Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
في كلام الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله استعادة للنقاش الرئاسي من باب إقفال الحساب، وببساطة من يقول إنه سار بخيار العماد ميشال عون الرئاسي حرصاً على البلد والاقتصاد، أو من يقول إنه فعل ذلك ليقينه أنه مرشح حزب الله الفعلي هو الفراغ، فليقل للبنانيين لماذا لم يفعل ذلك منذ سنتين ونصف السنة، ولم يرحم الاقتصاد ولا رحم اللبنانيين وترك الفراغ ينتصر، ولماذا جاءته بركات الحرص فجأة، وتفتقت عبقريته بعد طول جفاف عن تكتيكات الحشر والزرك والإحراج، ولماذا كان جفافها طيلة سنتين ونصف السنة وقد ثبت أنها تنتج رئيساً؟
– يمضي السيد نصرالله في رسم معادلته، فيقول كما قلنا إنّ العماد عون ممرّ إلزامي لرئاسة الجمهورية، قلنا إنّ رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري ممرّ إلزامي لتشكيل الحكومة، وللذين يريدون أن يقولوا إنّ هذا تعبير عن رغبة حزب الله بتعطيل تشكيل الحكومة، لم يقل السيد، لكنه قال، جرّبوا الوصفتين ذاتهما، الحرص على الاقتصاد واقبلوا ما يقبله الرئيس بري كما قبلتم بهذا الدافع وفقاً لقولكم بالعماد عون رئيساً، أو احرجونا واحشرونا بقبول ما يقبله بري وستنجحون كما نجحتم بإحراجنا وحشرنابقبولكم بالعماد عون.
– يُفرد السيد نصرالله فقرة خاصة للحديث عن نبل النائب سليمان فرنجية والتزامه ويفيه حقه في التمهيد لوصول العماد عون للرئاسة عبر رفضه المشاركة في توفير نصاب الجلسات الرئاسية التي كان يمكن أن تأتي به رئيساً، لأنه لن يشارك ما لم يشارك حزب الله، وحزب الله لا يشارك لأنه قرّر ألا يشارك إلا إذا ضمن انتخاب العماد عون رئيساً، وعندما يستعيد السيد كيف كان حزب الله يرفض المشاركة في الحكومة ما لم يرضَ التيار الوطني الحر بطبيعة الحقائب المعروضة عليه، فيرهن مشاركته بمشاركة التيار، ويرهن معه الرئيس بري مشاركته بمشاركة التيار، لم يقل، لكنه قال إنّ النائب فرنجية كان يتضامن مع حزب الله والرئيس بري برهن مشاركته بمشاركة التيار الوطني الحر، ولم يقل، ولكنه قال إنّ التيار الوطني الحر الذي وصل زعيمه لرئاسة الجمهورية بقوة هذا التضامن بين الحلفاء بيده للمرة الأولى أن يعامل حلفاءه كما عاملوه، وإنْ كانت معاملة الحلفاء هذه للتيار قد تمّت عبر العلاقة بحزب الله، فليعتبر التيار أنّ معاملته للحلفاء بالمثل اليوم تتمّ عبر حزب الله.
– يدعو السيد بوضوح لحكومة وحدة وطنية، حكومة وفاقية لا تستثني أحداً. وما لم يقله السيد هو أنّ المقصود ليس فقط القوى التي تمثل طوائفها بل القوى التي يستعصي حشرها بين الطوائف وتشارك حزب الله حربه الاستباقية في سورية دفاعاً عن لبنان والمنطقة، التي رفع أداءها خطاب القَسَم إلى مستوى التعبير عن إرادة اللبنانيبن التي تجلت بالإجماع على الخطاب، كما المقصود القوى التي أيّدت والقوى التي عارضت سواء في انتخابات الرئاسة أو تسمية رئيس الحكومة، والقوى التي تملك تمثيلاً نيابياً معطلاً أو تلك التي تتمثل بعدد محدود من النواب، ما دامت قوى حية فاعلة تعكس تمثيل شريحة وازنة وفاعلة في الحياة اللبناية ويُغني وجودها سعة التمثيل الحكومي ويعبّر عن إرادة الجمع والضمّ لا الطرح والقسمة.
