Sunday, 22 October 2017

البطل حبيب والخائن بشير



البطل حبيب الشرتوني والخائن بشير

ابراهيم الأمين

حيلة من يعاني ضائقة الفعل اليوم، العودة الى قديمه. هي حال «القوات اللبنانية» وفريقها السياسي، بمن فيهم يتامى الجبهة اللبنانية ما غيرها. ليس لدى هؤلاء اليوم من خطاب، أو شعار، أو أغنية، غير ما يعيدنا الى سنوات الحرب الاهلية. لم يتوقف الزمن عند هؤلاء فحسب، بل توقف العقل أيضاً. لا خيال ولا إبداع حتى في عملية إحياء عصبية دينية أو سياسية أو حزبية.

وما من مجد يراه هذا الفريق إلا ما يرونه مجداً، عندما حرقوا البلاد، وقدموها لكل غزاة الكون، من العرب الى الاسرائيلييين الى الاوروبيين والاميركيين. ثم عادوا بعد كل هذا الخراب يتفاخرون بمجدهم ــ جرائمهم، إذ بينما يفترض أنهم يحتفلون أمس بالعدالة التي انتصرت لقضية أكثر رموزهم التصاقاً بالعمالة للعدو، لا يجيدون سوى إرفاقها بالاحتفال بمجازرهم. وهو ما فعلته ستريدا جعجع، عندما قالت إن إعجابها بسمير جعجع نابع من كونه «دعوَس الزغرتاوية»، وهي تتذكر مجرزة إهدن التي هاجم فيها جعجع مع مجموعة من مقاتليه مركز زعامة آل فرنجية، قاتلاً ابنهم طوني وأفراداً من عائلته. تبدو ستريدا في هذه اللحظة مسرورة بإرث يشبه حقيقة «القوات»، ويكشف موروثاً غير منسيّ، فيه ما بقي ثابتاً من عادات وأنماط تفكير لجماعة لم تخرج بعد من عقلها الذي قاد البلاد الى حرب أهلية، يبدو أن هناك من يحنّ الى زمانها!

من يشارك في ملاحقة «الأخبار» في قضية
حبيب، مهما كان موقعه أو اسمه، سنعتبره منتمياً الى فريق «الاحتلال الإسرائيلي وعملائه»

أمس، احتفل بضعة آلاف (في منازلهم) وبضعة مئات (في الشارع) بقرار المجلس العدلي الحكم بالإعدام على المقاومَين البطلين، نبيل العلم وحبيب الشرتوني بجرم اغتيال بشير الجميل. لم يكتفِ المحتفلون باعتباره نصراً، بل طالبوا بأن يكتمل عبر «اعتقال المجرمين»، ثم الذهاب نحو تجريم الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي باعتباره التنظيم الذي ينتمي اليه العلم والشرتوني.

لنضع اللحظة العاطفية لمحبّي بشير الجميّل جانباً. فهذه عوارض لا علاج لها. لكن للرجل إرثه الحقيقي عند لبنانيين، بعضهم كان رفيقاً له في الكتائب أو «القوات»، وبعضهم صار اليوم مستقلاً يندب حظه العاثر، وبعض ثالث التحق بقوى وأفكار مختلفة. لكنهم جميعاً يحنّون الى الزمن الأحب الى قلوبهم، يوم كان بشير الحلم، ويوم وصل الى رئاسة الجمهورية، ثم يوم جاء من أطفأ الحلم بكبسة زر وتوقف الكلام… وهذه العودة مهمة لتوصيف ما حصل بالأمس، وما حصل يومها، وما قد ينعكس علينا في القادم من الايام.

عملياً، يرى هؤلاء أن بشير بطل، ولا يريدون أي مراجعة أو نقد. وعند هذا الحد، يجري تقديس الرجل، ويراد لبقية الناس أن تتصرف على هذا الاساس، بينما لم يكن بشير الجميّل سوى مجرم حرب صغير،وسليل عائلة سياسية اشتهرت بالعنصرية والتعصّب الديني والاجتماعي، وتسبّب حزبها بويلات على المسيحيين ثم على جميع اللبنانيين وعلى المنطقة أيضاً. وكان بشير يمثل ذروة هذا المشروع محلياً، عندما قام بتصفية جميع خصومه المسيحيين، وألزم المعارضين بالطاعة له. ولكن هذه الذروة كان يراد لها أن تكون على مستوى لبنان. ولذلك، لم يكن متاحاً لبشير، بما يمثله، سوى انتظار العدو الاسرائيلي، الذي يتولى سحق الخصوم، قبل أن يتم تنصيبه رئيساً للجمهورية، وهذا ما حصل.

لكن المشكلة أن محبّي بشير، أو المتعاطفين مع قضيته حتى اليوم، يصرّون على تجاهل هذه الحقيقة، وبالتالي، هم لن يفهموا معنى قرار «مقاومة الاحتلال الاسرائيلي وعملائه»، هذه العبارة التي كانت تتقدم أو تذيل بيانات جبهة المقاومة الوطنية وأحزابها، وبالتالي، اعتقدوا أن بشير لا علاقة له بما تقوم به إسرائيل، وأنه خارج الحساب. لكن مثلما فوجئوا هم بمصرعه في وقت سريع، أيضاً فوجئ أنصار المقاومة بقدرات التخطيط والجاهزية العالية عند المقاومين القوميين، عندما نفذوا «حكم الشعب» بإعدام بشير. وحكم الشعب هنا يمثّل غالبية لبنانية، بعكس «حكم الشعب» الذي صدر أمس. ومهما قيل عن القضاء والقضاة، فما صدر أمس حكم يعود الى زمن الحرب الاهلية، والى زمن سلطة كانت تحت وصاية الاحتلال وعملائه. وليس فيه من العدالة شيء.

