"He sees him as an angel."
"God picks the most beautiful flowers for his garden," .
"He sees him as an angel."
A nation is a group of people whom share common ideals and international direction .
It has always been that way, and always will be.
When a group is geographically located in an area that does not permit their
autonomy and are not capable of sustaining an independent state, and are
capable of adhering to another group's Resistance to international direction,
cooperation, coordination, cohesion, and "entente Cordiale" is the only resolve.
Separatism was not very successful in Yugoslavia, nor Cyprus, nor Kurdistan,
nor Pakistan/India, nor East Timor, and neither in many others.... to be ....?
fomented by the new Alliance of evils, CIA/MOSSAD and the infamous, and
legendary "White House Murder Inc." .
Lebanon stands out by its tragic recent history and the huge disillusion of its population....
Regaining full sovereignty remains the key objective, if only to open up the political space for much-needed reform of the country's Byzantine sectarian governance system. This is what so many Lebanese, much of the left and most liberals, arguably the progressive vanguard, understood when they joined hands with former warlords and feudal leaders....since, 1984.
Twenty Three years ago, there was unprecedented momentum for such change, with the tripartite agreement. But then came several wars of aggression by USA's new alliance of evils with Israel's MOSSAD, AMAN and others..., several more against CIA inspired outfits ...and a relentless campaign of foreign inspired political violence that has left Lebanon teetering on the verge of state failure, unable to govern itself in any respectable manner, and unable to care for the needs of its young and old citizenry.
Cooperation, coordination, cohesion, and "entente Cordiale" is the only resolve
and is what created Lebanon in the first place, to protect many minorities, and
Arab Christians from dilution.... How is today any different.?
Despite the adverse affect this will have on the many Sects living within
this region, one should only consider that adverse affects a new war of aggression,
by the new hegemons of the new energy alliance of evils could have on the country,
cooperation, coordination, cohesion, and "entente Cordiale" is the only resolve, and
is a mere walk in the park....
The Shiites fear for their existence, so they protect themselves in the only
way they know how, with cooperation, coordination, cohesion, and "entente Cordiale",
with all nationalist Lebanese, and is their only resolve for ever.
The Christians are in the same boat, and are protecting themselves in the only way they know works, meaning, cooperation, coordination, cohesion, and "entente Cordiale" with all Lebanese and is their only resolve.
Instead of fighting over our differences, why not utilize our differences
in a positive manner, by either a national unity government or a non-sectarian
style system, which would allow for each area to entertain the right to self
rule, without hinder by its fellow feudal, sectarian, elite's hegemon's, bent
on gabbling up the resources of the country....?
Why should all of Lebanon suffer if the 14Hmars are on a FAKE mission to free Lebanon, from the will to resist outside hegemonic designs, and are known stooges of CIA and MOSSAD? etc. ....?
"The independence intifada was supposed to be the dawn of a new era and it turned out to be completely false,"
Many Lebanese have grown tired of the unrelenting crisis of political gridlock, sporadic assassinations, bombings and street violence, as well as a worsening economy. Fed up with ceaseless bickering of politicians ....
The spring of 2005 had turned Beirut, briefly, into the frontline of the Bush Administration's flagging battle to democratize the Middle East. The spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese waving national flags and clogging the streets of the city center conjured up irresistible comparisons with the popular revolutions that had overturned regimes in former Soviet republics. And its young activists spoke of abolishing the sectarian distribution of power on which Lebanon's constitution is founded. But following Syria's troop withdrawal from Lebanon six weeks after the March 14 rally, it was back to business as usual: Lebanon's established political creeps briefly set aside their differences to cut electoral deals to maintain their own grip on power, while cold-shouldering the young activists.... The dismayed young activists realized that changing the system would not be as easy as they had initially hoped, because it was a fake publicity stunt of the White House's Murder Inc., ever since January 24th 2002.
"It's going to take more than a couple of marches and a few days in tents to change a system that has been around for centuries,"
Despite the gloom, the activists are quietly but doggedly pursuing their effort to build a progressive and secular Lebanese society....
"We have to keep reminding them that it's not about March 14 and the opposition, but whether they want to live in a democratic state...
The 14 Hmars will pay for the "Olmert-Livni-Barak-Bush-Rice" policies with their blood....!
