“It took, by Larry Ellison’s own admission, ‘almost seven years of relentless engineering and innovation plus key strategic acquisitions,’ but today the Oracle CEO was able to make the announcement that the database giant would be entering the public cloud sector with Oracle Cloud. So far, the crowd has yet to go wild.”
The fact of the matter is that many of the larger technology players sat on the sidelines, waiting for the right time to move into the world of cloud computing. Or, perhaps better put, they hoped cloud computing would go away, but joined the parade when it never did. Oracle is the poster child of those guys. I’ll include HP, SAP, and even Microsoft in that gang as well, but there are a few others.
The trouble with big technology moving into the cloud game is that the larger guys freeze the market on many of the smaller, and more innovative players. Customers dependent upon this technology, such as Oracle and SAP, will wait to see what kind of cloud oozes out of the cracks, and largely ignore the more innovative upstarts. The result is a smaller market for cloud startup, and thus the stifling of innovation.
Moreover, we’ll find that many of the more innovative startups are taken out completely by the big guys. While you would think the big guys would purchase these little guys for the technology, many will be purchased for the people and the marketing spin. The technology will quickly disappear from the market, much to the chagrin of the existing users of that technology who have to scurry around to find a replacement.
For example, once it figured out that it was competing with itself, EMC decided to shut down Atmos, its cloud storage service. I suspect that much of the consolidation will remove innovative technology from the market due to the threat of conflicting channels, or, more likely, the result of internal politics at the larger technology providers.
Unfortunately, there is very little we can do other than demand better from multi-billion dollar technology players out there. However, I would suggest that you don’t wait around for these guys to put forth their cloud computing technology. I suspect that their first generation of public and private clouds won’t drive you to leave AWS, Rackspace, or other already established players.
This also means opening up your minds to smaller companies with good solutions. We have a tendency to take the path of least resistance when it comes to technology. Just because you’ve dealt with the same company for years and years does not mean they are the right company to take you into the cloud.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Turkey vs damascus
Political analyst says a Turkish fighter jet that recently violated Syrian airspace and was downed by Damascus was a ploy to provoke the country.
The comment comes as Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says his government would retaliate against Damascus over the downing of the Turkish fighter jet by the Syrian army.
Syria on Friday said that a Turkish warplane, a F-4 Phantom, was shot down in Syrian territorial waters west of the village of Om al-Tuyour in Lattakia Province, 10 kilometers from the beach.
Syrian military stressed on Friday that it had engaged the jet in the Syrian airspace “according to the laws that govern such situations.”
Erdogan said Turkey’s military jet violated the Syrian airspace for a short time and “by mistake” and it was shot down by Syria “without a single warning.”
Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has condemned the downing of the Turkish plane as ‘unacceptable,’ and promised full support for Ankara. Turkey had called for a meeting of the alliance to discuss the incident.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi on Monday warned NATO against forging any anti-Syria conspiracy on the downing of the Turkish fighter jet.
Press TV has conducted an interview with author and historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley, to further discuss the issue.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Chamakhe Maurieni, of the Gafi Research
Institute, Tunis, has some very striking revelations about HIV/AIDS,
something he calls a "fraud" which feeds "a 300 billion dollar industry"
which rests on flimsy evidence that HIV caused AIDS, which, he claims,
is not a disease but rather a "state".
Timofei Belov (Pravda.Ru) interviewed Chamakhe Maurieni.
Pravda.Ru: Chamakhe, you work for
the secretive Gafi Research Institute, Tunis and your latest
investigation has been on AIDS. Congratulations on having been appointed
the lead writer for the Institute. What do you have to reveal to us?
CM: It is simply a hoax, the Gafi
research team termed it the 21st century's greatest fraud. The HIV/Aids
industry is a 300 billion-dollar industry of manipulative fraud, lies,
deceptions, more lies and many more lies. From a ploy by a few people
running into hundreds, it has risen over two decades and has been
invested-in by private individuals, co-operations and various
governments across the world. It's simply been used over and over to
balance government corrupt books.
What kind of weapons shoot blanks?
