Wednesday 30 November 2011


Over the past months I have posted quite a few of the articles on the following list. However, I am posting this article because I believe it keeps a lot of pertinent information all together for your easy access to materials on the above political events.This is a good page to save for future research or information when you need to check things out.

By Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya 


First in Global Research's Interactive Reader Series, we bring to the attention of our readers a collection of Global Research articles on the "Arab Spring", covering recent developments in several countries across the Middle East and North Africa region.

The Interactive Reader is a collection of previously published articles on Global Research. Its objective is to provide an overview as well as a comparative understanding of country-level experiences of the upheavals.

This selection of articles is intended to dispel the notion that the "Arab Spring" is just a pro-democracy movement spreading spontaneously from country to country, opening the way to a meaningful change in the political and economic landscape. The term "Arab Spring" is itself a Western-imposed term conjured up by people who appear to have little understanding of the complexities and realities of the region.

The double-standards of the U.S. and the European Union have become visible during the course of these tumultuous events. Both the US and the EU have kept silent about the brutal repression of unarmed civilian protesters in the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, while, by contrast, the Western powers have vehemently pushed for conflict with Libya and Syria.

America is no "role model" of democratization for the Arab World, comprising some 22 countries with a combined population of 300 million. US military presence imposed on Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and other Arab countries over decades, coupled with Washington-inspired "free market" reforms, are the root cause of state violence.

Washington's agenda for Egypt and Tunisia was to hijack the protest movement; what prevails in Egypt is the maintenance of a de facto military regime. In Tunisia, following the October 2011 parliamentary elections, the neoliberal policy framework remains unscathed.

From Washington's standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of authoritarian military rulers, as in the heyday of US imperialism. Regime change can be implemented by co-opting political parties, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement, and by manipulating national elections.

The ultimate objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers and to uphold the "Washington consensus" of the IMF/World Bank economic agenda that has served to impoverish millions throughout the Arab World and beyond. 

Moreover, Western powers have used "Political Islam" ~ including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups ~ to pursue their hegemonic objectives. 

Covert operations are launched 
to weaken the secular state,
foment sectarian violence
and create social divisions 
throughout the Arab World.

In Libya, the "pro-democracy" rebels were led by Al Qaeda affiliated paramilitary brigades under the supervision of NATO Special Forces. The much-vaunted "Liberation" of Tripoli was carried out by former members of the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). 

Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in an advanced state of readiness for several years. The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US/NATO-sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.

A "humanitarian war" under the logo of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), as seen in Libya, is on the Western powers' agenda for Syria. Such a venture would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations. The hitherto covert role of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in destabilizing Syria would also emerge as open aggression towards long-time regional rival Iran.

A war on Syria could quite possibly ignite a conflagration across the entire Middle East and North Africa, with repercussions on a global scale: Iran's historic allies, Russia and China, will be pitted against the US and NATO powers; and religious schisms across the region could vent into an explosion of internecine conflicts; also proxy wars currently being waged in East Africa by Western powers could escalate with untold human suffering in an already famine-hit region.

War plans directed against Syria are coordinated with those pertaining to Iran.

Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme is the pretext and the justification. Tehran is also identified as a "State sponsor of terrorism", for allegedly supporting the Al Qaeda network.

In recent developments, what is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the United Kingdom and Israel.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.

Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military's Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters :

“[The] five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”

What this collection of essays demonstrates is that Western intervention in this pivotal world region is far from the benign rhetoric frequently spouted in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin, espousing universal human rights and democratic freedoms. 

Rather, we are witnessing a neo-imperialist intervention that is self-serving, expedient and ultimately setting the world on a path of incalculable destruction. 


By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya ~ 2011-01-19
Tunisia is not free yet. The structure that kept Bin Ali in place still exists. The U.S. and France have still not forfeited their economic interests in Tunisia either

By Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-01-20
Against a background of rising food prices, the IMF recommends the removal of subsidies... 


By Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-01-29
“Dictators" do not dictate, they obey orders. President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests.

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-02-21
The same group of Egyptian generals running Cairo presently also formed the backbone of the Mubarak regime. There has been no real change in government. The military junta represents a continuation of the Mubarak regime

By Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-02-18
When dictators are no longer needed, they are replaced. The military machine prevails, combined with a ruthless form of capitalist development


By Finian Cunningham ~ 2011-02-18
The Bahraini authorities deployed helicopters and tanks, with army and police firing teargas and live rounds. Among the protesters were hundreds of women and children.

By Finian Cunningham
There is little doubt that the regime received clearance from political allies in Washington, London and the other Gulf states to step up its four-week old repression against the civilian population.

By Finian Cunningham ~ 2011-04-21
The families of medics unlawfully detained in Bahrain have accused the Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (RCSI) of putting financial investment interests above human rights

By Finian Cunningham
Increasing attacks on Shia mosques in the Bahraini state's withering crackdown against the pro-democracy movement is a deliberate attempt to isolate the political opposition and amounts to a campaign of "sectarian cleansing",


By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya ~ 2011-09-29
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims that Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi...