As Olmert did in Israel, so in USA, the Sainioura government of stooges, agents and treacherous creeps, simply seeks to hide what it is doing by lying to the public. Like BUSH, apparently Geagea, Jumballast , the Khariris and Gemayoulis, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal , Barak, and the White House Murder Inc. assassins hope that their lies won't run out until after the next war and before the next election is held..... !
But of course, they will..... Using lies to hide a strategy of surrender to the new "alliance of evils", CIA/MOSSAD, didn't work for anyone. It won't work for them either, the Resistance will be Victorious, along with the Valiant Nationalist Lebanese, from all walks of life and from all the various Political groupings.
The 'Old World Order' Comes Back
Russia vs. U.S. - U.S. vs. Russia
The old rivalry & enmity is back
But with one 'small' difference: communism is missing :-)
and it's not so clear which side is the 'bad boy'... :-)
"When you go and essentially corrupt The one and Only United nations, UN, in the Eastern part of NYC, with massive infusions of aid to ISRAEL no matter how appropriately or inappropriately it will be used, and you strangle nascent democracies in their crib throughout the New Greater projected "Middle Energy East" by doing so just so you can get that " Securitized island nation's" role in the nascent New World General Assembly of crooks of the White House Murder Inc., that's pursuing it for a very narrow base," Mr. Hayden ....isn't it ?
"If you want to be a great power, you've got be thinking more broadly, you cannot be acting just on those kind of narrow considerations...while you take Lebanon hostage in order to show case your FAKE desire for Democracy Freedom and Ultra-False Human Rights for our great Lebanese people."
The recent assassination by Mossad representative in Damascus, Assef Shawkat, CEO of the infamous White House Murder Inc.; of Imad Fayez Mughniyeh will not preclude Hezbollah from striking again -- and, judging from past experience, the Lebanese-Resistance organization will eye Diaspora, as well as Israeli, and American targets, for the USA has been doing everything wrong in the Middle East since 1948.
Assassinations galore
Assassinations probably predate recorded history. In modern times, states, political parties, "non-state" actors and lone individuals working for "the cause" have engaged in it. The secret services of some countries have often made assassinations an extension of government policy. Israel is a clear case in point. Whether it is moral is a matter of intense dispute. At times it is effective, at other times it brings more disasters in its wake. The dispute over its morality arises from the lack of agreement on when it is plain murder and when the killing is "justified". The usual justification given is the need to prevent a greater evil, or that the person concerned is a "terrorist", or "wanted", a category invented by Israel's army and secret services. But if one person's terrorist is another person's freedom-fighter, it should be clear why there is dispute about its morality. The issue becomes even more moot when assassinations are performed in retribution for some act rather than as prevention and in order to save lives.... ?
That there are baser motives for assassination is also clear: getting rid of foes, competitors or even avowed "friends" if seen to stand in the way of access to power. The history of several Arab countries is replete with examples. The record of Iraq and Syria in the 1950s and early 60s is particularly strong on assassinations in the midst of coups d'état. Palestinians have been a particular target for Israeli assassins, but Palestinians themselves also engaged in internal liquidations on quite a few occasions. Human rights organizations describe assassinations executed by states such as Israel, as "extra-judicial" or "non-legal" killing. The Hague Regulations of 1907 (article 23 b) prohibit "assassination" but do not define the word, over which in fact there is a dispute that in turn arises from the lack of agreement about its morality, and under what conditions it may possibly be justified. Some states are more adept at assassinations than others. The public record of the US seems particularly dismal. Between 1951 and 2008....?