Whoever proved HIV CAUSED Aids? The answer is a big gaping Nobody. Ask
yourself a question majority of the world population, including the
so-called HIV patients, have never asked themselves or put to world
governments, organisations, NGOs who go about preaching HIV kills, safe
sex and a host of other sickening slogans. Where are the scientific
references establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS? Presently, there are
none.
Pravda.Ru: What do you mean? What about all the research carried out by the world's top professors?
CM: If you think a virus is the cause of
Aids, do a control without it; this has surprisingly never been done.
The current epidemiology of Aids is simply a pile of anecdotal stories,
selected to fit the AIDS hypothesis. The Hiv/Aids story is a
multi-billion/dollar/pound fraud, racket which is based on two
fallacies: Aids is a single disease/aids is a disease and secondly that
Aids is caused by the HI virus or the HIV VIRUS as some choose to call
it - perhaps they think V in HIV stands for volcano.
Taking a look at the fallacies,
fabrications; it need be stated: Aids is not a single disease but rather
a state where the immune defence system in a human is, simply put,
DEAD, WEAK, INEFFECTIVE...
Thus, the said human is vulnerable to
every form of disease attack, it can be Malaria, measles, papilloma and
so much more... The second fabrication claims Aids is caused by HI,
which is false.Hiv is a retrovirus, a retrovirus is an RNA virus
duplicated in a host cell using the reverse transcriptase enzyme to
produce DNA from its RNA genome. Retroviruses are unlike flu viruses,
they don't cause diseases
Hiv .....is one thousandth the size of a
regular cell. Hiv is simply a harmless piece of dead tissue, not unlike
the numerous other retroviruses which exist in the human body. Thus,
it is not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV
causes AIDS. If there is any such real evidence, there should be
scientific documents which demonstrate the fact,.....right now,
presently, at the moment, there are no such documents. All we have at
the moment are hear-says, fictitious stories, lies and mere-propaganda
by the mainstream media.
A major problem with the AIDS definition
is that it ignored the man-made environmental causes of immune
suppression. Exposure to toxin, alcoholism, heavy drug use or heavy
antibiotic use; all of these can cause an onset of the list of diseases
which provide the same symptoms/identical symptoms indicative of AIDS.
The Hiv/Aids propagandists all
intentionally forget to inform the world that Hiv positive response in
humans can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, measles,
influenza, papilloma virus, war, leprosy, hepatitis, syphilis and over
forty different other conditions.
Pravda.Ru: Let us follow the course of AIDS through from the beginning.
CM: Let's make a brief history
of how all of these Hiv/Aids lie came to be. It all emerged from the USA
and that should be common knowledge I presume. The truth is simple but
has been kept for too long. Previously to the announcement by Robert
Gallo, head of a retrovirus lab at the National cancer institute, at a
1984 press conference, that Hiv causes Aids, it all began with Federal
centres for disease control and prevention, overstating their relevance
and were thus under threat of being disbanded. The centre needed a
serious epidemic to justify its continued existence, it decided to name
Aids as a single contagious disease and thus created an atmosphere of
public fear, and panic, which brought it increased funding and power.
Simply put, public fear of a new dreaded AIDS was used as a catalyst to
achieve increased power and funding.
After the announcement by Robert Galo,
head of a retrovirus lab at the national cancer institute in 1984,
pharmaceutical companies by a decade later, began exploiting the
situation by bringing back highly toxic, failed cancer drugs-AZT, it is
also called Zidovudine or Retrovir combination Therapies. These drugs
have been proven and were proven once more by various scientists, in the
past, and also proven by the Gafi research institute, to destroy the
immune system and cause the same symptoms attributed to HIV.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Lybia and Syria model are parallel
We can already see exact parallels with the current PR operation to bring down Syria with how Libya went down. In one case, published today, it seems that an award-winning newspaper have been caught red-handed running faux news on Syria - and incredibly, it’s not the first time this exact story has been used.