أمر آخر، يتعلق بنوبة الهستيريا التي تسود الاوساط الاعلامية والسياسية لأنصار بشير، والتي تسعى، بموافقة جهات رسمية لبنانية، لأن تلاحق «الأخبار» والرفيق ايلي حنا، ربطاً بالمقابلة التي نشرت قبل يومين مع البطل حبيب. من المفيد لفت انتباه هؤلاء، الى أنه، وفي قضايا لها بعدها الوطني، فإن «الأخبار» بغالبية العاملين فيها، لا تكترث لكل القوانين والاجراءات مهما كانت السلطة متعسفة، وان أصل استدعاء ايلي الى التحقيق لن نقبله، وسوف نقاومه، وسوف نعتبر كل من يشارك فيه، وزيراً أو قاضياً أو مسؤولاً أمنياً، أنه ينتمي الى فريق بشير في حياته، أي الى فريق «قوات الاحتلال الاسرائيلي وعملائه»… شاء من شاء، وأبى من أبى!

وبما أن المحتفلين بالحكم يريدون إضافة اسم المجرم الى جانب اسم حبيب الشرتوني لاغتيال البطل بشير، ويقولون إن ذلك يحاكي وجدان فئة من اللبنانيين، فمن المفيد القول أيضاً، وبنفس اللغة، إن الحكم على البطل حبيب الشرتوني، لتصفيته مجرم الحرب بشير الجميل، يستفزّ فئة أوسع من اللبنانيين، وإن من لا يتحسّسون وصمة العار على جباههم، رغم كل ما مروا به من ويلات سببها بشير وعائلته السياسية، فإن ما يرونه إنجازاً، هو وسام استحقاق كبير على صدر حبيب ومحبّيه الذين سيظلون يهتفون: لكل خائن حبيب!

الشرتوني مجرم والجميل بريء!!

الشرتوني مجرم والجميل بريء!!
 السبت ٢١ أكتوبر ٢٠١٧ – ٠٢:١٥ بتوقيت غرينتش

بعد 35 عاما من اغتيال الرئيس اللبناني الاسبق بشير الجميل، يصدر القضاء في بيروت حكما بالاعدام والتجريد من الحقوق المدنية على منفذ عملية الاغتيال حبيب الشرتوني والمخطط نبيل العلم، المنتميان الى الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي.

العالم – مقالات

هذا الحكم سيتفهمه الشارع اللبناني والعربي لو كان قد صدر بحق من اغتال قادة المقاومة مثل الشيخ راغب حرب، او السيد عباس الموسوي، او حتى من قام بالتآمر على الجيش اللبناني في معاركه ضد الارهاب، او ان صدر بحق قادة جيش لبنان الجنوبي او ما يعرف باسم (جيش لحد) حتى وان ماتوا. ولكن يكون هذا الحكم صدر بحق من اغتال بشير الجميل يحمل الكثير من علامات الاستفهام لدى الشارع اللبناني والعربي، لانه لا يمكنك ان تفصل ما جرى في لبنان بتلك الحقبة عن العالم العربي، كما انك لن تستطيع ان تفصل ما يجري في سوريا الان عن العالم العربي.

من هو اذا بشير الجميل ولماذا  كل هذه البلبلة حول حكم الاعدام بحق من اغتاله؟ الرئيس اللبناني الاسبق والذي شغل هذا المنصب اقل من اسبوعين اشتهر بقوته العسكرية وتنظيمه لكتائبه بشكل مميز مما جعله مفصلا مهما ومشاركا اساسيا في الحرب الاهلية في لبنان، ولكن شهرته الاساسية كانت في قربه من رئيس وزراء الاحتلال الاسرائيلي الاسبق أرئيل شارون، والذي كان وقتها وزير حرب الاحتلال.

وكان الجميل يزور شارون في الاراضي المحتلة وشارون يزوره ايضا في بكفيا ليضع معه خطة احتلال لبنان، واجتياح العاصمة العربية التي كانت تسمى بباريس العرب بيروت، حيث تم التعرف على جثة بشير الجميل من الخاتم الذي كان قد اهداه له شارون وعليه نجمة داوود وذلك في تصريح للقيادي البارز في الكتائب كريم بقردوني، وطبعا حصل ما خطط له وتم اجتياح لبنان حيث دخل بشير الجميل على متن دبابة اسرائيلية سهلت عبور ميليشياته لارتكاب المجازر واحتلال جنوبه وهو ما ادى لاحقا الى سقوط الالاف من الشهداء والجرحى والمعتقلين حتى خرج هذا الاحتلال على يد المقاومة الاسلامية حزب الله.

في جميع الدساتير العربية والدولية والسماوية ايضا عقاب الخائن القتل، وما فعله الجميل اعتبره حبيب الشرتوني خيانة للبنان والامة جميعها، لانه لا يوجد في العالم جرم اكبر من وضع يدك بيد المحتل وتسهيل دخوله الى بلادك واحتلالها والتنكيل بشعبك وتشريده، فقام الشتروني باغتيال الجميل.

