Do you want to die?


Stop the War / The Independent / Press TV


While people worry about who is going to win the X factors got no fucking talent on the voice, the war drums continue to beat. 

Albert Pike wrote in a letter in 1871:

1.The First World War is to be fought for the purpose of destroying the Tsar in Russia, as promised by Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1815. The Tsar is to be replaced with communism which is to be used to attack religions, predominantly Christianity. 

2. The differences between the British and German empires are to be used to foment this war.
The Second World War is to be used to foment the controversy between fascism and political Zionism with the oppression of Jews in Germany a lynchpin in bringing hatred against the German people. This is designed to destroy fascism (which the Rothschilds’ created) and increase the power of political Zionism. This war is also designed to increase the power of communism to the level that it equalled that of united Christendom.

3. The Third World War is to be played out by stirring up hatred of the Muslim world for the purposes of playing the Islamic world and the political Zionists off against one another. Whilst this is going on, the remaining nations would be forced to fight themselves into a state of mental, physical, spiritual and economic exhaustion.

The only people who want war are the scum elite.

The only people who will be safe will be the scum elite.

The only people who will profit from the war are the scum elite.

Do you want to die?

The only people we should be waging war with are the scum elite… We are vastly more powerful and can crush them as easy as a cardboard shoe box… War is over, if you want it.  

The abyss opens in Syria as Tony Blair joins the cheerleaders calling for all-out war


If Tony Blair’s suggestion of no-fly zones in Syria become a reality, it would almost certainly presage a war throughout the Middle East and perhaps beyond.

When Tony Blair and John McCain, the right wing US Republican, along with Rupert Murdoch’s Times, are the cheerleaders for greater intervention in Syria, then you know there’s nothing humanitarian about it.

Instead, the people who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and all the disasters that accompanied them, are doing it again. And they have to be stopped.

As the leaders of the G8 assembled in Enniskillen this week, Syria is shooting up their agenda. The announcement by the Obama government that it will arm sections of the opposition is guaranteed to escalate the war and to create tensions with its traditional Cold War rival Russia, which remains a close ally of the Assad government.

The pretext for the change in policy, where so far intervention has been covert and often unacknowledged in mainstream media or in government, is the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria by the regime. This allegation comes from CIA intelligence, an unreliable source given its record on the Iraq war.

There have been similar allegations circulating for months now, and until recently Obama’s line was that it was not clear who was using chemical weapons or where, and that the amounts of such weapons were small. There was some suggestion that both sides were using chemical weapons. This week, however, the US declaration puts the blame completely on Assad and insists that their use means that Obama’s ‘red line’ has been crossed.

Why the change in attitude? There seem to be two obvious factors: the recent involvement of the Lebanese Hezbollah, a close ally of Iran, in fighting within Syria, and the military advances which Assad has made in recent weeks. It is fear of these two, connected, questions which seems to be driving US policy.

Our own home-grown warmonger Tony Blair has now weighed in to support intervention, claiming in the Guardian today that chemical weapons use will spread if there is no such development and that their use in Syria is the first since Saddam Hussein used them back in the 1980s. That is pure fabrication: the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah in the early years of the occupation there, and the Israelis used the same chemical in Gaza back in 2009.

No one should defend the use of chemical weapons, with their deadly effect on human beings, from any side. But nor can this supposed evidence be used as a pretext to intervene in Syria, which has seen the number of deaths rocket from around 10,000 a year ago to over 90,000 today. As Bill Neely says in the Mirror, this figure may be far surpassed in another year if intervention goes ahead.

For there is one simple fact which is ignored by Blair and Obama, but which stands out in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya: war to avoid humanitarian disaster has always created greater humanitarian disaster. We are told that the aim is to save lives, but in all these cases the result was a much higher death toll.

The British government is up to its neck in the warmongering, with Blair merely echoing Cameron’s determination not to be left out of this latest military adventure. Indeed Britain and France have already forced the lifting of the EU arms embargo, which runs out in August. Cameron will use the G8 to argue for greater intervention. Blair’s suggestion of a no fly zone is one that may become a reality. It would almost certainly presage a war throughout the Middle East and perhaps beyond.