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-04-16
We were led to believe that the protest movement in Egypt and Tunisia had spread to Libya, but the war on Libya was planned months prior to the Arab protest movement...

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-04-03
Concepts are turned upside down: The US-NATO military alliance is supporting a rebellion integrated by Islamic terrorists, in the name of the "War on Terrorism"...

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-03-09
Libya is among the world's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-08-28
The jihadists and NATO work hand in glove. These "former" Al Qaeda affiliated brigades constitute the backbone of the "pro-democracy" rebellion.

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky ~ 2011-09-20
A historical reversal in Libya economic and social development has occurred. An entire country has been destroyed, its people driven into abysmal poverty


By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-02-07
The militarization of the Indian Ocean is a process of securing US control over Socotra Island and the Gulf of Aden


By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-05-03
The ultimate purpose is to spark sectarian violence and political chaos within Syria by covertly supporting Islamic terrorist organizations.

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-08-16
Recent developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist "freedom fighters" covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers.

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-09-02
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, with a view to justifying a "humanitarian" military intervention by NATO


By Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-08-09
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") directed against Syria.

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Julien Teil. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney - 2011-10-06
Terrorists not only fight for Washington on the ground, they also act as frontmen for regime change through so-called human rights organizations that promote democracy

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-07-02
As Washington and its cohorts march towards the Eurasian Heartland, they have tried to manipulate Islam as a geo-political tool. They have created political and social chaos in the process.

By Finian Cunningham - 2011-10-29
The US Military confirms Washington's secret new war in Somalia despite official denials

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. Introduction by Cynthia McKinney - 2011-10-11
An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway...

By Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-11-03

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. What is unfolding is an integrated attack plan on Iran led by the US, with the participation of the UK and Israel


By Jim Kirwan
November 11, 2011


Thus reported the Washington Post already in 2002.
The war on terror has no doubt had unintended consequences on American freedom. But recent talk has escalated the already prevalent fears of a police state, and the story is indeed compelling.
When the best of the liberal leftists and the best of the conspiracy theorists agree, you know it's at least going to be interesting. Today Alex Jones updated his promotion of the ACLU's monitoring of Senate Bill 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. The ACLU reported already last Wednesday,
The bill itself specifically says that
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
This is the very language Amash says is misleading:
"Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary."
After reading the text of the bill, I believe Amash is essentially correct. The two sections of the 680-page bill which have drawn all the attention are 1031 and 1032. Section 1031 gives "authorization" for detention, and 1032 gives the "requirement for military custody." The special exemption for U.S. citizens is under section 1032, and specifically says it refers to "this section."

This means it does not apply to the previous section in which lies an abuse just as egregious-the "authorization" to detain all "covered persons" in "disposition" which includes,
Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.-Sec. 1031(c) (1)
There is no exemption for U.S. citizens in this section.
This threat to our liberties-while it could be defended as only pertaining explicitly to 9-11 type terrorists is definitely an expansion of the Federal police and military power into the civilian life of the U.S. It is dangerous, and should be opposed on principle.
Further, the bill was crafted secretly without hearing or debate by a liberal Democrat, Carl Levin, along with John McCain, and purports to be simply a Defense spending bill. Deep in its behemoth 680 pages lies this attack on civil liberties.
Sen. Lindsey Graham bragged it will
"basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield."
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) seconded,
"America is part of the battlefield."
But if America is declared a battle zone, then the rules of war apply in this land. This means de facto that some form of martial law applies. This means, as WaPo said at the beginning of this article, that there's an alternate system-and perhaps it can apply to any of us. This has been going on already since 2001:" (1)
"I am sometimes baffled by how quickly many people quickly assume that because they were not personally named in some piece of legislation, that somehow the provisions of that legislation do not and could not apply to them.

Having spent a great deal of time over the years dissecting changes to code & title and the ever popular "redefinition of terms" used to change the entire common understanding of what a word or phrase means within these tortured constructs called legislation, I know better.
My recent article on S.1867 elicited comments to the effect that a few commenters’ had read the bill and that I was simply being inflammatory and emotional. Yes, of course. That must be it.
Lest anyone forget:
The insidious Patriot Act followed by
The Security Enhancement Act of 2003,

the infamous Military Commissions Act 2006,

followed by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act 2007 and,

which called for the suspension of habeas corpus (4th Amendment due process)

all of which gave the president the power to arbitrarily determine on his own, that any one of us was a "domestic terrorist" and going even further to

allow the president to strip us of our citizenship at his discretion with no oversight.
Each of these unconstitutional bills was a piece of the puzzle being constructed incrementally as the Constitution and our rights were being trashed.
These anti-American laws were not the only affront to the Constitution, our rights and the advancement of the police state. Now why, you might be asking, would anyone want to give the president of the United States the arbitrary authority to strip any US citizen of their citizenship with no evidence other than his/her belief that one of us is a terrorist, or supports terrorism, without the evidence supporting that contention, or being officially charged with a crime?
Most recently, Obama has approved a new program which allows him to authorize the targeted killing of people in foreign countries that the administration decides is a threat (to them) and includes targeting of US citizens right here at home and abroad.

