Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'NATO'.
Found 4 results
NATO Buildup on Russia's Borders: Mobilization for War or 'Just Business'? http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160526/1040305720/nato-buildup-russia-war.html NATO General Says Eastern Buildup Is Response To Russian 'Aggression' http://www.rferl.org/content/nato-general-pavel-russian-aggression/27755139.html Russia censures NATO troops deployment near its borders http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/06/16/470795/Russia-condemnation-NATO-troops-deployment-battalions--Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania-Poland-Ukraine-crisis Putin: Russia will respond to 'aggressive NATO rhetoric' https://www.rt.com/news/347709-putin-nato-russia-security/ What do you think the results of the NATO deployment near russian borders may be?
By now it is clear that Iran and/or Russia will never give up on Syria, and as it seems the west + Wahabi Gulf dictators are working on plan-B to invade Syria, attack ISIS regions, train the so called 'moderate terrorists' and enable them to take over ISIS cities... then from there they will/might expand the 'moderate terrorists' rules and will help them directly to go after Syrian army. Is it a crucial time for Shias/Iran to make sure that doesn't happen and a massacre of Shias/Alawites and other Syrians who reject Takfiris rules and laws does not happen? And prevent the western-Wahabi alliance to overthrow the Syrian government? Should Iran just send troops or should it just increase its aids to Shia groups/Syrian government/Hizbullah instead?
by Thierry Meyssan In a few days, perhaps as early as Friday, June 15, at noon, the Syrians wanting to watch their national TV stations will see them replaced on their screens by TV programs created by the CIA. Studio-shot images will show massacres that are blamed on the Syrian Government, people demonstrating, ministers and generals resigning from their posts, President Al-Assad fleeing, the rebels gathering in the big city centers, and a new government installing itself in the presidential palace. This operation of disinformation, directly managed from Washington by Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, aims at demoralizing the Syrians in order to pave the way for a coup d’etat. NATO, discontent about the double veto of Russia and China, will thus succeed in conquering Syria without attacking the country illegally. Whichever judgment you might have formed on the actual events in Syria, a coup d’etat will end all hopes of democratization. The Arab League has officially asked the satellite operators Arabsat and Nilesat to stop broadcasting Syrian media, either public or private (Syria TV, Al-Ekbariya, Ad-Dounia, Cham TV, etc.) A precedent already exists because the Arab League had managed to censure Libyan TV in order to keep the leaders of the Jamahiriya from communicating with their people. There is no Hertz network in Syria, where TV works exclusively with satellites. The cut, however, will not leave the screens black. Actually, this public decision is only the tip of the iceberg. According to our information several international meetings were organized during the past week to coordinate the disinformation campaign. The first two were technical meetings, held in Doha (Qatar); the third was a political meeting and took place in Riyad (Saudi Arabia). The first meeting assembled PSYOP officers, embedded in the satellite TV channels of Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox, France 24, Future TV and MTV. It is known that since 1998, the officers of the US Army Psychological Operations Unit (PSYOP) have been incorporated in CNN. Since then this practice has been extended by NATO to other strategic media as well. They fabricated false information in advance, on the basis of a “story-telling” script devised by Ben Rhodes’s team at the White House. A procedure of reciprocal validation was installed, with each media quoting the lies of the other media to render them plausible for TV spectators. The participants also decided not only to requisition the TV channels of the CIA for Syria and Lebanon (Barada, Future TV, MTV, Orient News, Syria Chaab, Syria Alghad) but also about 40 religious Wahhabi TV channels to call for confessional massacres to the cry of “Christians to Beyrouth, Alawites into the grave!.” The second meeting was held for engineers and technicians to fabricate fictitious images, mixing one part in an outdoor studio, the other part with computer generated images. During the past weeks, studios in Saudi Arabia have been set up to build replicas of the two presidential palaces in Syria and the main squares of Damascus, Aleppo and Homs. Studios of this type already exist in Doha (Qatar), but they are not sufficient. The third meeting was held by General James B. Smith, the US ambassador, a representative of the UK, prince Bandar Bin Sultan (whom former U.S. president George Bush named his adopted son so that the U.S. press called him “Bandar Bush”). In this meeting the media actions were coordinated with those of the Free "Syrian" Army, in which prince Bandar’s mercenaries play a decisive role. The operation had been in the making for several months, but the U.S. National Security Council decided to accelerate the action after the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, notified the White House that he would oppose by all means, even by force, any illegal NATO military intervention in Syria. The operation has a double intent: the first is to spread false information, the second aims at censuring all possible responses. The hampering of TV satellites for military purposes is not new. Under pressure from Israel, the USA and the EU blocked Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian TV channels, one after the other. However, no satellite channels from other parts of the world were censured. The broadcast of false news is also not new, but four significant steps have been taken in the art of propaganda during the last decade. • In 1994, a pop music station named “Free Radio of the Thousand Hills” (RTML) gave the signal for genocide in Rwanda with the cry, “Kill the cockroaches!” • In 2001, NATO used the media to impose an interpretation of the 9/11 attacks and to justify its own aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. At that time already, it was Ben Rhodes who had been commissioned by the Bush administration to concoct the Kean/Hamilton Commission report on the attacks. • In 2002, the CIA used five TV channels (Televen, Globovision, ValeTV and CMT) to make the public in Venezuela believe that phantom demonstrators had captured the elected president, Hugo Chávez, forcing him to resign. In reality he was the victim of a military coup d’etat. • In 2011, France 24 served as information ministry for the Libyan CNT, according to a signed contract. During the battle of Tripoli, NATO produced fake studio films, then transmitted them via Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, showing phantom images of Libyan rebels on the central square of the capital city, while in reality they were still far away. As a consequence, the inhabitants of Tripoli were persuaded that the war was lost and gave up all resistance. Nowadays the media do not only support a war, they produce it themselves. This procedure violates the principles of International Law, first of all Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relating to the fact of receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Above all, the procedure violates the United Nations General Assembly resolution, adopted after the end of World War II, to prevent further wars. Resolutions 110, 381 and 819 forbid “to set obstacles to free exchange of information and ideas” (like cutting off Syrian TV channels) and “all propaganda provoking or encouraging threats to peace, breaking peace, and all acts of aggression”. By law, war propaganda is a crime against peace, the worst of crimes, because it facilitates war crimes and genocide.