– كلام السيد عشية تشكيل الحكومة له مغزى وله معانٍ، هو رسالة على الهواء قبل أن تتحوّل مسيرة تشكيل الحكومة إلى صندوق مقفل لتقاسم المناصب والمكاسب، والقوي المنتصر زاهد بحصة خاصة، يرتضي فيها رمزية الحضور، يتوجّه من موقع المترفع للجميع، ومن موقع الناصح لمن يريدون القول «شكراً يا سيد على كلّ ما فعلت وتفعل لأجل لبنان، ولأجلنا». يقول إنّ ثمة طريقاً للشكر هو طريق التفاعل مع النصح، والسيد لا ينتظر جزاء وشكوراً، بل ترفعاً من بعض ما عنده من ترفع، فيصل الشكر مضاعفاً، فوفقاً لقول الفقهاء والمفسّرين إنّ نص الآية «وإنْ شكرتم لأزيدنّكم»، قُصد بالشكر الزكاة، أيّ أنّ إنفاق المال بعيداً عن الترف والبذخ وجعله مسخراً في الخير وخدمة الناس هو البركة التي تزيد الثروة.
– كلّ كلام السيد كان مشفوعاً بمعادلة متكرّرة يجب ألا ينساها أحد، وهي في كلّ مناسبة لذكر الرئيس ميشال عون، نثق بهذا الرجل، وهو يقولها باسمه واسم كلّ مَن يثق به.
Why are they lying? Everything is being done to convince the public that Russia wants war; that it has annexed Ukraine; that it will attack Western Europe; that it will crush the Baltic states and Poland in its advance; that it’s committing war crimes in Syria; that Assad is a dictator and a butcher; that he has met peaceful demands for reform with brutal repression; that those fighting Assad are moderate rebels; that he is dropping barrel bombs on civilians.
Why are they lying?
Because the people don’t want war: they want jobs and bread.
They will not agree to murder people who have done them no harm. They will consent to war if told they are under attack or that the war will save other people from genocide, rape, or other gross violations of human rights. The people are not interested in world domination, but the elite are. The people are, therefore, the enemy within. They must be persuaded to support the elite’s plan by perverting their decency. They must be made to cringe in fear. They must be made to believe that war—any war—will be defensive.
This is the tactic of terrorists: terrorizing the population to obtain political ends.
Hillary Clinton is lying: a no-fly zone in Syria will not “save lives.”
In her last presidential debate, Clinton said that she wants a no-fly zone in Syria because it will “save lives”:
“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria, not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”
The “leverage” she is seeking is Russian roulette with the planet. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford (image right), noted in response that a no-fly zone in Syria might trigger a war with Russia, a nuclear power. Neither does she believe that a no-fly zone will save lives. In a closed-door speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton said:
“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”
She knows what is at stake with a no-fly zone in Syria, and yet she tells us the opposite of what she knows will happen. In other words, she’s lying.
What has changed Clinton’s mind since 2013?
In 2013, there was no need to risk nuclear war over Syria. The so-called Free Syrian Army and assorted rebel groups were doing just fine in their offensive. In 2013, Syria stood alone, apart from some Iranian assistance. Until 2015, the Assad government was on its last breath, in retreat from the provinces of Raqqa, Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, and Latakia. By September 2015, the generous financial, military, and operational support by the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to the “anti-Syrian coalition”– Islamic State, the Jabbat al-Nusra, the “Free Syrian Army”–was paying great dividends in advancing the destabilization of the Assad government. Soon, it could be expected that the symbolic head of Assad would sit on a silver platter in the White House, along with other colonial trophies.
The humanitarian consequences for Syrians, however, were catastrophic. Fleeing the terror of a Syria in the clutches of cutthroat mercenary armies, refugees flooded Turkey, Jordan, Greece, and other countries, becoming human barter between Turkey and the European Union. The EU paid Turkey two billion euro to keep within its borders this human avalanche of “collateral damage.”