This morning, reporter Alastair Beach of The Independent newspaper based in London, cited “evidence” that Syrian President Assad’s security forces have indiscriminately killed scores of newborn babies in Homs this week, as his featured article states:
“Bashar al-Assad’s bloody siege of Homs intensified yesterday as clear evidence emerged that his indiscriminate shelling of the restive town had started claiming innocent victims, including at least 18 premature babies and three entire families. The evidence came as civilians in the besieged city endured a fifth day of incessant shellfire – the worst yet, according to eyewitnesses – with dozens of other people being killed as the brutal assault continued.”
Writer Beach’s source for his claims seem to originate from only one organization, not in Syria – but in London. Surprisingly, the Independent’s chief source for the alleged horrors in question is a nearly invisible organization known as the ”Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”(SOHR), who claim to have an office based in London, but apparently have no address or contact phone number listed - only and email address. Even murkier however, is that fact that there are no names associated with the SOHR on their website, and many of its articles have been written under the fictitious pen name known as “Rami Abdul Rahman“.
It’s likely that “Rami Abdul Rahman” is in fact one Rami Abdelrahman, depicted in other online press coverage as head of the SOHR although he is not listed as a contact person on the organization’s website, and is reported to have met with Britain’s Foreign Secretary,William Hague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on November 21, 2011.
One can only conclude that with no names or contact information, the SOHR is – by definition - a very well-hidden, clandestine lobbying organization, and in this case, it appears to be lobbying for regime change in Syria, from inside Britain’s Foreign Office.
Before regime change in Tripoli, the US, France and Britain relied on the likes of Soliman Bouchuiguir, the former Libyan League for Human Rights president with ties to NATO’s National Transitional Council (NTC), helped to generate numerous lies needed by the west to justify NATO’s now famously titled “humanitarian intervention” – allegedly to protect Libyans. This human rights impostor – like his present day Syrian counterpart Rami Abdelrahman who may very well have ties to the Paris-based rebel coalition known as Syrian National Council (SNC), made then Colonel Moumar Gaddafi a targeted by spreading lies alleged state crimes, but with with no evidence, as outlined in documents released last October by the publication Voltaire. Syria’s President Assad is currently undergoing the exact same treatment, and in the exact same manner.
Babies in incubators: a recycled media hoax
Amazingly, this exact same story was also making the rounds recently in August of 2011, when a similar claim was busy circulating online through various social networks including Twitter in Arabic - the same tale of premature babies who died in their incubators when Syrian forces cut off electricity to hospitals during their assault on the city of Hama.
Even though it admits that it could not independently verify the account, CNN still went and ran with the SOHR rumor, broadcasting: ”Rights Group: 8 babies die after power cut to Syrian hospital“.
Electronic Infidada reported on the August 2011 recent hoax: “Evidence suggests it is a cruel hoax, and the pictures of the “dead babies” widely circulated online are false.” They outlined parallels between the August faux story as past regime change PR campaigns:
“URGENT – Syria The electricity was cut today from the city of Hama, and the outage included the hospitals. Following this, the Shabiha [state militia] deliberately destroyed the electricity generators in the hospitals which led to the deaths of all the premature babies (more than 40 in a single hospital).”
To me the story was immediately suspicious. First of all it sounded too much like the false reports of invading Iraqi troops throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait in August 1990 — reports that were used to build public support and urgency for the 1991 Gulf War. These claims were part of an elaborate propaganda effort by the Washington PR consultancy Hill & Knowlton hired by the Kuwaiti government.
The fact that an award-winning newspaper like the UK’s Independent would use such a shadowy outfit to support one of its most shocking headlined stories on the crisis in Syria – is also surprising in itself. The biggest problem with both seperate accounts of dying babies in incubators – put forward by the SOHR and circulated in the corporate media by the likes of The Independent and CNN, is that at no point along the line, has the SOHR been held accountable for what are patently unsubstantiated claims.
Lobbying groups and their governments in-exile are traditionally the source of anti-regime “heart-string” reports which have in the past have been passed on for broadcast by major media outlets, which naturally follows with favoring pre-emptive military strike, or as recently seen with Libya – a ‘humanitarian intervention’.