وإنتقاما لبشير تم إعدام والدة حبيب الشرتوني عند باب منزلها من قبل الكتائب، واعدام شقيقة الشرتوني من بعد تعذيبها داخل معتقلات الكتائب، وإحدى أساليب التعذيب كان إرسال لها أصابع والدها وعلى مدة ١٠ أيام الذي أعدم أيضا من بعد بتر أعضاء جسده داخل المعتقلات.

وإنتقاماً لبشير تم إعدام أكثر من ألف شخص في ٤٨ ساعة من قبل الكتائب. وبعد يومين من مقتل بشير قامت الكتائب وجيش لبنان الجنوبي اي جيش لحد والجيش الاسرائيلي بمجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا بحق اللاجئين الفلسطينيين. وذلك دون حسيب او رقيب.

بشير الجميل قام بتصفية خصومه حيث امر بارسال قوات بقيادة سمير جعجع انذاك الى منطقة اهدن وقتل قائد قوات تيار المردة طوني فرنجية ابن الرئيس سليمان فرنجية و عائلته جميعها والمقاتلين التابعين له، وهي الواقعة التي سميت فيما بعد بمجزرة إهدن، وطبعا لم يحاسب بشير او اي شخص قام بهذه العملية.

ويتسائل الشارع العربي انه بعد صدور حكم الاعدام بحق حبيب الشتروني هل يمكن القول انه تم تشريع الخيانة وتجريم المقاومة؟
ويبقى السؤال من يستحق الاعدام حبيب ام بشير؟
ابراهيم شير/ كاتب واعلامي سوري
103-213

سلسلة نشر غسيل | بشير جميّل اللقيط الاسرائيلي : الحلقة الأولى

Related Videos
Related Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

It doesn’t have to be this way. The USA should take a leaf out of Putin’s book and purge zionism