That was the situation in September of 2015, when Russia, invited by the legitimate Syrian government, legitimately intervened in Syria with aircraft, support personnel, military advisors and equipment. In a year of Russian efforts to establish a premise for a peaceful solution in Syria by eliminating the militant rabble the Western chorus of “Assad must go” has mutated into a furious hiss of impotent rage. No one expects Assad to go now, unless the US comes up with a strategy to reverse the losses the Russian intervention has inflicted.
Enter Hillary’s reversal on the no-fly zone, which now, contrary to her judgment in 2013, will “save lives.”
What is a no-fly zone?
A no-fly zone is a coercive appropriation of the partial airspace of a sovereign country. It is the arbitrary creation of a demilitarized zone in the sky to prevent belligerent powers from flying in that air space. In Syria, the “belligerent power,” ironically, would be the internationally recognized legitimate Syrian government and its legitimate ally, Russia.
According to former UN Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali (image left), in an interview with John Pilger, a no-fly zone is illegal under international law. No-fly zones are post-Soviet inventions. The measure was never proposed, used, or authorized to this day by the UN Security Council until the Soviet Union virtually dissolved. This restraint was exercised by the US for the excellent reason that no such aggression on a sovereign state would have been tolerated without massive fuss at the UN Security Council and a bad rap for the US. There have been only three instances of a no-fly zone so far, all in the wake of the disappearance of the USSR: Iraq (1991-2003), Bosnia (1993-95), and Libya (2011), all initiated on the hypocritical pretense of “saving lives.”
What is Plan B?
In one word: escalation. Apart from partitioning the air space of Syria, Plan B would provide for supplying, through Qatar or Saudi Arabia, man-portable air defense systems to the “moderate opposition,” including if it is acknowledged that the “moderate opposition” has allied itself openly with the al-Nusra front. Plan B has not been approved, but the media has floated a series of reports throughout October as being under consideration.
On October 28, the New York Times published an astonishing conclusion about an aspect of the Obama administration’s strategy in Syria, though gently and benevolently worded. The Times indicated that it was being felt that Obama had insufficiently armed the “moderate opposition,” so that in Aleppo it had “no choice” but to partner with al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly al-Nusra) to fight off Putin and Assad. At the same time, Reuters noted that the Obama administration had formerly considered arming the “moderates” with anti-air missiles but was constrained by the fear that such weapons would fall in the hands of ”extremists.”
Such reports suggest, rather boldly, I think, that “former restraint” might have to give way to greater support for the “moderate” militants, including if they partner with “extremists.” Thus, we arrive at a point of utter bewilderment in which we verify the absurdity of launching a War on Terror to end up fighting a War with Terror.
Oppose US imperialism
It is good and proper that we should denounce Hillary Clinton for her vile record of regime change (in Honduras), crime of aggression (Libya), threats to Russia and China, corruption, illegality, and abuse of power. She’s clearly unfit to be president of any decent country that calls itself democratic.
However, fixating on her individual agency lets the policy off the hook. The US is not yet a banana republic, in which the patriarch of some rich landowning family becomes the patriarch-autocrat of a country. An intricate network of powerful interests, which determine the policy, rules the US, frantic to maintain global economic and military dominance. This ruling class selects the candidate who will best carry out the policy. Hillary Clinton will be the servant of the interests of the ruling class of which she is a member. She will be their president.
So it’s the policy that must be opposed, and this policy is imperialist.
We must develop a principled opposition to this policy, without prevarications. The task falls on the left, but it cannot be a left divided by relativist consideration of “evil” on all sides. However we may feel about the morality of governments in Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc., one thing is clear: they did not launch a war on Iraq, opening the door to all the crimes that followed from that original crime. It is time to decide whether we want to live with things as they are or change them. And we must begin by changing them at home.
The original source of this article is Global Research
(TASS) Russian military intelligence officers are actively fighting against international terrorist groups with the use of modern weapons, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Saturday on the occasion of the Intelligence Officer Day in Russia.