The illusion of unspeakable atrocities is of paramount concern in both the US and in Europe because convincing the Left-leaning elements of the public and in government brings with it a green light for any military intervention.
consumers of the press in the west are likely to be force fed- yet again, another endless diet of false claims designed to sway public opinion in favor of military action by NATO or NATO-backed allies in Syria, and later in Iran.
Journalist Tony Cartalucci reported back in December regarding the clandestine activities of SOHR, adding:
It is quite clear that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” based in London and receiving the entirety of their reports via “phone” & YouTube videos from Syria, is working in coordination with both US-funded NGOs and the British Foreign Minister. Considering that Hague similarly coddled Libyan opposition leaders in London while playing a key role in promoting the NATO attack on Libya and the subsequent installation of a BP oilman as “prime minister,” Abdelrahman’s consorting signifies a verbatim repeat of the now openly fraudulent and genocidal NATO campaign in Libya.
Just as in Libya, where “human rights activists” have now admitted to fabricating the evidence used by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to rubber stamp Wall Street and London’s designs for regime change, likewise the “evidence” from Syria has turned out to be a complete fraud, derived by opposition “witnesses” and compiled by a corporate D.C. think-tank director into a UN “human rights report.”
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights serves as the exclusive source of “reports” coming out of Syria despite the fact that it is actually, entirely based in London. While it is verified that the NGOs it works in tandem with are US-funded, the Observatory itself fails to publish where its money comes from or the backgrounds of those that constitute its membership. We then, are expected to simply believe on face value a mysterious organization whose head meets with the British government and their unverified “witness accounts” as evidence to initiate military intervention at the cost of potentially millions of lives.
The UN based the whole premise for its Security Council Resolution 1973 for Libya on reports from western-backed Libyan rebels. Their wild claims included – unbelievably and highly reported by the western media - that Gaddafi lead jet attacks on his own people, and killed more than 6000 unarmed protester cum civilians. This jet claim was needed in order to get a No Fly Zone included in resolution 1973.
During the run-up to their vote on the matter, it is clear now that absolutely no due diligence was carried out by any of the UN member states, which stands to reason that the whole UN affair form beginning to end, was planned and executed as a political decision - hardly a humanitarian concern.
We can see how the corporate media will knowingly run sensationalist, unverified accounts of human rights accounts in countries like Libya and Syria, but what about out elected leaders? Will they too run with these same wild claims in order to make their public case for war? No doubt. Members of the NATO governments have also been assigned their roles in making intervention possible. Britain’s William Hague seems to be running point on the PR campaign for regime change in Syria. Following Russia and China’s veto of the UN’s recent revolution for action in Syria, Hague condemned the decision – and used wild, unverified statistics most likely gleaned from his friend at the SOHR, as reported by the Guardian:
“More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution in October 2011,” he said after the vote. “How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?”
Here we are again, at another crossroads, so soon after the last one. And like clockwork, the same patterns are emerging to sway western public opinion, this time against President Assad and his Syrian government.
Infowars.com have already attempted to contact SOHR via their email address, in order to receive further clarification as to the source of their recent claims that Assad’s security forces are responsible for the death of 18 newborn babies, but have yet to receive any response from the London-based organization
This morning, reporter Alastair Beach of The Independent newspaper based in London, cited “evidence” that Syrian President Assad’s security forces have indiscriminately killed scores of newborn babies in Homs this week, as his featured article states:
“Bashar al-Assad’s bloody siege of Homs intensified yesterday as clear evidence emerged that his indiscriminate shelling of the restive town had started claiming innocent victims, including at least 18 premature babies and three entire families. The evidence came as civilians in the besieged city endured a fifth day of incessant shellfire – the worst yet, according to eyewitnesses – with dozens of other people being killed as the brutal assault continued.”
Writer Beach’s source for his claims seem to originate from only one organization, not in Syria – but in London. Surprisingly, the Independent’s chief source for the alleged horrors in question is a nearly invisible organization known as the ”Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”(SOHR), who claim to have an office based in London, but apparently have no address or contact phone number listed - only and email address. Even murkier however, is that fact that there are no names associated with the SOHR on their website, and many of its articles have been written under the fictitious pen name known as “Rami Abdul Rahman“.