Grand Strategy & Global Reality: Saving Donald Trump from the Deep State
Donald Trump Iran 076d0
The purpose of Grand Strategy is to assure peace and prosperity for the Nation-State – to avoid war, to prevent all possible threats from emerging, to balance all policies and their costs in an affordable, balanced, flexible, and sustainable manner. [1]
The USA does not have a grand strategy — and none of its leaders seem to understand this is suicidal.
The graphic below illustrates a three-dimensional approach to Grand Strategy, one that integrates the ten high-level threats to humanity generally and the USA specifically; [2] the twelve core policies that must be orchestrated in a Whole of Government manner on a foundation of holistic analytics and true cost economics; [3] and the major players in the world that the USA must respect if it is to achieve peace and prosperity. The red dots are where the entire US secret intelligence community (IC) focuses, and in both of these – inter-state conflict and terrorism – it is the USA that the primary antagonist pursuing elective wars not authorized by the Congress, [4] and sponsoring terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), this particular one in partnership with Israel and Saudi Arabia. [5]
Grand Strategy d1156
A central reason why the USA does not have a Grand Strategy is to be found in the combination of Griftopia (the merger of political crime and financial crime in what is commonly called the Deep State), [6] and the dominance of one single foreign power – Israel – such that the US Congress is actually considering a law that would make it a felony to criticize Israel and call for a boycott of Israeli products and services. [7] In other words, the US Constitution and particularly the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech must bow to the “Israel First” mantra that is achieved by bribery, blackmail, and lies – the blatant manipulation and misrepresentation of reality to a government that is incapable of evidence-based policy-making.
A Grand Strategy would address all threats to national security, not just the two that generate obscene transfers of money from the US taxpayer to the US military-industrial complex, to Israel, and to the 40 dictators around the planet that the US support (the only two we don’t like are in North Korea and Cuba). [8]
A Grand Strategy would assure balanced sustained attention to all policies and demand that true costs be understood at every level (local to global) across every domain. Below is a depiction of what could be purchased for 25% of the current US military budget, all the more reasonable because the US military budget is known to be roughly 50% waste. [9]
Alternative Spending c8603
At a time when the US military budget consumes 60% of the discretionary budget and 16% of the total budget of the USA, [10] it is truly insane – criminally insane – to have 1,000 military bases all over the world (their primary purpose is to facilitate the smuggling of drugs, guns, cash, gold, and small children) [11] while having a Navy with more admirals than ships; an Air Force lacking in global reach; and an Army that has gone down the “special forces” rabbit hole and is completely lacking in serious armored forces as well as integrated Close Air Support (CAS) and serious Information Operations (IO) capabilities.
This is not to say that the USA should not have a powerful, capable military. I believe that we need a 450-ship Navy, [12] a long-haul Air Force able to deliver an armored division a week anywhere in the world, and a completely new Army centered on Col Dr. Douglas MacGregor’s vision of Reconnaissance-Strike integrated armored brigades. [13] Such a force could be built for half what we pay now, and should be based at home.
There is a geographic perspective missing from US foreign and national security policy. The President is allowing too much of his time to be consumed by a focus on distant enemies who are either not really our enemy (Iran) or not our problem (North Korea). Then there are the near “enemies” so absurd as to defy intelligent belief – Cuba and Venezuela. Below is my view of five priorities in national policy – the Home Front above all else, followed by the Americas to the south and Russia and China to the north – everywhere else is peripheral. In no instance does the US have the right to lie, cheat, or steal. We should be pursuing a foreign policy of commerce, friendship, and peace. [14]
Hourglass ddd67
Below is what an evidence-based Grand Strategy might look like, depicting only the national security half. The domestic half would focus on the 99% instead of the 1%, make public education and well-being a top priority, instead of what the USA has now: a system designed to transfer wealth from the 99% to the 1%.
Levels of Strategy a9f01
It is in the above context that I must interpret President Donald Trump’s decertification of the Iran nuclear deal [15] as either insanely ill-advised, or – if he is fully aware of all aspects of the Las Vegas massacre by rogue elements of the US Government (USG) in probable partnership with Zionists [16] – an extraordinarily clever move to buy time as he prepares to purge the USG – particularly the Departments of State and Defense and the US IC agencies – of their Mossad fellow travelers.
The case of Jeffrey Epstein, a known Mossad officer or agent, whose pedophilia network includes Lolita Island and at least one “no name” hotel in New York City, both believed to be fully equipped to video-tape all manner of influential politicians, judges, and celebrities, is in my view suggestive of how the Mossad and rogue elements of the IC may be collaborating. The case of Virginia L. Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s long-time partner and daughter of Robert Maxwell, the Mossad super-spy who successfully compromised most if not all US intelligence and law enforcement information technology systems, [17] stands out. On 23 June 2016 after a settlement was reached, the entire docket was placed under seal. [18] Assuming the judge is an honest and sensible person, there is in my view only one explanation for this: that the US IC has been a full partner with the Mossad is developing pedophilia entrapment cases, and in jointly blackmailing key Members of Congress, among others. [19]
From where I sit, the foreign policy of the USA is of, by, and for the 1%, most of whom are either Zionists or controlled by Zionists. It is a mistake to think that such as statement is anti-Semitic. The power of Israel in the USA is not based on nine million Jewish voters, a tiny fraction of the total number of eligible voters. It is based on state-sponsored bribery, blackmail, and the manipulation of information, inclusive of #GoogleGestapo, a very sophisticated social media censorship system that is so good at repressing the truth and alternative media, it is being offered to Communist China for implementation. [20] Eric Schmidt, the architect of #GoogleGestapo that includes Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube actively censoring conservative voices and alternative media, is in my view one of four major Zionists in the USA who could reasonably be considered a threat to the Constitution; the others are Sheldon Adelson, Michael Chertoff, and George Schwartz Soros – all of them heavily involved in the Las Vegas false flag.
Only Donald Trump can tell us if he has lost his mind or is merely buying time. I doubt the former and pray for the latter. I predict that the day will come when Iran, Russia, and a restored US Congress replete with Independents and a sufficiency of Conservatives, will come together to achieve peace in the Middle East. When that day comes, the USA will have a Grand Strategy, an Open Source Agency (OSA) capable of providing 96% of the decision-support needed to do evidence-based policy and budgeting,  [21] and a public – the 99% — that refuses to allow virtual colonialism, predatory capitalism, and unilateral militarism in its name and at its expense. Iran is not our enemy. Indeed, I am reminded of the adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” If Zionists are the real enemy, then Iran is our friend. [22]
Endnotes
[1] Steele, Robert. Reinventing the US Army Part I – An American Grand Strategy, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Press, Projected Publication 2017; see also Steele, Robert. Reinventing the US Army Part II – Overview of Planning and Programming Factors for Expeditionary Army Operations, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Press, Projected Publication 2017 and Steele, Robert. Reinventing the US Army Part III – Strategy, Reality, Precepts, Structure, & Leadership, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Press, Projected Publication 2017. See also my 2,500 summary reviews of non-fiction works in 98 categories and particularly two lists of lists, Worth a Look: Book Review Lists (Positive Future-Oriented) and Worth a Look: Book Review Lists (Negative Status-Quo) as well as reviews for topic of Strategy. I continue to believe that President Trump would be well served by terminating the National Security Council (NSC), replacing it with a National Strategy Board (NSB), by cutting the secret intelligence budget by 70% while creating an Open Source Agency (OSA), and by cutting the entire federal budget by 50% starting with the Department of Defense (DoD).