“Just like before, today military intelligence officers remain reliable guarantors of the country’s security. By using all operational capabilities and modern weapons, often being subjected to mortal danger, they are actively fighting against international terrorist groups, making an invaluable contribution to strengthening the defense capabilities of the country,” Shoigu said in a statement obtained by TASS.
The defense minister congratulated all servicemen, veterans and people working in the defense-industrial complex. He expressed special gratitude to veterans whose “bravery and heroism serve as an example for the young generation of defenders of the Fatherland.”
“There are many brilliantly organized special operations and heroic names in the history of our military intelligence. Thanks to high professionalism of intelligence officers, their resilience, readiness to act in extreme conditions, Russian national interests have always been protected,” Shoigu concluded.
The Intelligence Officer Day was established in Russia in 2000 by a decree of then-Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev. November 5 was chosen as the date because on this day in 1918 the Registration Administration for coordination of efforts of all intelligence army departments was set up.
In her recent Washington Post Article, Jewish academic Cheryl Greenbergmakes one valid observation. Trump’s criticism of the Jews is far more subtle than his disapproval of other groups and identities (Mexicans, Muslims, Women etc). Though Trump is not known for pulling his punches, when it comes to the Jews, Trump chooses his words very carefully. Trump, according to Greenberg, is so careful “that it’s not clear that Trump himself fully understands the implications of what he’s saying.” I guess that the Jewish academic couldn’t restrain herself from looking down at the Goy candidate.
Greenberg sees Trump as a puppet-master who controls his audience by means of ‘dog whistling’. “Trump’s references to money, bankers and international conspiracies appear to be deliberate anti-Semitic dog whistles, and his alt-right supporters recognize (and celebrate) that.”
Greenberg elaborates on her observation, “first of all, dog whistles serve when overt expressions are not an option; they communicate to those who are familiar with the conspiracy theories but maintain plausible deniability.” According to Greenberg, when Trump wants to communicate a message about the Jews, he uses an indecipherable code intelligible only to half of the Americans… Greenberg and the ADL.
If Greenberg is correct, if Trump says ‘international Bankers’ but really means Jews, then both the Republican candidate and half of the American people are fearful of the Jews. They must very well understand what a confrontation with Jewish institutions may entail. They know that, in America, criticism of Mexicans, Women, and Muslims is a kosher territory but even a subtle criticism of Jews may cost them dearly. One may wonder, how did this happen? What is the substance of that magical power that empowers half of Americans to speak in codes when they think about Jews?
Greenberg seems to raise the right question just to come up with the wrong answer. “Why would anti-Semitism not be an overt option, while racism, sexism, and xenophobia are?”
“Americans are less willing to accept blatant anti-Semitism than racism,” Greenberg’s answers.
What Greenberg really wants to say is that Americans can be racists and can say whatever they like about whoever they want. But when it comes to Jews, they refrain. Americans do know very well the geography of the boundaries of correctness. Jewish power is for them a taboo, at least momentarily. America and Americans are fully aware of the enormous power that is bestowed in the hands of just a few Jewish oligarchs within the ubiquitous industries of media, finance, politics, and culture.
America would have loved to dissolve the situation peacefully but it can’t. Jewish power can’t be contained or suppressed because we are not even allowed to allude to it, let alone point it out.
Jewish power is defined as the power to silence criticism of Jewish power. Jewish power, as such, is a ticking timebomb. It is a unique form of self-destructiveness. The history of the Jews proves this point. Time after time it is Jewish power that sets the path towards a glamorous Jewish golden age that leads to the most severe tragic consequences.
The Jewish phobia of anti semitism is not driven by fear of the gentile. It is actually the other way around. The Jewish fear of antisemitism is the result of Jews being fearful of their own might. Jews tend to recognise that there is something in themselves that evokes animosity from others. This is the true meaning of the Jewish “Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome”. It is the acceptance that from here forward, things can only get worse. Many Jews see in Trump’s popularity a symptom of a fatigue of their own power. They interpret the nostalgic yearning for ‘America being great’ as a pining for a Christian past. Something that predates Goldman Sachs’ and Soros’ dominion. The Jewish aggression towards Trump can be realised as an expression of Jewish guilt. Yet, Trump himself has very little to do with it. He married his daughter to a Jew. He trades with Jews, he loves Israel. He is almost as Jewish as the Clintons.