Some assassinations brought more tragic events in their wake. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was followed by bloodshed and the partition of India. Some brought about the opposite of desired results such as the assassination of former Hezbollah leader Abbas Musawi in 1992. He was succeeded by a more effective and charismatic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has become Israel's nemesis in recent years. The recent assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus, believed by Hizballah and most of the world to be the work of Israel's handy men in Damascus, Bashar’s brother-in-law Asef Shawkat was confirmed as the head of military intelligence, perhaps one of the most sensitive and powerful positions in Syria today...in order to "bring to pass" the continuum of the "US Matrix of Murder in the Levant", started on January 24th 2002, with the savage assassination of an MP, Ex-Minister and immensely popular Christian politician, the Lebanese Hero of Heroes, Mr. Elie Hobeika, Dimitri Ajram, Walid El-Zein and Fares Sweidan, on instructions from the White House Murder Inc., in collusion with Ariel Sharon, Elliott Abrams, and executed by the Syrian Handy Man Assef Shawkat, who strongly believed "from then on"... and was lead to believe..., that he is an "invincible" covert assassin and mass murderer, since he has the protection of the biggest MAFIA in the World, the Neocon Mafia of the Killers on the Potomac and Langley...will most likely invite retaliation, which in turn one should expect will lead to a cycle of violence. Many non-combatants will be victims, which again will raise the moral question, also in relation to the aftermath. It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on Hobeika and his party.... But Listed a small Hand Grenade thrown at a U.S. franchise in the middle of the night when the place was closed, empty and no one was hurt?
The White House wanted to ensure the terror attack on Mr. Elie Hobeika, and his party of three young men with families, was censored from the report. The reason was simple: this attack ultimately had Washington's and Israel's fingerprints all over it.... ! Assef Shawqat, went on his murderer "besogne" in Lebanon and Damascus ever since, with a string of Assassinations, successfully evading all the Overhead surveillance of a string of US and Israeli and other spy satellites.... that record every move, whisper and more on Planet earth....and yet, after several years of "intense" UN inspired investigations....there is nothing on Shawkat....because they want him "protected" for the next round....and all the fanfare which accompanied the arrest of the"Four Generals" in 2005 is a monumental fraud since they are also "protected" by CIA because they know so much...and the latest "state Department report" attests to the fact that the USA considers them... "illegal prisoners" for Political expediency of the 14Hmars... which in other words means that the USA is paving the way for their "timely" release for good.
Palestinians have also been involved in dastardly internal killing. Suffice it to mention the well known case of cartoonist Najih a-Ali, widely believed by Palestinians to have been an "internal" job in retribution for some cartoons he published and given his popularity and influence. It is generally agreed that while such killing may remove a specific target, it is rare that assassinations bring about radical political change. The assassination of Khalil al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) in Tunisia in 1988 by an Israeli squad did not stop the first intifada. That was only ended after the Madrid conference and the first agreement between Israel and the PLO in 1993. Nor did the assassinations of Ahmad Yasin and other Hamas leaders destabilize Hamas or create disarray in its ranks. They only brought retaliation and more violence. If retribution is widely held to be a highly dubious justification for assassination (as opposed to the less dubious motive of saving lives), perhaps the most immoral motive is that of politicians playing to the internal gallery, in order to show that they are "doing something", or, in other words, to help keep their careers afloat. But even if one were to imagine the emergence of a consensus on the immorality of assassination, whether practiced by states or by "non-state" actors, regrettably it does not seem realistic to expect that the practice will come to an end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geopolitical Diary: Eyes on Franco/CIA-Russian Relations.
The European Union’s heads of state summit began March 13 in Brussels with two main topics on everyone’s mind: Russia and France. Discussions of the EU’s energy security and supplies have centered on Russia, especially after Gazprom cut supplies flowing to Europe through Ukraine. Meanwhile, though it is not a formal agenda item, each EU state is wondering what France will do when it takes over the bloc’s presidency in less than four months.
This raises the question of how France will handle the Russia dilemma when it takes the EU’s helm. For years, France and Russia had a unique bilateral relationship that grew out of the cordial relations that France enjoyed with the Soviet Union during the Cold War....
But a large shift has occurred in Franco-Russian relations which was blatantly evident at the countries’ most recent annual security summit — an event that is typically a hallmark for their close relations. This year, the meeting was not just awkward; it was nearly hostile, since there little middle ground on the issues of the day. Russia opposes sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program; France co-authored the last two batches of sanctions. Russia opposes the U.S. missile defense program in Central Europe; France is rather nondenominational on the topic. Russia opposes Kosovar independence; France was the first state to recognize it on Feb. 18. CIA/Stratfor is sure that at some point during the meetings both sides had to have been thinking, “Why are we here?”