[2] As devised and prioritized by LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret.) and other members of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, reporting out in A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (United Nations, 2005).
[3] The author created the Earth Intelligence Network, an accredited non-profit, to establish a framework for holistic analytics, true cost economics, and Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE). The twelve polices are drawn from a quarter century of US presidential “Mandates for Change” publications. The core publications associated with his being recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize can be seen on the landing page of his personal website, see especially
[5] ISIS Saudi Arabia @ Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog; see especially Wayne Madsen, “Yes, the USA Created ISIS, Along With ….” Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog, 10 September 2016
[6] Matt Taibbi, Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History (Spiegel & Grau, 2011). The best book on the concept of a Deep State is that by Peter Dale Scott, The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017). Robert Steele, in many video appearances, has helped the concepts of Deep StateFalse Flag, and Fake News gain currency in the Alternative Media.
[7] Cf. Aniqa Raihan, “Nearly 50 Senators Want to Make It a Felony to Boycott Israel,” The Nation, 4 August 2017. The bill is also being co-sponsored by many Members of the House of Representatives. Israel over-played its hand here; US citizens should seek to dismiss from office every co-sponsor of this legislation as each has clearly made a commitment to Israel First. A complete list of both Senators and Representatives co-sponsoring the Israel First legislation can be found at #UNRIG: Roster of Senators and Representatives Who Place Israel First in Betrayal of Their Oath to the US Constitution and in Betrayal of Every One of Their ConstituentsPhi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog, 21 July 2017.
[8] Cf. Keith Johnson, “$30,000 in U.S. Aid for every Israeli; 14.9 million Adult Americans Unemployed!” Attending the World, 13 March 2010, and (Ambassador) Mark Palmer, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World’s Last Dictators by 2025(Rowman & Littlefield, 2005).
[9] Used with the permission of Medard Gabel, for many years the deputy to Buckminster Fuller. His books on holistic design are extraordinary, see for example Designing a World that Works for All: Solutions & Strategies for Meeting the World’s Needs: Tenth Anniversary Edition (CreateSpace, 2015). On military waste and dishonesty in the USA see Robert Steele, “The National Military Strategy: Dishonest Platitudes,” CounterPunch, 6 July 2015 and on waste across major policy domains in the US see Agriculture: Nadia Arumugam, “UN Says Europe Wastes 50% of Fruit and Vegetables – and America Isn’t Must Better,” Forbes (4 October 2012), Dana Gunders, “Wasted: How America is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill,” National Resources Defense Council, August 2012; Energy: Barry Fischer, “US Wastes 61-86% Of Its Energy,” CleanTechnica, 26 August 2013; Health: Michael Galper et al, “The price of excess: Identifying waste in healthcare spending,” PriceWaterhouseCoopers, April 2008; Military: Scot Paltrow, “Behind the Pentagon’s doctored ledgers, a running tally of epic waste,” Reuters, 18 November 2013, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries,” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 1 June 2017, Perry Chiaramonte, “War on waste: Pentagon auditor spotlights US billions blown in Afghanistan,” Fox News, 28 July 2014; Water: Robert David Steele, “Water: Soul of the Earth, Mirror of Our Collective Souls,” Huffington Post, 7 January 2011.
[10] Combining the category of Military Spending (54%) and Veterans’ Benefits (6%) yields 60%. “President’s Proposed 2016 Budget: Discretionary Spending,” National Priorities, 9 February 2015.
[11] Steele, Robert with Mohsen Abdenmoumen, “Robert David Steele: CIA Uses 1000 of US Overseas Bases to Facilitate the Smuggling of Drugs, Cash, Gold, Guns, and Small Children for the Elite,” American Herald Tribune, 20 February 2017.
[12] 450 Ship Navy @ Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog.
[13] Doug MacGregor @ Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog.
[14] Congressman Ron Paul is the most sensible senior voice in America on this point, see his collected Congressional speeches at A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (Foundation for Rational, 2007). Contrast the existing “big stick, big expense” national security policy of the Chinese – an effective military including naval forces more than adequate for a South China Sea confrontation with hollow US forces, at a tiny fraction of the US military budget, while creating a global grid of commerce and construction highlights by ports, airfields, high speed rails, and mining. This story is best told by Parag Khana, Connectography: Mapping the Global Network Revolution (Orion, 2016). Where China and Russia have failed is in the information domain – they have not understood that the post-Google Internet must be both open source and totally encrypted and distributed, as well as free to the lower billions in the form of an open source cell phone that requires no towers (FM band) and no batteries (RF recharging). That is what will create infinite wealth in keeping with the vision of C. K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Revised and Updated 5th Anniversary Edition: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Pearson FT Press, 2009)
[15] “Trump decertifies Iran nuclear deal, slaps sanctions on IRGC in broadside at ‘radical regime’,” Fox News, 13 October 2017; and Office of the Press Secretary, “President Donald J. Trump’s New Strategy on Iran,” The White House, 13 October 2017.
[16] Steele, Robert. “Las Vegas Massacre: A Hybrid False-Flag, Treason, or an Act of War?” American Herald Tribune, 6 October 2017.
[17] Martin Dillon and Gordon Thomas, Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul (Da Capo Press, 2003).
[18] Conchita Sarnoff, “Jeffrey Epstein: Money Conquers Justice, Deception Reigns,” The Daily Caller, 26 May 2017.
[19] The author is an appointed Commissioner for the project on elite pedophilia of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice, and is also the author of the Foreword to a book by West Point graduate Joachim Hagopian, Pedophila & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, being published free online by the chapter and eventually to be offered as a book at Amazon.
[20] #GoogleGestapo @ Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog.
[21] General Tony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), when he was Commanding General of the US Central Command (USCENTCOM) then engaged in two wars and twelve joint task force actions, is on record as saying that he received, “at best,” 4% of what he needed to know from the US IC.  Cf. Graphic: Tony Zinni on 4% “At Best” and Tony Zinni: Background & Confirmation of the 4% “At Best” Quote on Secret versus Open Sources, both at Phi Beta Iota Public Intelligence Blog, respectively 30 December 2012 and 7 December 2010. My retired peers agree that 70% of the US IC budget could be cut if the remaining 30% were managed honestly and – my work – an Open Source Agency (OSA) at $2 billion a year was creating unclassified decision-support for everyone.  I am told President Trump is considering the creation of an OSA. Cf. Robert Steele, “Intelligence for the President—and Everyone Else,” Counterpunch, 1 March 2009 and “Defense Intelligence: Seven Strikes,” CounterPunch, 2 July 2014.
[22] The simple-minded as well as the devious will always try to label any reasoned commentary about Zionists to be anti-Semitic.  Apart from the fact that the Jewish state and religion are both invented, and that the Ashkenazi Jews emerged from the Khazars in Eastern Europe, when I use the term Zionist I refer to state-sponsored bribery, blackmail, and deception, and to those individuals who choose to betray their own country in service to Zionism. Donald Trump got the first half of the message right: America First. He must now complete the message: there is no room in America for Israel First, nor for Zionist profiteering at the expense of the 99%, 23% of whom are unemployed at this time.  Cf. Shaul Stamfer, “Are We All Khazars Now?” Jewish Review of Books, Spring 2014; Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso, 2010) and Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland(Verso, 2012). On unemployment see John Williams, Shadow Government Statistics, accessed 14 October 2017. For an understanding of how US banking families under the control of foreign banking families created the Great Depression to destroy the growing middle class demanding honest government, to buy land and property at distressed prices, and to consolidate control of the US political and governance structure, see Wayne Jett, The Fruits of Graft: Great Depressions Then and Now (Launfal Press, 2011).