Greenberg is optimistic. For her, Trump’s popularity is “the final gasping of white supremacy”. His voters – pretty much half of the American people – are dogs reacting to a man with a whistle. I am not as optimistic as Greenberg. I think that exploring such contempt towards half of the American people in the name of a vague progressive mantra is a very dangerous game. It suggests to me that progressives have reached a state of complete detachment.
The Syrian and Russian bombing is not dissimilar from recent US and Israeli offensives – but you wouldn’t know that from the reporting
The Russian-Syrian bombing campaign in eastern Aleppo, which has ended at least for the time being, has been described in press reports and op-eds as though it were unique in modern military history in its indiscriminateness. In an usual move for a senior US official, Secretary of State John Kerry called for an investigation of war crimes in Aleppo.
The discussion has been lacking in historical context, however. Certainly the civilian death toll from the bombing and shelling in Aleppo has been high, but many of the strikes may not be all that dissimilar from the major US bombing campaign in Iraq in 2003, nor as indiscriminate as Israel’s recent campaigns in densely populated cities.
The impression that the bombing in Aleppo was uniquely indiscriminate was a result of news reporting and commentary suggesting, by implication, that there are no real military targets in east Aleppo.
But in fact, al-Nusra Front turned Aleppo into the central hub of a massive system of conventional warfare in Aleppo province in late January 2016 when it sent an enormous convoy of at least 200 vehicles with troops and weaponry into eastern Aleppo. A dramatic three-minute al-Nusra video shows what appears to be hundreds of vehicles full of troops and trucks with weapons mounted on them.
The Russian command in Syria has drones observing the routes in and out of Aleppo, so it certainly knew where many of those military sites were located. Syrian opposition sources also revealed that Nusra began immediately to put the military assets at its disposal underground, digging deep bunkers to protect troops, military equipment and tunnels through which troops and weapons could be moved unseen.
The move underground explains the Russian use of bunker-buster bombs for the first time in the war. As the Guardian reported, Justin Bronk of the British defense think tank Royal United Service Institute concluded that the Russians “have high-grade intelligence of the whereabouts of Syrian opposition positions,” mainly because bunker buster bombs are too expensive to use simply to destroy buildings at random.
But like Hamas fighters in Gaza in 2014, the Nusra Front-led command in Aleppo has moved its troops, weapons and command centers around in the tunnels that they have built. So many of the Russian and Syrian air strikes are almost certainly hitting targets that have already been abandoned. And in other cases, the wrong target has undoubtedly been hit.
The Aleppo Health Directorate, a local monitoring group, estimated that 400 civilians had been killed in the first three weeks of bombing in east Aleppo. The United Nations put the death toll at 360.
Drop the superiority act
As terrible as that toll of civilian lives is, the United States should drop the stance of moral superiority. When the US military invaded Iraq in 2003, it made no effortto keep track of how many civilians were killed in its bombing and artillery fire, claiming it had no way to tell who was civilian and who was not.
And the best estimates of civilians killed in US and Israeli urban wars don’t provide any basis for moral superiority. A survey of Baghdad’s hospitals by the Los Angeles Times in May 2003 produced an estimate of at least 1,700 civilians killed in the first five weeks of American war. The estimate included those who had died in ground fighting and from unexploded ordnance, but even with those contributing factors subtracted from the total, it would still be far greater than those killed in the assault on east Aleppo on a weekly basis.
The one feature of the Russian-Syrian air offensive on east Aleppo that seems most clearly to violate the laws of war is the targeting of hospitals. Media accounts have referred to air strikes with barrel bombs that have hit two major hospitals in the rebel-held part of the city.
The Syrian government has been acting as though it regards the hospitals in eastern Aleppo as serving the Nusra Front command, and the hospitals, which are under intense pressure from the militants who run that part of Aleppo, have fed the government’s suspicions.