It is for this reason that even some who traditionally support wars are hesitant and why there is so much division in government circles both here and the US about what should be done. Over 80 Tory MPs have sent a letter to Cameron urging him not to arm the opposition, and calling for the House of Commons to have a vote before any decision is taken. It is rumoured that five Cabinet Ministers are also opposed. Cameron will face strong opposition in parliament. Even the Daily Mail thinks it’s a bad idea.

This opposition is reinforced by strong levels of opposition in public opinion polls, which show large majorities opposing intervention, and opposing recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must harness that opinion into action and campaigning if we are to stop the really dangerous people now arguing for war from getting their way.

Read More

US plans Syria invasion via Jordan with 20,000 soldiers

Press TV

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey (L) and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
The US military is deploying more forces to Jordan as part of a plan to dispatch 20,000 more soldiers there in a bid to invade Syria under the pretext of securing the country’s chemical weapon arsenals.

The Pentagon is sending nearly 200 troops from the 1st Armored Division to establish a “small headquarters” near Jordan’s border with Syria and plan potential military operations, “including a rapid buildup of American forces if the White House decides intervention is necessary,” The Los Angeles Times reports on Thursday, citing ‘senior US officials.’

The move marks the first deployment that American military officials have “explicitly described as a possible step toward direct military involvement in Syria,” the daily adds.

The first contingent of US forces is “likely to arrive in Jordan this month,” the report says citing military officials, but “most will go in May” and will be based at a Jordanian military installation.

The Pentagon, the report adds, “has also made plans to expand the force to 20,000 or more if necessary, including bringing in special operations teams to find and secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, US air defense units to guard Jordan’s airspace, and conventional military units capable of moving into Syria if necessary.”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel revealed the military deployment Wednesday in a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, but “also made clear” that he and US President Barack Obama “remained deeply wary of intervening in Syria just as US forces are trying to withdraw from 12 years of war in Afghanistan,” according to the report.

This is while the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey warned at the same Senate committee hearing that sending American troops to Syria could have ‘unanticipated consequences.’

“As I sit here today, Senator, I do not see the introduction of military force would produce the outcome we seek,” Dempsey said. “I don’t think it should be left unaddressed, let me be clear about that. But the introduction of military power right now certainly has the possibility of making the situation worse.”

This while Dempsey supported a US military intervention in Syria in Fall of 2012, along with then CIA Director David Petraeus, previous Pentagon Chief Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to the report, Hagel is scheduled to visit the Middle East next week, which will include stops in major backers of the anti-Damascus military bids Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and Egypt. The entire trip is expected to focus on Syria.


World exclusive: Iran will send 4,000 troops to aid Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria

The Independent

US urges Britain and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing Sunni-Shia conflict


A wounded Syrian waits for medical treatment

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years.  Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for  2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor – a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala – continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between “Papists and Protestants”.

America’s alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan – flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees – may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle.  Up to 3,000 American ‘advisers’ are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria ‘no-fly zone’ – opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries – will turn a crisis into a ‘hot’ war.  So much for America’s ‘friends’.

Its enemies include the Lebanese Hizballah, the Alawite Shiite regime in Damascus and, of course, Iran. And Iraq, a largely Shiite nation which America ‘liberated’ from Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority in the hope of balancing the Shiite power of Iran, has – against all US predictions – itself now largely fallen under Tehran’s influence and power.  Iraqi Shiites as well as Hizballah members, have both fought alongside Assad’s forces.

Washington’s excuse for its new Middle East adventure – that it must arm Assad’s enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them – convinces no-one in the Middle East.  Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bush’s claim that Saddam’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

For the real reason why America has thrown its military power behind Syria’s Sunni rebels is because those same rebels are now losing their war against Assad.  The Damascus regime’s victory this month in the central Syrian town of  Qusayr, at the cost of Hizballah lives as well as those of government forces, has thrown the Syrian revolution into turmoil, threatening to humiliate American and EU demands for Assad to abandon power.  Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed – unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf – not to be sustained.  Yet Russia has given its total support to Assad, three times vetoing UN Security Council resolutions that might have allowed the West to intervene directly in the civil war.