It’s likely that “Rami Abdul Rahman” is in fact one Rami Abdelrahman, depicted in other online press coverage as head of the SOHR although he is not listed as a contact person on the organization’s website, and is reported to have met with Britain’s Foreign Secretary,William Hague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on November 21, 2011.
One can only conclude that with no names or contact information, the SOHR is – by definition - a very well-hidden, clandestine lobbying organization, and in this case, it appears to be lobbying for regime change in Syria, from inside Britain’s Foreign Office.
Before regime change in Tripoli, the US, France and Britain relied on the likes of Soliman Bouchuiguir, the former Libyan League for Human Rights president with ties to NATO’s National Transitional Council (NTC), helped to generate numerous lies needed by the west to justify NATO’s now famously titled “humanitarian intervention” – allegedly to protect Libyans. This human rights impostor – like his present day Syrian counterpart Rami Abdelrahman who may very well have ties to the Paris-based rebel coalition known as Syrian National Council (SNC), made then Colonel Moumar Gaddafi a targeted by spreading lies alleged state crimes, but with with no evidence, as outlined in documents released last October by the publication Voltaire. Syria’s President Assad is currently undergoing the exact same treatment, and in the exact same manner.
Babies in incubators: a recycled media hoax
Amazingly, this exact same story was also making the rounds recently in August of 2011, when a similar claim was busy circulating online through various social networks including Twitter in Arabic - the same tale of premature babies who died in their incubators when Syrian forces cut off electricity to hospitals during their assault on the city of Hama.
Even though it admits that it could not independently verify the account, CNN still went and ran with the SOHR rumor, broadcasting: ”Rights Group: 8 babies die after power cut to Syrian hospital“.
Electronic Infidada reported on the August 2011 recent hoax: “Evidence suggests it is a cruel hoax, and the pictures of the “dead babies” widely circulated online are false.” They outlined parallels between the August faux story as past regime change PR campaigns:
“URGENT – Syria The electricity was cut today from the city of Hama, and the outage included the hospitals. Following this, the Shabiha [state militia] deliberately destroyed the electricity generators in the hospitals which led to the deaths of all the premature babies (more than 40 in a single hospital).”
To me the story was immediately suspicious. First of all it sounded too much like the false reports of invading Iraqi troops throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait in August 1990 — reports that were used to build public support and urgency for the 1991 Gulf War. These claims were part of an elaborate propaganda effort by the Washington PR consultancy Hill & Knowlton hired by the Kuwaiti government.
The fact that an award-winning newspaper like the UK’s Independent would use such a shadowy outfit to support one of its most shocking headlined stories on the crisis in Syria – is also surprising in itself. The biggest problem with both seperate accounts of dying babies in incubators – put forward by the SOHR and circulated in the corporate media by the likes of The Independent and CNN, is that at no point along the line, has the SOHR been held accountable for what are patently unsubstantiated claims.
Lobbying groups and their governments in-exile are traditionally the source of anti-regime “heart-string” reports which have in the past have been passed on for broadcast by major media outlets, which naturally follows with favoring pre-emptive military strike, or as recently seen with Libya – a ‘humanitarian intervention’.
The illusion of unspeakable atrocities is of paramount concern in both the US and in Europe because convincing the Left-leaning elements of the public and in government brings with it a green light for any military intervention.
consumers of the press in the west are likely to be force fed- yet again, another endless diet of false claims designed to sway public opinion in favor of military action by NATO or NATO-backed allies in Syria, and later in Iran.
Journalist Tony Cartalucci reported back in December regarding the clandestine activities of SOHR, adding:
It is quite clear that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” based in London and receiving the entirety of their reports via “phone” & YouTube videos from Syria, is working in coordination with both US-funded NGOs and the British Foreign Minister. Considering that Hague similarly coddled Libyan opposition leaders in London while playing a key role in promoting the NATO attack on Libya and the subsequent installation of a BP oilman as “prime minister,” Abdelrahman’s consorting signifies a verbatim repeat of the now openly fraudulent and genocidal NATO campaign in Libya.