This program, which is nothing more than sanctified murder, is a violation of international laws which prohibit the killing of individuals outside of armed combat zones.
The program will allow the CIA or the military the unchecked authority to murder at will, US citizens and others, around the globe without any evidence of crime, threat or violent activity towards the United States, other than they said so.
The intent through all of these assaults on the Constitution and our protected rights has been to find the means to redefine any one of us as a non-military enemy combatant to facilitate the police state. Once redefined, once the definitive description of who and what we are has been altered to suit the government agenda, it is open season on any one of us." (2)
These two articles outline just part of the problem that this pending legislation (it won't be voted on for awhile yet); presents for all of us. What is clear is that this SECRET piece of legislation was clearly TREASON. The Congress cannot write legislation that criminalizes free speech or that ends (without debate) their congressional duty to represent the public in this government. We already have a government that has stripped away so many things that it seems impossible to enumerate them all. (3)
But we might want to begin to think about some of what this could mean for the government, and for us: Given that the government now believes that they are living in a State that is suddenly filled with Terrorists, instead of loyal citizens.
There is no precedent for this government to assume the entire nation is potentially criminal, until each of us has proven that we are innocent, each and every time a government thug wants to talk to anyone here: This is unprecedented, and there is absolutely no reason for this behavior.
Also we were in business with the US government. That arrangement has gone from paying the government a token percentage of what each of us earns to a whopping 85%^ of everything we make.

And on top of that we must ask government before we are "allowed" to do anything.

At the very least we must STOP paying taxes, because the entity that is charging us those taxes is no longer legal.

We no longer have a Constitution; ergo we no longer have the Republic, in which this compact was created.

This government is a privately held corporation and not a government:

Officially it's called United States Incorporated so there is no reason to pay them taxes, since none of us gave them permission to "privatize" us ~ so in reality they cannot and do not own us!
They (USI) went to war illegally and unilaterally; then they sought to find a way to by-pass the legal system so that they could detain people without trials, primarily because they have NO EVIDENCE!

This government created the operation on 911 that gave them hypothetical reasons for war, without proof for any of their allegations. Now they want the effects of their WAR-Crime to spill over onto their critics of these global wars for Colonial power, for resources, and for pure unadulterated-greed.

Since that could not be done by using the existing court system they have set out to create a whole new and illegal system by SECRETLY writing new regulations and making new rulings without bothering about the actual international rules of war; which include torture and indefinite detention.  
On top of all of this they have invented out of a file drawer in CIA headquarters something called Al Qaeda; which has never existed except as a CIA operational group, prior to 911.

Now in concert with Zionist television programming and films, as well as government psy-ops releases they would have the whole world believe that Al Qaeda actually exists:

That is just another lie to keep the public under their collective feather-beds.
But in practical terms what does it mean if we no longer have a functioning congress, legally binding courts, or even the supposed bedrock of the Republic-the Constitution?

That means that we don't have a country anymore.

And since the government is no more ~ why would anyone chose to pay them taxes?

For that matter what does this do to all those corporations which this so-called government has supposedly backed since the founding of the country?
On the bright side would be that without a government all corporate charters would be null and void and probably 80 % + of the corporations would be gone over night.

Without a functioning government who then owns all that land that the USG says belongs to them?
The government (USI) is limited to ten-square-miles INSIDE Washington D.C.?

Beyond that ten mile by ten mile square, this "government has no power at all, except whatever people choose to give it?

We have paid for all of it, from police equipment to the roads and bridges to the parks and open range; that all belongs to us, not to them.

The so-called cops are just rented uniforms that no longer come with either badges or names, so they too are corporate-slaves with no power of their own.

If you think that's extreme then just remember that this government only "rules" by the consent of the governed and that hasn't happened since Gee W. Bush stole the Tarnished House on 12-12-2000!
Like it or not the USA has become just another cheap and backward Empire that has an ego the size of the Colossus of Rhodes (The 8th wonder of the World which has of course disappeared into the mists of history).
Moreover what will happen when someone finally tells our troops on the frontlines that "there is no longer a US Constitution!

No more freedoms (of any kind) exist in America and there is no reason to fight to protect a so-called country that doesn't exist"?
Here's what Obama himself has said about this topic!
"My administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to insure that they are in-line with the rule of law. We must have clear defensible and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.

We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

Our goal is justify a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanemo detainees that come out to be transferred.

Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.

If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals, to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

And so going forward my administration will work with congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with or values and our Constitution.

(The Threat that Obama says makes indefinite -detention necessary)
Right now in distant training camps in other cities there are people plotting to take American lives.

That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and in all probability ten years from now." Watch the entire tape, because it is literal dynamite! (4)

I wonder if we can get them home before BLACK CHRISTMAS, 2011? 
1) "Battlefield" USA: Senate Bill Turns Military on US Citizens

2) S. 1867 Just another brick in the police state wall


4) Rachael Maddow on Obama's Indefinite Detention Ideas 5-21-09 - 7min 42 sec Video