Second militant faction opts out of negotiations Stalled peace efforts in Afghanistan have suffered another setback when a second militant faction one that has squared off against both the U.S.-led coalition and the Taliban announced it was suspending formal peace negotiations with the Afghan government, as the Taliban did earlier this month. The group, Hezb-i-Islami, or Islamic Party, has been an increasingly minor presence on the battlefield in recent years, pressured by coalition forces and chased from strongholds in central and eastern Afghanistan by its Taliban rivals. Its military weakness left it far more willing to talk with the U.S. and the government of President Hamid Karzai, which includes many members of a breakaway political wing of the group. The militant wing of Hezb-i-Islami said on Thursday it would continue unofficial talks. But the fact that a group whose current relevance stems largely from its willingness to engage has decided to distance itself from formal negotiations underscored the fragility of the peace effort in Afghanistan. Unlike the Taliban, who have yet to engage in any substantial talks, Hezb-i-Islami delegations have repeatedly travelled from havens in Pakistan to Kabul since 2010. Hezb-i-Islami representatives also met U.S. officials in Afghanistan in recent months. But on Thursday, Qaribur Rahman Saeed, a representative of Hezb-i-Islami in Europe, said his group was suspending formal talks because neither Afghan nor U.S. officials would seriously consider the group's 15-point peace proposal. The plan calls for the withdrawal of coalition forces in six months, holding new elections and possibly rewriting the Afghan constitution. Hezb-i-Islami calls it the National Rescue Agreement. It is a nonstarter for Kabul and Washington. For now, that means Hezb-i-Islami's leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, once a powerful warlord and a former Afghan Prime Minister, is not willing to take part in formal talks, said Mr. Saeed in a telephone interview from Norway, where he is based. Because the Afghan and U.S. governments “don't have any practical and acceptable approaches for the solution of the crisis, the negotiation is going to be suspended,” Mr. Hekmatyar was quoted as saying in a rambling essay written by Mr. Saeed, who provided a copy of the document and asked to be identified as the “head of the Afghan Nation Peace Council” in the European Union. The critique offered by Mr. Hekmatyar in essence, that neither the Afghan government nor the U.S. leadership was ready to make the compromises needed to end the militancy was similar to the one voiced by the Taliban when it announced this month that it was suspending its nascent talks with the U.S. Mr. Hekmatyar rose to prominence as a mujahedeen leader during the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. He was a particular favourite of ISI Directorate, which managed the militancy against the Soviets. After Afghanistan's Soviet-backed government collapsed in the early 1990s, Mr. Hekmatyar went on to become Prime Minister. He then gained notoriety for bombarding his own capital as the country descended into civil war. Now he operates from Pakistan, where his faction is based. Though he is fighting the U.S.-led coalition, his faction has repeatedly clashed with the more powerful Taliban in recent years, losing ground to them. Despite its military weakness, Hezb-i-Islami remains an intriguing peace partner for both Mr. Karzai and the U.S. The group's political wing includes Mr. Karzai's chief of staff, a number of Cabinet Ministers and numerous members of Parliament. U.S. officials say bringing Hezb-i-Islami's militant wing into the fold would signal to Taliban moderates that giving up the fight is a viable option. Less clear is whether Mr. Hekmatyar would personally be welcomed back to Afghanistan, where he is despised by many for the destruction wrought by his forces during the civil war. In Kabul on Thursday, Afghan officials said a NATO supply convoy had come under heavy attack by Taliban insurgents in western Afghanistan, with 37 dead reported in the firefight and NATO airstrikes that ensued. The victims included seven private security guards with two companies guarding the convoy, according to an official at one of the companies. Two Afghan National Army soldiers and numerous Taliban fighters were also among the dead. Fayaz Jailani, the regional operations manager for GFI Security, said the convoy was attacked on Wednesday by 70 to 80 insurgents with heavy machine guns and other weapons. The attackers killed one guard from his company and six from a second company, Aria Security, Mr. Jailani said. The victims were all Afghans, he said. The attack took place in the Gulistani District of Farah province, and the convoy was en route from Herat province to a NATO base in Helmand province, Mr. Jailani said. The head of security for the Farah provincial police, Muhammad Ghus Mayaar, said the fighting began on Wednesday afternoon and continued for eight hours, with 28 Taliban attackers killed by the time it ended. A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, Master Sgt. Russell Bertke, said that the coalition had made two airstrikes against the attacking Taliban in support of Afghan forces, but that no civilians had been killed. “Numerous insurgents were killed, and several vehicles and motorbikes were damaged or destroyed,” Sgt. Bertke said. A spokesman for the Taliban, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, claimed that only five Taliban fighters had been killed by airstrikes, and that the insurgents had killed 40 guards and Afghan soldiers guarding the convoy. In other violence, two people were assassinated on Wednesday because of government connections by unknown gunmen in Kandahar City, according to Zalmai Ayoubi, the spokesman for the governor of Kandahar province. One was an official of the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan intelligence service, and the other was the father of a security guard in the governor's office, Mr. Ayoubi said. courtesy - New York Times News Service
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.