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The U.S. Bombed Afghanistan More in September than Any Month Since 2010, but the “Death Toll” Remains Hidden

In the war on terror, Trump doubles down on a failed strategy.
On August 21, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Afghanistan strategy. He made clear that the longest war in modern U.S. history had no end in sight, and that the U.S. government would increase its troop contingent by several thousand soldiers.
According to news reports, another 4,000 U.S. soldiers are slated for deployment to Afghanistan. However, Trump himself admitted the true numbers will remain in the dark, saying in his August 21 speech that the number of U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other countries would not be released by his administration in the future.
Nine days later, it was revealed that, instead of roughly 8,000 troops, as previously believed, at least 11,000 soldiers are currently deployed in Afghanistan. That’s not the only instance of information being withheld from the public: During the last days of Barack Obama‘s presidency, the Pentagon stopped releasing redacted investigations of major civilian casualty events caused by the U.S. military. This included war crimes in Syria, Afghanistan and several other countries where drones are haunting the skies, while special forces units are conducting shadowy operations on the ground.
Trump’s speech also dropped the pretense of “nation-building” that many across the political spectrum had used to justify the Afghanistan war. For him, it’s all about hunting down and killing “terrorists.”
Although the word “terrorist” has become vacuous, a label for everything and everyone, the question remains: Who are the “terrorists” in Afghanistan? Are they al-Qaeda, which has been practically non-existent in the country for years? Are they the leaders of the Taliban, which has grown since the start of the U.S.-led invasion and now controls many parts of the country? Are they the extremists of ISIS, whose presence was enabled by the violence of the U.S.-led war and invasion, too? Are they the brutal warlords and militia fighters who have become a crucial part of Afghanistan’s landscape and, since allying with the United States in 2001, have led parts of the Kabul government?
From an Afghan view, there are other “terrorists”: the drone operators who are remotely killing innocent people on a daily basis, or the Western soldiers who are hunting civilians and collect their body parts like trophies.
For the U.S. government, the answer is chillingly simple. Since 2012, the White House has maintained that every military-aged male in a strike zone is considered as an “enemy combatant.” This means what nearly all Afghan men—including teenagers—are considered “terrorists.” The same is true for Syrians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Yemenites and every other citizen of a country that has the luck to be terrorized by U.S. bombs and rockets, dropped by conventional aircraft or weaponized drones.
“We are all terrorists. If we get hit now, you are going to be called like that too,” a Taliban fighter in Nangarhar province in the east of the country told me when I visited his village in May. Local civilians who were nearby agreed with him.
What he said was true. I often thought how I would be described after getting killed by a drone strike, especially while researching in remote regions that are barely entered by Western journalists. Like most Afghan men, I have a beard and black hair. In today’s world, that’s enough to be called a “terrorist,” a danger to Western civilization.
Since Trump took over the presidency, about 2,000 airstrikes have been conducted by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. On October 12, a U.S. drone strike killed 14 people; Afghan officials claim the victims were ISIS militants but a local member of parliament alleges those killed were civilians. Last month, the U.S. dropped more bombs and missiles on Afghanistan than in any other month since 2010. Most of these strikes hit Nangarhar province, which was also the target of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the “Mother of All Bombs”, the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the Pentagon’s arsenal. According to recent UN data, U.S. strikes in Nangarhar are more likely to result in civilian casualties than strikes anywhere else in the country. But contrary to reports that often describe all victims as “suspected militants” or “terrorists,” many dead are civilians.
Provinces like Nangarhar, where the United States has been fighting its “War on Terror” since 2001, are the places where the U.S. lost this war. While the Taliban control many districts of such provinces, after years of constant occupation, many Afghan locals have developed a hatred toward the American soldiers, like their forefathers did towards the Russians and the British.
While Trump is giving one weird speech after the other, the Afghans in these remote areas live in real dystopia. The so-called government in Kabul, which was installed by the United States in 2001, has no influence here.
Instead, the people’s lives are controlled by Taliban insurgents who are often deeply connected with the local communities. More than 100,000 U.S. soldiers, who were deployed in Afghanistan during the Obama era, were not able to change this reality. It will not be much different under Trump.
It’s not just the mere presence of foreign troops that fuels war, but also what those troops have done and continue to do: carry out air strikes, conduct brutal night raids on civilians’ homes and torture detainees at places like Bagram Air Base—a place so notorious in Afghanistan that, to some, Guantanamo is considered a haven by comparison.
All signs indicate these atrocities will continue in the era of Donald Trump.
The identities of the people who have been murdered by the MOAB are still not known. While the Kabul government supported the attack and later announced that more than 90 ISIS militants have been killed, the White House preferred to stay silent. Too often, similar figures in the past have proven to be bogus. But in the United States, the stories of Afghans are only told when they fit with the interests of the U.S. empire. Otherwise, they remain faceless and invisible—and that’s how Donald Trump wants to keep them.
Emran Feroz is an Austrian-Afghan journalist and author based in Germany, and the founder of Drone Memorial, a virtual memorial for civilian drone strike victims. His book on the U.S. drone war just has been released in German.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Iran Doesn’t Have a Nuclear Weapons Program (israel does). Why Do Media Keep Saying It Does?

