Wednesday, March 27, 2013

More Syrian weirdness

This post is a follow-up to the one below.

Although most Americans aren't paying much attention to the Syrian rebellion, that situation will change if the following conditions are met:

1. The insurgents topple the Assad dynasty.

2. The new government is fundamentalist and harshly repressive, especially toward Syria's Christian community.

3. The new government offers any support (even if purely verbal) to jihad.

If and when those things happen, the conservative media will -- with some justification -- screech about how Obama "lost" Syria and helped an Al Qaeda-linked group attain power. The president will have handed his foes a propaganda coup roughly equivalent to Benghazi times infinity. Fox News will call for congressional investigations while the Breitbarters will scream that Obama aided jihadis because he's a secret Mooooslim. Sharia law in America! The caliphate's a-coming! Yada yada yada; you know the drill.

Right now, American conservative opinion on Syria is vague and contradictory, with neocons calling for direct intervention while classic libertarians call for caution or noninterference. But if Assad falls and Mr. Even-Worse takes his place, today's interventionist neocons will not hesitate to use Syria in its perpetual game of pin-the-blame-on-the-Dems.

Make no mistake: A good part of the blame should be pinned to that ass -- but only part. Much blame goes elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that America has been pressured into action by our friends in Israel.

One strange indicator of covert Israeli activity on behalf of the rebellion is the "Assad-is-dead" ploy. You may have noticed that the less-selective right-wing sites have published "scoops" indicating that Assad was killed by his bodyguard -- an Iranian bodyguard, no less. (Nice touch, that.) The New York Daily News also fell for this one.

This fake photo of Assad's corpse is a decent bit of Photoshopping. (I've reproduced the fake and the original photo to your left.) A hint of shadow under the head would have helped.

The motive for this disinformation exercise escapes me, but somebody somewhere is playing a very weird trick -- and when I say "someone," I'm talking Mossad. For a rather strong indicator that this yarn is of Israeli origin, see here and here. I don't think that the CIA would plant a silly story of this sort; their "let's try anything" phase ended decades ago. No, this is an Israeli thang; only Israel's spooks could convince themselves that a ruse like this might live longer than 24 hours.

But why'd they do it?

More importantly, is anyone involved with this game thinking more than two moves ahead? I can understand why Israel wants rid of Assad (who, let us be clear, is nobody's idea of an admirable leader). But do they really feel that they'll get a better deal from Nusra, the Al Qaeda-linked group leading the rebellion?

If the Syria regime change turns into a cock-up, it'll be a cock-up with much precedent. It has been said (and not just by Ron Paul) that Israel created Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. Although the Jewish Federations of North America denies this charge, their explanation may offer some insight into the current situation in Syria:
The PLO was convinced that Israel was helping Hamas in the hope of triggering a civil war. Since Hamas did not engage in terror at first, Israel did not see it as a serious short-term threat, and some Israelis believed the rise of fundamentalism in Gaza would have the beneficial impact of weakening the PLO, and this is what ultimately happened.
(My emphasis.) By "some Israelis" read "Likudniks."

One can cite other examples. In the preceding post, we noted that America supported jihadis when they directed fire at the USSR; later, our fundamentalist "friends" turned out to be less than friendly toward us. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos used to be our boys. There is evidence that the CIA helped install Castro.

What continually astonishes me is not the shifting relationships -- "allies today, foes tomorrow" -- because that sort of thing falls under the heading of realpolitik. What bugs the hell out of me is the public reaction. Most average Americans remain ignorant of the way our alliances tend to morph; we prefer linear, melodramatic, easy-to-understand narratives in which today's Bad Guy was always a Bad Guy, just as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Recall, for example, the events of 1988. When the media instructed the citizenry to hate Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, the American people (most of whom had never heard of the guy before) suddenly loathed him with a passion more purple than Pilate's toga. They got downright furious when guys like me tried to tell them that the U.S. had been, until recently, Noriega's sponsor and enabler.

In the same way (and here we return to our opening point), the same neocons who now demand that Obama oust Assad by any means necessary will be the first to blame Obama when Assad leaves and Mr. Even-Worse takes his seat. Propaganda and hypocrisy often share a mattress.
One of the problems with all this is that once someone reveals the uncomfortable truth behind the propaganda spews, they're immediately accused of 'hating on America and unpatriotic.' We have somehow taken a my country right or wrong stance, turned it into a virtue. Sadly, our shifting alliances have been pretty horrifying, something many citizens simply do not wish to look at. You can extend this to our domestic problems right now. Taibbi had a sobering piece on his blog about how deceit, corruption, double-talk, double-dealing, malfeasance of every sort in our political and financial spheres are the only things propping the rotten timbers up.

It's much easier and leads to better sleep to turn away and continue to dream the dream we prefer.

Depressing, all of it!

We've been at this since the end of WWII, why change now?
"For a rather strong indicator that this yarn is of Israeli origin, see here and here."

