations to create people-to-people relations with Iraqi opponents of the occupation and members of civil society. This writer met with Iraqi exiles in London, who suggested further meetings in Amman. Those contacts were facilitated in 2005 by a former Jordanian diplomat, Munther Haddadin, who supported open-ended discussions with Iraqis in exile, Jordan’s Crown Prince Hassan, and with intermediaries from the insurgency who made the dangerous 15-hour drive from Baghdad to Amman on more than one occasion. A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, Rob Collier, also interviewed Iraqi insurgents and was helpful in providing contacts. Earlier this year, an American peace delegation, including Cindy Sheehan, found themselves in two days of meetings with Iraqis of every political stripe. US Congressman Jim McDermott [D-Washington] was crucial in making these contracts possible. Dal Lamagna, a self-described “frustrated peacemaker” made both trips to Amman, and provided this writer with videos and transcripts of the interviews on which this article is based.
It must be emphasized that there is no reason to believe that these US gestures are anything more than probes, in the historic spirit of divide-and-conquer, before escalating the Iraq war in a Baghdad offensive. Denial plausibility – aka Machiavellian secrecy – remains American security policy, for understandable if undemocratic reasons.
Yet Americans who voted in the November election because of a deep belief that a change of government in Washington might end the war have a right to know that their votes counted. The US has not abandoned its entire strategy in Iraq, but is offering significant concessions without its own citizens knowing. #
Tom Hayden was a leader of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era. He has enlisted as a chronicler of the government’s plans for Iraq, and a self-appointed internet strategist for the anti-war movement since 2003. He can be contacted at www.tomhayden.com
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:50 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: |
| See the following as well (anyone who wants the truth should subscribe to this Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine via www.wrmea.com as the latest issue includes an excellent article on why the US press/media won't cover the Mearsheimer/Walt paper to the extent that it should be):
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September/October 2006, page 11
Media Watch
http://wrmea.com/archives/Sept_Oct_2006/0609011.html
Pass for Israel From Mainstream American Media and Congress
By Robert D. Novak
Reports of Israeli air attacks on Qana in Lebanon, killing at least 28 people including 19 children July 30, threatened Israel with an American public relations calamity. But this soon was eclipsed on cable television and front pages of many newspapers by actor Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant.
The attention by much of the news media turned from Lebanon to Gibson attempting an apology sufficiently abject to satisfy the Anti-Defamation League. Only a conspiracy theorist might claim this was an intentional escape route for American politicians to avoid a possible Israeli atrocity, but it certainly served that purpose. Washington remains largely a bipartisan, criticism-free zone for Israel.
While Republican Chuck Hagel is a lone senior senator who does not echo the Israeli position, he has been ignored. The Israeli government can disregard with impunity President Bush’s call for restraint. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has failed to destroy Hezbollah militarily but has had the effect of strengthening it politically. Meanwhile, U.S. prestige is in a free fall throughout Islam.
The Israeli government’s effort to clean Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon was carefully planned by the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). U.S. officials informed me 24 days ago they would give the IDF a week to liquidate the terrorists before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could pursue a cease-fire. But the long-planned Israeli operation in southern Lebanon found no quick success as Hezbollah proved itself a formidable fighting machine.
The U.S. government has scant ability to influence what Israel does or even says, as shown by a startling exchange July 28 that received surprisingly little attention. When a Rome summit did not call for a cease-fire, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon exulted that amounted to a “green light” to crush Hezbollah. The official U.S. reaction came from a relatively low-level State Department official. Adam Ereli, Rice’s spokesman, said: “Any such statement is outrageous.” But Israel understandably has treated Rome as a green light.
On the day of the green light exchange, Hagel delivered a thoughtful address to the Brookings Institution in Washington. While avowing support for Israel to retaliate against Hezbollah and Hamas (in the Gaza Strip), Hagel declared “military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas.”
Hagel was blunt in predicting consequences: “Extended military action will tear apart Lebanon, destroy its economy and infrastructure, create a humanitarian disaster, further weaken Lebanon’s fragile democratic government, strengthen popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepen hatred of Israel across the Middle East....The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battle field.”
Such a departure by the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would seem newsworthy. But it attracted little attention outside Hagel’s home state of Nebraska. He went to the Senate floor July 31 to deliver an abbreviated version of his Brookings speech. It generated neither approval nor dissent from Senate colleagues—only silence.
His bold intervention will not abet 2008 presidential ambitions. There is no political upside in criticizing Israel. Other members of Congress who have said anything at all critical of Israel are few in number. Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, whose family has roots in Lebanon, deplored Israel’s attack on Lebanese power plants and other government infrastructure. Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, in a July 30 letter to the secretary of state, declared that “a continuation of the bombing campaign, as it is being carried out, is against the interests of Israel and the United States.”
Such critics of Israel inevitably are taken to task, sooner or later—usually sooner. When 28 left-wing Democratic House members signed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Lebanon, Rep. Bob Filner of California was the only Jewish co-signer. The ink was hardly dry before he was contacted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobbying organization that keeps an eye on every member of Congress.
In his speech, Hagel pointed to the 2002 Saudi-sponsored Beirut declaration recognizing the state of Israel as a starting point for Middle East negotiations. In his letter to Rice, Van Hollen said resolution of the Israel-Palestine dispute is essential for Middle Eastern peace. It is hard to send that message to Israel when Congress cheers on a military situation and the Bush administration acquiesces.
Robert D. Novak is a nationally syndicated columnist. This column first appeared Aug. 7, 2006. Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc. Reprinted with permission.
SIDEBAR
CNN’s Howard Kurtz is Shocked! Shocked! to Learn That Israel May Have “Deliberately Allowed Hezbollah to Retain Some of Its Fire Power”
From the Aug. 6, 2006 edition of CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” hosted by Howard Kurtz, media reporter for The Washington Post:
HOWARD KURTZ: Joining us now here in Washington is…Thomas Ricks, Pentagon reporter for The Washington Post and author of the new book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Tom Ricks, you’ve covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don’t have two standing armies shooting at each other?
THOMAS RICKS: I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
KURTZ: Hold on, you’re suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?
RICKS: Yes, that’s what military analysts have told me.
KURTZ: That’s an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.
RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