In the Middle East, there is cynical disbelief at the American contention that it can distribute arms – almost certainly including anti-aircraft missiles – only to secular Sunni rebel forces in Syria represented by the so-called Free Syria Army.  The more powerful al-Nusrah Front, allied to al-Qaeda, dominates the battlefield on the rebel side and has been blamed for atrocities including the execution of Syrian government prisoners of war and the murder of a 14-year old boy for blasphemy.  They will be able to take new American weapons from their Free Syria Army comrades with little effort.

From now on, therefore, every suicide bombing in Damascus – every war crime committed by the rebels – will be regarded in the region as Washington’s responsibility. The very Sunni-Wahabi Islamists who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011 – who are America’s greatest enemies as well as Russia’s – are going to be proxy allies of the Obama administration. This terrible irony can only be exacerbated by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s adament refusal to tolerate any form of Sunni extremism.  His experience in Chechenya, his anti-Muslim rhetoric – he has made obscene remarks about Muslim extremists in a press conference in Russian – and his belief that Russia’s old ally in Syria is facing the same threat as Moscow fought in Chechenya, plays a far greater part in his policy towards Bashar al-Assad than the continued existence of Russia’s naval port at the Syrian Mediterranean city of Tartous.

For the Russians, of course, the ‘Middle East’ is not in the ‘east’ at all, but to the south of Moscow;  and statistics are all-important. The Chechen capital of Grozny is scarcely 500 miles from the Syrian frontier.  Fifteen per cent of Russians are Muslim.  Six of the Soviet Union’s communist republics had a Muslim majority, 90 per cent of whom were Sunni.  And Sunnis around the world make up perhaps 85 per cent of all Muslims.  For a Russia intent on repositioning itself across a land mass that includes most of the former Soviet Union, Sunni Islamists of the kind now fighting the Assad regime are its principal antagonists.

Iranian sources say they liaise constantly with Moscow, and that while Hizballah’s overall withdrawal from Syria is likely to be completed soon – with the maintenance of the militia’s ‘intelligence’ teams inside Syria – Iran’s support for Damascus will grow rather than wither.  They point out that the Taliban recently sent a formal delegation for talks in Tehran and that America will need Iran’s help in withdrawing from Afghanistan.  The US, the Iranians say, will not be able to take its armour and equipment out of the country during its continuing war against the Taliban without Iran’s active assistance.  One of the sources claimed – not without some mirth — that the French were forced to leave 50 tanks behind when they left because they did not have Tehran’s help.

It is a sign of the changing historical template in the Middle East that within the framework of old Cold War rivalries between Washington and Moscow, Israel’s security has taken second place to the conflict in Syria.  Indeed, Israel’s policies in the region have been knocked askew by the Arab revolutions, leaving its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hopelessly adrift amid the historic changes.

Only once over the past two years has Israel fully condemned atrocities committed by the Assad regime, and while it has given medical help to wounded rebels on the Israeli-Syrian border, it fears an Islamist caliphate in Damascus far more than a continuation of Assad’s rule.  One former Israel intelligence commander recently described Assad as “Israel’s man in Damascus”.  Only days before President Mubarak was overthrown, both Netanyahu and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Washington to ask Obama to save the Egyptian dictator.  In vain.

If the Arab world has itself been overwhelmed by the two years of revolutions, none will have suffered from the Syrian war in the long term more than the Palestinians.  The land they wish to call their future state has been so populated with Jewish Israeli colonists that it can no longer be either secure or ‘viable’.  ‘Peace’ envoy Tony Blair’s attempts to create such a state have been laughable.  A future ‘Palestine’ would be a Sunni nation.  But today, Washington scarcely mentions the Palestinians.

Another of the region’s supreme ironies is that Hamas, supposedly the ‘super-terrorists’ of Gaza, have abandoned Damascus and now support the Gulf Arabs’ desire to crush Assad.  Syrian government forces claim that Hamas has even trained Syrian rebels in the manufacture and use of home-made rockets.

In Arab eyes, Israel’s 2006 war against the Shia Hizballah was an attempt to strike at the heart of Iran. The West’s support for Syrian rebels is a strategic attempt to crush Iran. But Iran is going to take the offensive.  Even for the Middle East, these are high stakes. Against this fearful background, the Palestinian tragedy continues.