The first BLOGGER cites Russian media, the second BLOGGER cites Arab media. And this is a strong indication of MOSSAD involvement???? WTF??????
Mr. Mike :"We've been at this since the end of WWII"
-> Some of "You" have been at this
starting WWII.
Questions ?
For the record, the links go to something called the Israel News Agency and a Zionist blog which cites "Israel's News One." The first link also conveys an interview with an Israeli "analyst" who confirms the report.

I don't think the "Russian media sources" actually exist. Nobody has provided anything more specific. It certainly isn't in Russia's interest to concoct a whopper like this. When you want to seed disinformation, however, it's always a good idea to try get the story into a foreign source first, even if the foreign publication is tiny. John Stockwell used to talk about that a lot.
The 'topple/conquer 5 to 7 mid-eastern countries' plan was disclosed by Wes Clarke in the mid-'00s years, from his old Pentagon sources.

That was the decades'-long plan put forward by the neo-con advisors to Bibi on his first go-round ("A Clean Break...") during Clinton's last term.

To 'secure the realm [Israel]...'


Well, no. The first site goes to some blog I've never heard of, that links to another site I've never heard of, Israel News Agency, which is run by a guy named Joel Leyden, another guy I've never heard of. The second site goes to a site I've heard of, but which is at least semi-obscure. The notion that the Mossad is going to leak such information to obscure bloggers rather than, say, Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post strains credulity. It is far more likely that the bloggers made it up or heard rumors on the street than that the Mossad had anything to do with it.
Syria is being systematically broken up into small politically impotent and economically unviable units in the same way that Yugoslavia was broken up. Israel has already occupied the Golan Heights, and once Syria has been smashed into pieces it will no longer provide an obstacle to Greater Israel. Iraq is smashed; Libya and Egypt are economically ruined and in the hands of "Islamic militants.". The US stooge from Dallas has already surfaced to be the next "Islamic radical" leader for Syria just like Mursi who was imported from California.

The foreign mercenary scum who are looting, murdering, and torturing the people of Syria have been bought and paid for by the US and Israel and their Arab surrogates in Oman and Saudi Arabia. These are the "rebels" that the bootlicking press in the US and the UK constantly refer to. Next stop: Iran or perhaps Lebanon as a warm-up. It's springtime for Bibi and the Likudniks, and time for another blood-soaking war to be initiated with US money and manpower. The ass-kissing Obama has just returned from Israel where he received his marching orders from his owners. Now that the US and the UK have become colonies of Israel, there are no limits to the ambitions of a sociopath like Bibi and his friends.
There is medication for this sort of thinking. Lithium, perhaps, while some paranoid schizophrenics have found nicotine to be helpful. Back to the real world, though, most internal power struggles are internal. That is, as Tip O'neill said, "All politics is local." The Syrian rebels are Syrian and want the power that Assad now has. But you can keep the fantasy that it is the United States, Israel or Martians, don't let Occam's Razor get in your way.
joseph, that's quite enough out o your lying pie-hole. Even the NYT states that the Nusra Front is getting funds, weaponry and aide from outside. Lots of other reports come to the same conclusion. It simply isn't a matter for controversy.

I remember guys like you back in the 1970s. They kept insisting that the Chilean coup against Allende was a purely Chilen affair, and the CIA had nothing to do with it, nothing at all.
You mention the CIA and Castro.

How Castro took power so easily that New Year's Day is a bit of a mystery. He was certainly pro-US for a time afterwards. But he was never pro Meyer Lansky, who owned Havana until the takeover. It was bye-bye for the mafia. I don't think the CIA had it in for Lansky.

The main body backing Castro and Guevara's rise to power was the Soviet KGB, through Mexico - and in particular, what I like to call the 'Latin American KGB', which ended up breaking with Moscow. I say this, even though Castro was pro-US for a while. Said body still exists. It's formidable. It has a presence in many Latin American countries. It has also had a presence further afield, in Africa and for a time in Italy.

But might some faction in the CIA have given Castro some support against Lansky? I think it's possible, even if playing both sides of the street doesn't prove it. Castro and Guevara wouldn't have rejected lines of communication, or even some money if it was on offer.

CIA motive? War, probably. Prepare for a future invasion. Nutcases? Yep.

I'm not proposing a scenario akin to saying that wily Lenin turned the tables on his slow-witted German government backers, which is a rather silly explanation of events in Russia, albeit very widespread even if not shouted from the rooftops. I don't think the CIA was a major backer of Castro. But to the extent that they might have given him some backing, preparing the way for a future war might have been the reason.

Or maybe Lansky wanted to move his Cuban investments to Miami anyway?

Certainly the New Year's Day events in Havana require an explanation that lays stuff bare that might otherwise be hidden. On the face of it, they are weird. There must have been big-scale deception, which indicates intelligence agency involvement.
That makes sense. Assad's faced perfectly coiffed and groomed and somehow escaping the havoc wreaked on the rest of his body. What a maroon!

I was able to find good info from your blog articles.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?