When it comes to Iran, do basic facts matter? Evidently not, since dozens and dozens of journalists keep casually reporting that Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” when it does not—a problem FAIR has reported on over the years (e.g., 9/9/15). Let’s take a look at some of the outlets spreading this falsehood in just the past five days:
  • Business Insider (10/13/17): The deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aims to incentivize Iran to curb its nuclear weapons program by lifting crippling international economic sanctions.”
  • New Yorker (10/16/17): “One afternoon in late September, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called a meeting of the six countries that came together in 2015 to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
  • Washington Post (10/16/17): “The administration is also considering changing or scrapping an international agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
  • CNN (10/17/17): “In reopening the nuclear agreement, [Trump] risks having Iran advance its nuclear weapons program at a time when he confronts a far worse nuclear challenge from North Korea that he can’t resolve.”
The problem with all of these excerpts: Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. It has a civilian nuclear energy program, but not one designed to build weapons. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs; only a handful—including, of course, the US and Israel—have nuclear weapons programs. One is used to power cities, one is used to level them.
If you are skeptical, just refer to a 2007 assessment by all 16 US intelligences agencies (yes, those 16 US intelligence agencies), which found Iran had “halted” its nuclear weapons program. Or look at the same National Intelligence Estimate in 2012, which concluded again that there “is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.” Or we can listen to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, which concurred with the US intelligence assessment (Haaretz3/18/12).
The “Iran Deal,” formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is built on curbing Iran’s civilian nuclear program, out of fear—fair or not—that it could one day morph into a nuclear weapons program. But at present, there is no evidence, much less a consensus, that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. JCPOA cannot be used as per se evidence such a program exists today; indeed, it is specifically designed to prevent such a program from developing down the road.
A slightly less egregious variant of this canard is when outlets suggest the JCPOA stopped an ongoing existing weapons program—though they don’t make the mistake of saying it still exists: The JCPOA “called for the elimination of economic sanctions Iran in exchange for Tehran giving up its nuclear weapons program,” USA Today (10/13/17) wrote. US and Israeli intelligence do claim that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program—but they say it ended in 2003, not in 2015 as a result of the JCPOA.
The distinction between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is, of course, non-trivial. Every time the media mindlessly report Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” rather than a “nuclear program” (or, better, a “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power program”), they further advance the myth that Iran’s intentions or “ambitions” are to build a nuclear bomb, which is something we have no evidence it is doing or plans to do—at least since the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against building nuclear weapons in 2003 (Foreign Policy10/16/14).
So why do some many reporters keep mucking this up? A few reasons: It’s just a mantra repeated ad infinitum, and journalists and pundits often mindlessly repeat an oft-repeated phrase. Some, such as nuclear arms expert Jeffrey Lewis at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Middlebury Institute, think it’s simply an issue of reporters not knowing how to express a complicated idea.
“I often see this point [about the civilian vs weapons program] mangled. I don’t think it’s malice, just a writer or editor not knowing how to express an idea,” he said on social media. “The JCPOA imposes measures that constrain Iran’s nuclear energy program to provide confidence that the program remains peaceful,” he added, offering an example of how that idea can be expressed.
Another major reason for this recurring falsehood, as FAIR (7/6/17) noted after the New York Times twice “mistakenly” accused Iran of carrying out 9/11 (one of the smears going uncorrected for over three years), is that one can say pretty much anything about Iran without any professional or public backlash. Because Iran is an Official US Enemy, and its motives are therefore always deemed sinister, the idea that it is plotting to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear weapon is simply taken as a given. The lack of hard evidence for this is irrelevant: Intentions of those in the crosshairs of US power are always presented as cynical and malicious; those of the US and its allies benevolent and in good faith. Iran’s sinister motives are simply the default setting—no matter much evidence points to the contrary.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Saudi Royal Transition: Why, What, and When?