Just as in Libya, where “human rights activists” have now admitted to fabricating the evidence used by the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to rubber stamp Wall Street and London’s designs for regime change, likewise the “evidence” from Syria has turned out to be a complete fraud, derived by opposition “witnesses” and compiled by a corporate D.C. think-tank director into a UN “human rights report.”
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights serves as the exclusive source of “reports” coming out of Syria despite the fact that it is actually, entirely based in London. While it is verified that the NGOs it works in tandem with are US-funded, the Observatory itself fails to publish where its money comes from or the backgrounds of those that constitute its membership. We then, are expected to simply believe on face value a mysterious organization whose head meets with the British government and their unverified “witness accounts” as evidence to initiate military intervention at the cost of potentially millions of lives.
The UN based the whole premise for its Security Council Resolution 1973 for Libya on reports from western-backed Libyan rebels. Their wild claims included – unbelievably and highly reported by the western media - that Gaddafi lead jet attacks on his own people, and killed more than 6000 unarmed protester cum civilians. This jet claim was needed in order to get a No Fly Zone included in resolution 1973.
During the run-up to their vote on the matter, it is clear now that absolutely no due diligence was carried out by any of the UN member states, which stands to reason that the whole UN affair form beginning to end, was planned and executed as a political decision - hardly a humanitarian concern.
We can see how the corporate media will knowingly run sensationalist, unverified accounts of human rights accounts in countries like Libya and Syria, but what about out elected leaders? Will they too run with these same wild claims in order to make their public case for war? No doubt. Members of the NATO governments have also been assigned their roles in making intervention possible. Britain’s William Hague seems to be running point on the PR campaign for regime change in Syria. Following Russia and China’s veto of the UN’s recent revolution for action in Syria, Hague condemned the decision – and used wild, unverified statistics most likely gleaned from his friend at the SOHR, as reported by the Guardian:
“More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution in October 2011,” he said after the vote. “How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?”
Here we are again, at another crossroads, so soon after the last one. And like clockwork, the same patterns are emerging to sway western public opinion, this time against President Assad and his Syrian government.
Infowars.com have already attempted to contact SOHR via their email address, in order to receive further clarification as to the source of their recent claims that Assad’s security forces are responsible for the death of 18 newborn babies, but have yet to receive any response from the London-based organization
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Arab League Report Provides Evidence CIA, MI6, Mossad Behind Violence in Syria
Excerpts from the Arab League observers’ report on Syria make it clear that the establishment media is only telling part of the story and exaggerating violence by the al-Assad government and its police and military.
The report mentions an “armed entity’ that is killing civilians and police and conducting terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians. Casualties from these attacks are attributed to the al-Assad government and used to build a case against Syria in the United Nations.
According to the Arab League report, the “Free Syria Army” and “armed opposition groups” are responsible for many of the killings.
In January, it was reported that MI6, the CIA, and British SAS are in Syria working with the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council to overthrow the al-Assad regime. The Free Syrian Army is widely recognized as a creation of NATO. It is comprised largely of militants from the Muslim Brotherhood – itself an asset of British intelligence – and is funded, supported, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Turkey.
The report lends credence to reports filed in November of last year by journalist Webster Tarpley, who visited the Middle Eastern nation.
“What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers. People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war – it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it’s a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it’s got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,” Tarpley told RT.
Tarpley said the United States is pushing a “bankrupt model of the color revolution, backed up by terrorist troops – people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” and the objective is “to smash the Middle East according to ethnic lines.”
The report mentions an “armed entity’ that is killing civilians and police and conducting terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians. Casualties from these attacks are attributed to the al-Assad government and used to build a case against Syria in the United Nations.
According to the Arab League report, the “Free Syria Army” and “armed opposition groups” are responsible for many of the killings.
In January, it was reported that MI6, the CIA, and British SAS are in Syria working with the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council to overthrow the al-Assad regime. The Free Syrian Army is widely recognized as a creation of NATO. It is comprised largely of militants from the Muslim Brotherhood – itself an asset of British intelligence – and is funded, supported, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Turkey.