As a detailed report by Doctors Without Borders (MSF) on the air strikes that hit the Al Quds hospital on 27 April explains, the local organization that created a new system of hospitals in 2011 decided not to declare the hospitals openly but to keep them “underground” – meaning secret from the government.
The Al-Quds hospital building on 28 April 2016, a day after air strikes (AFP)
In fact, of course, the government knows perfectly well where all 10 hospitals in east Aleppo are located. The 27 April air strike that damaged the Al Quds hospital shows how the government has responded. It began with an air strike that destroyed a building across the street from the hospital. The building was a school, but former residents of east Aleppo who have gotten out have confirmed that organizations associated with the al-Qaeda-dominated command have located their offices in schools to try to hide their staff.
Within a few minutes of the initial strike, according to the MSF account, Al Quds hospital staff were pulling survivors out of the rubble and taking them across the street to the emergency room, whereupon the Syrian air force dropped a barrel bomb at the entrance to the emergency room, killing several of the hospital staff, including one doctor. Then it dropped one close enough to the side of the hospital to hit the emergency room and, minutes later, hit a building down the block where hospital staff were staying.
Such attacks on those who try to save the lives of survivors of bombing attacks – sometimes called “double tap” attacks” – are rightly condemned as violations of humanitarian law. And the belief that the staff at the hospital are operating in effect as medics for the adversary’s military does not justify attacking it and the wounded sheltered there.
But such violations of the laws of war are hardly unique to Aleppo or Syria.
Hardly unique
US drone strikes in Pakistan have hit rescuers or mourners after hitting their initial targets in numerous documented cases. In the 2009 Gaza attacks, the Israeli military argued that Hamas fighters were using hospitals to hide from Israeli bombing, but offered no valid evidence to support it, as the Goldstone Report showed.
In its wars in Gaza and in Lebanon, the IDF has gone well beyond the Russian and Syrian Aleppo campaign in refusing to recognize any distinction between civilian targets. It not only targeted civilian offices in both Gaza wars, but treated entire areas of the city as a legitimate target, on the premise that all civilians had been ordered to leave.
Destroyed cars and damages from homes lie in ruins after being hit by early morning Israeli air strikes on the Hezbollah-stronghold suburb of Dahyieh in July 2006 (AFP)
And in both Gaza and in Beirut suburb of Dahiya, it leveled several high-rise buildingswhere they believed Hezbollah had offices. The IDF called it the “Dahiya doctrine”, andthreatened “great damage and destruction” on any adversary in any future war in the region.
Heavy bombing in a city is inherently fraught with moral risk, and attacks on genuine civilian targets can never be excused. But such practices have been carried out and legitimated in the past by the very government that is now claiming the role of moral and legal arbiter. That hypocrisy needs to be recognized and curbed as well.
China Joins Russia in Syria Shaping New Anti Terrorist Alliance
Serbia: Russian and Belarusian Airborne units arrive for ‘Slavic Brotherhood’ drills
Vladimir Putin’s Videoconference With Expedition In Antarctica
Nov 4, 2016 President Vladimir Putin spoke via video linkup with members of the Leaders Club expedition currently in Antarctica. Kremlin, Moscow, Russia, November 3, 2016.
Click on CC button for English subtitles.
[Scott] It’s our editorial position do not post footage depicting of the destruction of the Russian military assets. However, in this case I want to make an exception. On this video we see the moment of a Russian air force helicopter explosion near Al-Huwaysis, Homs desert in Syria on November 3rd.
First, we should acknowledge the rescue helicopter pilot’s actions. He has been taking off when the explosion occurred. He landed right back to pick up people that were left on the ground with a disabled aircraft.
Second, there are more than a few questions about this footage.
Who has deliberately destroyed the Russian helicopter, while its crew was evacuated to safety?
Who could take this footage?
Why aren’t there any usual Arabic chatter on a background?
Why aren’t there any “allahu akbar” chants?
It sounds like people taking this video are afraid to be recognized if they talk. Is it because they are Americans and easily recognizable?
The video is in HD and not taken by phone, but reportedly was damaged during uploading. The Western media calls this video the “ISIS footage,” however its style is strikingly different from those made by the usual suspects.