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Speculation is widespread that King Salman may soon abdicate in favor of Crown Prince Muhammad, but that is just one of several possible options.
Last June, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, one of the oldest heads of state in the Persian Gulf region, gave the title of crown prince to his favorite son Muhammad bin Salman, known as MbS. The thirty-two-year-old prince was the third to hold that title since Salman ascended to the throne in 2015, but he is widely regarded as his father’s true choice to become the next king. When that happens and under what circumstances could have important consequences for Saudi Arabia, the wider Muslim world, and the international oil market.
Saudi succession law does not lay out a strict system of primogeniture — it merely states that rule passes to the sons and grandsons of the country’s founder, Abdulaziz (Ibn Saud). This loose edict allows succession from brother to brother, creating a problem that has been growing with each transition — the sons of Ibn Saud have been acceding to the throne at older ages and living longer while in power, eventually straining their physical and mental capacities for leadership (click on chart below for high-resolution version). The accession of MbS could resolve that problem for years to come.
King Salman has two other titles as well: “Custodian of the Two Holy Places” and prime minister. This broadens the range of possibilities for transferring responsibilities to MbS. The scenarios could unfold as follows:
Salman abdicates and MbS becomes king. “Abdication” is probably not a favored option in the kingdom. It was last used in 1964 when the spendthrift King Saud was forced to give up after six years of tension with his half-brother Faisal, who replaced him. More recently, in 2013, Emir Hamad al-Thani of Qatar abdicated in favor of his son Tamim but retains much influence, along with the official title of “Father Emir.” Given Riyadh’s current bad blood with Qatar, the chances of Salman emulating the “Father King” model are likely zero, but a different slice of history could make full abdication more acceptable.
In 1902, Ibn Saud (only twenty-two at the time) led a group of fighters from exile to recapture his family’s ancestral village of Dariyah in central Arabia. In response, his father Abdulrahman ceded leadership of the House of Saud to him. Today, King Salman is said to see Ibn Saud’s character in his son, and the Wall Street Journal reports that he has already made a video announcing that MbS will be king.
Salman gives up the throne but remains Custodian. Since Ibn Saud captured the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in 1925, successive rulers have taken responsibility for the Islamic shrines. King Fahd formalized this role in 1986, changing his title from “majesty” to “Custodian of the Two Holy Places.” Retaining the religious title but relinquishing political leadership would be consistent with the sense that the former is more important — a key ingredient in Saudi Arabia’s claim to leadership of the wider Arab and Muslim worlds.
Salman appoints MbS prime minister. At present, the king is prime minister and the crown prince is deputy prime minister. Yet the weekly meetings of the Council of Ministers, which are chaired by the prime minister, are not the country’s most crucial decision making forums. That honor goes to the Council of Political and Security Affairs and the Council of Economic and Development Affairs, two bodies that were created in 2015 and are now chaired by MbS. Administratively, naming MbS as prime minister would arguably be tidier than the current arrangement. But this may be a delicate issue: Faisal and King Saud engaged in a long tug-of-war over bureaucratic control before the former’s accession, so Salman would have to be truly willing to give up the job if this division of labor is to work today.
MbS becomes regent. When Salman travels abroad, as he did to Moscow earlier this month, he “deputizes” MbS “to administer the state’s affairs and take care of the interests of the people during his absence,” according to the Saudi Press Agency. A version of this option — regency — is available in circumstances of illness or lengthy medical treatment abroad. Yet a protracted regency could be contentious. After King Fahd suffered a debilitating stroke in late 1995, Crown Prince Abdullah was appointed regent, but he held the title for only a few weeks — apparently because Fahd’s powerful full brothers (Sultan, Nayef, and Salman) were anxious to deny Abdullah complete authority. Despite the king’s poor physical condition thereafter, Abdullah did not assume full formal power until his own accession in 2005.
Salman dies. As crown prince, MbS would become king provided his leadership is acknowledged by senior members of the House of Saud, who must give him the oath of allegiance. Yet reported schisms in the royal family could lead some figures to contest his new authority. When Salman made MbS crown prince four months ago, three of the thirty-four princes on the Allegiance Council voted against him. According to the New York Times, his predecessor, Muhammad bin Nayef, did not give up the role and swear loyalty to MbS until he had been denied sleep and access to his medication; he reportedly remains confined to his palace today. Another potential opponent is Mitab bin Abdullah, son of the previous king and head of the National Guard, a significant military force if the succession is contested.
If his father passes away, MbS may be able to manoeuver around these family obstacles by carefully selecting a new crown prince, as is the king’s right. At present, though, it is far from obvious who that might be. Alternatively, he could delay that appointment, as King Faisal did in the 1960s before eventually naming Khalid. Earlier this year, the king sought to reduce royal family opposition to his son’s appointment as crown prince by changing the kingdom’s law of succession; the new law makes the young sons of MbS ineligible for that title. Prince Khalid, brother to MbS and ambassador to Washington, is ineligible as well
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Regardless of internal hurdles, the transition toward MbS becoming king is already well established, and the main question is when it will be completed. Although the inner workings of the House of Saud are the ultimate determinant, domestic and foreign policy factors may be important as well. The crown prince’s ambitions for economic and social change, typified by his “Vision 2030” project and the recent announcement allowing women to drive, are currently enhancing his credentials and popularity. But the succession process could also be shaped by how he deals with external factors such as the stalemated war in Yemen, intra-Gulf tensions with Qatar, and a host of problems with Iran.
The United States has multiple policy concerns wrapped up in the succession, but few ways of influencing palace politics. Royal family thinking is often difficult to discern. Past Saudi decision making has been marked by caution and consensus, but neither characteristic fits the personality of MbS. The Washington bureaucracy is still coming to terms with the demise of Muhammad bin Nayef, who was a key interlocutor on counterterrorism issues when he served as interior minister and crown prince. For now, the greatest advocate for MbS appears to his father, which suggests that the crucial final steps in promotion — namely, using the power of the throne to block opposition and authenticate the new arrangement — need to be taken sooner rather than later.
SourceThe Washington Institute

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Russia calls on US to expedite destruction of its chemical weapons

RT | October 18, 2017

Russia calls on US to expedite destruction of its chemical weapons

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!