The traditional Gaullist position has been that global French influence depends upon Europe (which is to say, France) having room to maneuver independent of the superpowers. This resulted in Paris’ flirting with powers ranging from Moscow to Beijing to Tehran at the height of Western/American tensions with those countries. To the Americans, the French tendency to squeeze into the room is often — to be charitable — annoying, as it often produces a breach in the Western wall to be exploited. To the French it is all part and parcel of ensuring that French interests and capabilities are never taken for granted...
But that was the worldview of Charles de Gaulle and his successors, most recently Jacques Chirac. Those days are gone, and Nicholas Sarkozy, France’s freshman/CIA president, has broken with de Gaulle and Chirac, since the successful take over of France by a CIA inspired "soft Coup D'état"....
While France retains as opportunistic a foreign policy as ever, and its strategy is not the same any more, it has become a CIA inspired policy if rendering "Old Europe", the quintessential enemy of the US... for its has in mind futuristic designs on European/Russian relations...., its geographic scope has shrunk to match the regions in which it has far greater leverage: Europe and Europe’s immediate frontier....stretching to the Urals and the Mediterranean Pond, all then way to the straights of Hormuz....but that's for another day.....
“THE CROOKS THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM CANNOT SOLVE IT AND WILL NOT SOLVE IT”
That means instead of tweaking the Americans in order to shape the world, the French are now tweaking the Germans in order to shape Europe. Sarkozy’s spats with his German counterpart, Chancellor Angela Merkel, on everything from the EU’s Mediterranean policy to the euro are part of this CIA strategy....
Meanwhile, the other party at the table — Russia — has also adjusted its worldview of late. The West pushed through Kosovar independence despite strident Russian objections. This embarrassment momentarily damaged Russia’s standing throughout the world, particularly in Russia’s own periphery, where it has already experienced a series of reversals which it is trying to … well, reverse. In the former Soviet Union, many groups would like to ignore Russian interests and sprint Westward, while many who value Russian influence see such a public defeat as a sign that maybe they too should move on....
and join CIA's Energy and Murder Matrix, in the continuum of the White House's Murder Inc.!. Russia needs to “correct” both perceptions if it is to avoid the CIA inspired collapse of its entire international position. Moscow has taken the time during the Kosovo crisis to paint the West — especially the United States — as international aggressors since the West did not go through international controls to change the boundaries of states in Europe...., in an attempt to change the boundaries of the whole world by the USA Hubris, Hegemons and assassins of the Wyoming Bandits.... but that's for another day to detail!.
But this does not mean that Moscow has abandoned its tradition of using normal coercive practices, used daily by CIA and USA.... to get what it wants. It has been working on “correcting” perceptions closer to home, in Ukraine and Georgia, stalling their Westward movements. This is working for the time being, but it does not mean Moscow will not find new ways of expanding its push against the West, especially since one of its mediators — CIA installed Parisian Hubris — is becoming more "loud-mouthed" by CIA....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran still a target?
If you think the Bush administration won't attack the Islamic Republic because U.S. intelligence agencies say it has no nuclear weapons program, or because most Americans dismiss the idea of an offense.
In a reality-based world, the idea that the United States should attack Iran would by now seem most implausible. Not only is the Iraq war taking a terrible financial and human toll, but American intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Iran should logically fall into the same category as Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea - countries that behave in ways the U.S. dislikes but do not pose such imminent threats that they must be bombed. Unfortunately, though, reality is not what guides the Bush administration. It is still driven by the impulses that led to the Iraq invasion. This means that the world may wake up any morning between now and Jan. 20 to news that U.S. missiles are falling on Iran. Ominously, Adm. William J. Fallon, who had strongly opposed the idea of attacking Iran, announced his early retirement yesterday.
The fact that most Americans seem to believe the threat of such an attack has receded may actually make it more possible. Officials in Washington could easily take the lack of sustained public and political protest as a sign that citizens don't really care whether the U.S. launches this new war.
Perversely, the recent National Intelligence Estimate concluding that there is no active nuclear weapons program in Iran could have the same effect. Before it was issued, there seemed at least a chance that European and other powers would join the United States in imposing new economic sanctions on Iran. Now they are unlikely to do so. With sanctions off the table, some in Washington may conclude that military action is the only remaining option.