Every detail is pointing at our “partners” being authors of this footage.
Was it the US SOF operatives that hit the Russian air force helicopter?
My pal Alex says that according to the MOD the helicopter landed due to the technical problems. While on the ground, it was hit by a SPG-9 Kopye (Spear)
a tripod-mounted man-portable, 73 millimetre calibre recoilless gun developed by the Soviet Union.
Nov 2, 2016 – Belarusian officials demanded an apology from Ukrainian authorities for an incident that took place on October 21 in the skies above Ukraine when a Belavia flight en route to Minsk was ordered to return to Kiev, speaking at a press conference in the Belarusian capital on Wednesday.
‘Russia is not behind Clinton leaks’ – Assange interview with John Pilger Courtesy Darthmouth Films”
‘Clinton & ISIS funded by same money’ – Assange interview w/John Pilger (Courtesy Darthmouth Films)
‘Trump won’t be permitted to win‘ – Assange interview with John Pilger (Courtesy Darthmouth Films)
On The News Line – US, Russia on road to final collision
Nov 4, 2016
These are some of the headlines we are tracking for you in this episode of On the News Line:
1. US Russia on a collision course
Tensions between the US and Russia: their relation has hit such a low, that it’s beyond a Cold War. US presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton has pledged to set up a no-fly zone in Syria. The Russian Ministry of Defense has warned that there may be no time for any hot-line discussions with the Americans about stealth aircraft or incoming missiles. No time for talks, meaning anything in the air will be shot down, bringing the two nuclear powered nations ever closer to a confrontation.
2. Lebanon’s new face
The power vacuum in Lebanon has ended with the election of the leader of the Christian Free Patriotic Movement party as president. Michel Aoun secured the votes of 83 out of 127 MPs at parliament, capping a political impasse which dragged on for over two years. Aoun is a strong ally of Lebanon’s resistance movement Hezbollah and his election is seen as a disappointment for Israel and Saudi Arabia, two enemies of what is known as the axis of resistance of which Hezbollah is a main pillar. Aoun was earlier endorsed by leader of the pro-Saudi political party March 14 Saad Hariri.
3. Yemen heading for partition
No end is in sight for the crisis in Yemen : The country’s former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi has said ‘no’ to a peace proposal put forward by Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, the UN special envoy for Yemen. The details of the plan have not been made public, but according to some sources, it gives Yemen’s Ansarullah movement and its allies a share in the country’s future government. The serious disagreement between forces loyal to Hadi and the Ansarullah movement has sparked fears over Yemen’s possible partition. Two parallel institutions in Sana’a and Aden are in the making which may end up partitioning of the country.
Nov 2, 2016 – Israeli authorities say a municipal building-permit sub-committee has approved technical details of plans in the Gilo area. They say more detailed building permits will be required before the settler units are built. The project was first approved in 20-12 and Wednesday’s approvals have been seen as open defiance of international calls to stop settlement expansion on the occupied Palestinian territories. All Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.
Israel destroys Bedouin village for 105th time
Brave people fighting with occupation
Nov 2, 2016 – A Palestinian Bedouin village has been demolished by Israeli forces, and it’s not the first time.
For the 105th time, Araqib village in the Negev desert was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers backed by troops. According to Israeli police, a number of buildings were demolished. Palestinians say Israelis confiscated vehicles and possessions of residents of the village. The first demolition of Araqib took place in 20-10. There are approximately 160 thousand Bedouins residing in the occupied territories. Authorities have repeatedly refused to connect Bedouin villages to the national water and electricity grids. Rights groups claim that the Israeli policy to destroy Bedouin villages is aimed at removing the indigenous Palestinian population to make room for the expansion of Israeli communities.
TheBalticswatch
Some background: the Baltic republics lost about 50% of their population and 90% of their industries built by the USSR after they got occupied by the West in the 1990s. Due to the Russia’s countersanctions they have lost about 85% of their trade with Russia and stand to lose the rest in the next two years. Mostly, what’s left it’s income from the use of the Baltic ports for oil and coal transfer. The Baltic republics run by pro-fascist governments and deliberately violate every human right of their ethnic Russian population.
Estonia: 500 Estonian troops trained by US forces in military drills
Estonian and US troops took part in joint military drills near Valga, southern Estonia on November 2nd.
The training was provided to 500 new soldiers who had been serving in the Estonian Army for just one month. Platoon commanders and officers used a variety of weapons from handguns to 120-mm mortars in simulations of up-close fighting scenarios.
See also, Britain sends tanks, drones and troops to Estonia as part of military buildup on Russia’s borders
The US deliberately provoked the USSR into cancelling the summit conference in May 1960 in Paris where the USSR offered a peace treaty for a united and neutral Germany, for Germany without NATO and the US occupation.
How the US military industrial complex survived disarmament
In 1959, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev called at the United Nations for an end of the arms race and for an end of nuclear testing. The atmosphere was poisoned by radioactive particles. And he offered a peace treaty for a united and neutral Germany. These proposals should be discussed and concluded at a summit conference in May 1960 in Paris by the victorious Allies of War World II. The US government and the “military-industrial complex” were against this offer. An end of the Cold War would have shaken their supremacy. How did they manage to bring about the failure the summit? There is an official version, and a story that is told the first time in this documentary.
According to official history, the Summit in Paris failed because of Krushchev´s anger. Related to the U-2-incident, that spy plane of the CIA. According to the official history, the Soviets alone are responsible for the division of Germany. The official history denies the existence of nuclear tests in Patagonia, invents an „heroic kidnapping“ of a Nazi War Criminal by Israeli agents and describes the earthquake in Chile as a natural event.
A true “intelligence fabric” had been built around the Summit conference by the CIA and the Pentagon, consisting of several provocations: Shortly before the summit, a U-2 spy plane violated Russian airspace – at an altitude that made it impossible for the Soviet air defense not to detect it. While Eisenhower was staying at the disarmament summit, his generals arrived in Argentina with four aircraft carriers – full of nuclear explosives. They wanted to conduct nuclear tests, said the newspaper. These tests however were at that time prohibited by the US-Soviet moratorium and by the US Atomic Energy Law. During the summit, the CIA took Russian hostages.
But the US nuclear tests in Argentina ended in catastrophe. Thousands of people died. They had to cover up everything. But in the archives of the US, Germany, Argentina and even the Catholic Cathedral are still documents that show what really happened.
The FSB is mainly responsible for internal security of the Russian state, counterespionage, and the fight against organized crime, terrorism, and drug smuggling. Since 2003, when the Federal Border Guards Service was incorporated to the FSB, it has also been responsible for overseeing border security.[1] The FSB is engaged mostly in domestic affairs, while espionage duties are responsibility of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. However, the FSB also includes the FAPSI agency, which conducts electronic surveillance abroad. All law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Russia work under the guidance of FSB, if needed.
The FSB combines functions and powers similar to those exercised by the United States FBI National Security Branch, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Protective Service, the National Security Agency (NSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States Coast Guard, and partly the Drug Enforcement Administration. The FSB employs about 66,200 uniformed staff, including about 4,000 special forces troops. It also employs about 160,000–200,000 border guards
– يمضي السيد نصرالله في رسم معادلته، فيقول كما قلنا إنّ العماد عون ممرّ إلزامي لرئاسة الجمهورية، قلنا إنّ رئيس مجلس النواب نبيه بري ممرّ إلزامي لتشكيل الحكومة، وللذين يريدون أن يقولوا إنّ هذا تعبير عن رغبة حزب الله بتعطيل تشكيل الحكومة، لم يقل السيد، لكنه قال، جرّبوا الوصفتين ذاتهما، الحرص على الاقتصاد واقبلوا ما يقبله الرئيس بري كما قبلتم بهذا الدافع وفقاً لقولكم بالعماد عون رئيساً، أو احرجونا واحشرونا بقبول ما يقبله بري وستنجحون كما نجحتم بإحراجنا وحشرنا بقبولكم بالعماد عون.