Utopians who believe that bombing Iran would serve the cause of peace and democracy in the Middle East have not stopped their campaign. Norman Podhoretz, one of the godfathers of the neoconservative movement, has just published a lengthy article, "Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands." It casts doubt on the recent intelligence estimate and argues for an attack "in 2008, when Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and millions of lives can be saved."
Six years ago, President Bush warned Iran that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and "not stand by as peril draws closer and closer." In December, after the intelligence estimate was released, he asserted that "if Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, 'What happened to [the Americans] in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger?'"
In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Bush denounced Iran for "funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land." Then he warned, "Know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops."
Many Americans and people around the world will be shocked if President Bush orders an attack on Iran. He would be perfectly justified in telling them that their shock was hard to understand, since he had repeatedly made his intention clear.
It is not hard to imagine the reasoning that might lead White House officials to conclude the U.S. must attack Iran. "We had to deal with 9/11 because wimpy Bill Clinton didn't crush the threat before it materialized," they would tell themselves. "We can't leave this problem to the next president. Let's make the tough decision we know is right."
Thirty-five years ago, Americans faced a hostile nuclear power whose government the U.S. had long refused to recognize: China. President Richard M. Nixon was able to imagine a new relationship with China, one in which the two countries would compete or cooperate peacefully. President Bush has proved incapable of making a similar leap. He evidently cannot conceive of a world in which America and Iran are anything other than bitter enemies.
Why is the U.S., which maintains good relations with other odious regimes, unable to offer a hand of peace to Iran? The reasons are psychological as much as political. Powerful Americans have never forgiven Iran's mullahs for overthrowing the shah in 1979, taking U.S. diplomats hostage and opposing Western interests in the Middle East and beyond. They feel the mullahs must be given the punishment they have thus far escaped.
That punishment, in the form of bombs, could rain down on Iran at any moment. Believing it can't happen increases the possibility that it will.
"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror."... is a good place to start....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Bush is supposed to be the human face of the PNAC's American project, spearheaded by the self-appointed Vice President Dick Cheney, to take control of the resources, mostly oil, of the Middle East and central Asia. The timing was perfect, coming just ahead of peak oil. The project -- brilliantly executed to assure that the US and its Anglophony coalition were the sole victors -- has the advantage of controlling energy resources to the US allies Europe and Japan, as well as potential enemies, particularly China. It was also probably designed to isolate and encircle Russia. It is probably less important, for the stability of the US and world economy, to have the oil than to control it, and so far Bush has maintained control of Iraq. He performed his role reasonably well, succeeding in leaving a long-term military force in Iraq, insuring an American thumb on the oil spigot. The military casualties, and the million or so civilian deaths and six million displaced, a true humanitarian disaster, as well as the three or four trillion dollar cost, are totally irrelevant (e.g. Dick Cheney's "So?") to the project as long as control is maintained. No matter who wins the presidential election, it is a sure thing that the US will maintain a military presence in Iraq for many years, presumably until the oil runs out.
The project was supposed to be easy because no nation could withstand the blitzkrieg of the US armed forces. Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush redesigned the US armed forces to be small and flexible so that they could move quickly from country to country, toppling governments and being greeted as liberators. George Bush is probably the only person who could have tried to pull it off. He prides himself in taking bold action where others would be restrained. He is also unconnected from reality, even if he is not a bad poker player. He (and Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks) happily planned a chess game that could be won by knocking of the king, only to find that the pawns rose up and handed him his ass. Instead of going on to the real target in the Middle East, Iran, he's stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's also losing control of the resources of central Asia to Russia. Having no clue, along with the Americans, how the world actually works, he fought his war and left chaos in his wake. He nevertheless persists, aided by an obsequious press, because he is really pretty good at controlling his message and the public debate. However even if, no matter how improbable, Iraq is stabilized across its religious and ethnic fault lines, the grand Pox Americana project is dead, largely because it would be just too long and complicated to carry out. If nothing else, the Iraq crusade has given a clinic to the rest of the world on how to resist American aggression. May the PNAC's Pox Americana rest in peace.
What is really disturbing in all of this is that there is no concern at all about civilian casualties, which amount to mass murder and forced mass displacement. This is a war against the people of Iraq, not against "terrorists". These are the fruits of the American program. All of its active proponents should be referred to the International Criminal Court.
(e)SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