The report lends credence to reports filed in November of last year by journalist Webster Tarpley, who visited the Middle Eastern nation.
“What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers. People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war – it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it’s a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it’s got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,” Tarpley told RT.
Tarpley said the United States is pushing a “bankrupt model of the color revolution, backed up by terrorist troops – people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” and the objective is “to smash the Middle East according to ethnic lines.”
Road to Teheran
While Israel believes that the road to Tehran is a straight “pre-emptive” military attack super-highway, the US and UK seem to believe that the road to Tehran runs through Damascus.
This might explain the growing turmoil in Syria that’s being used to try to promote a Libya-like UN Security Council resolution which, if passed, would certainly have Libya-like results…
In recent days, there has been horrific violence in the Syrian city of Homs, as more than 200 people have died in gunfights and bombings. For the Western mainstream media, all the blame lies with Bashar al-Assad’s government, with President Obama spelling out the official line: “Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately.” The Western Allies’ strategy of encroachment on Syria and Iran seems to run in parallel and sequentially. Its logic is: if Syria falls, Iran will follow.
As with Iraq and Libya, the US, UK and France tried to impose a UN Security Council resolution laying all the blame on the government, and calling for its immediate resignation. Only this time they’ve been vetoed by Russia and China, who are standing up to the west’s global bullying tactics.
No small matter indeed! For it hinges on how the western allies on one side, and the Russians and Chinese on the other understand the root causes of violence and turmoil in Syria and, by extension, throughout the region. On Syria, the official US/UK/French/Israeli line is that the “Arab Spring” has finally reached Syria.
In their usual Hollywoodesque boxing match-like “Good Guys versus Bad Guys” worldview, they seem to tell global public opinion, “in this corner we have heroic freedom-fighters trying to bring “democracy” (US brand, of course!) to Syria; in that corner, we have the mean, fundamentalist antidemocratic Assad regime repressing the people”. It might sound like a great script for some teary-eyed Stephen Spielberg thriller, but the real world isn’t like that…
Rather than saying it’s simply the Assad government turning against its people, Russia and China take a more balanced stance on the internal affairs of Syria, where several factions are in conflict. There are the legal authorities of Syria, and there are armed terrorist throngs taking advantage of genuine social grievances and unleashing violence throughout the country, which in turn triggers police repression. With lesser intensity, similar scenes can also been seen on the streets of London, Manchester, New York, Oakland, Athens and other western cities.
In Syria, such groups are in all likelihood profusely armed, trained, financed and abetted by foreign players, pointing straight at US, UK, French and Israeli intelligence entities: public, private, official, unofficial, overt and covert.
Clearly, this is a much more complex view than Washington’s and London’s easier-to-grasp Walt Disney version of reality with its “bad cat fighting good Tweety Bird” rhetoric.
The UN resolution the western allies are trying to get imposed on Syria is based on a report and proposal emanating from the Arab League under its present Secretary General Nabyl El Araby, which has regressed into a pro-western political and diplomatic tool. Something similar happened to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under its present Director General Yukiya Amano, as it recently produced a damning report on Iran´s nuclear program based on “intelligence from member states”, implicitly, the US, UK, France and Israel.
What’s happening in Syria today is very bad news for the Syrians, who are becoming the victims of western-style state-sponsored terrorism. Alas! It is, however good news for the rest of the world. And it has made Russia and China stand up to the US, UK, France and Israel: Russia and China are not ready to tolerate a re-run of Iraq and Libya.
This might explain the growing turmoil in Syria that’s being used to try to promote a Libya-like UN Security Council resolution which, if passed, would certainly have Libya-like results…
In recent days, there has been horrific violence in the Syrian city of Homs, as more than 200 people have died in gunfights and bombings. For the Western mainstream media, all the blame lies with Bashar al-Assad’s government, with President Obama spelling out the official line: “Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately.” The Western Allies’ strategy of encroachment on Syria and Iran seems to run in parallel and sequentially. Its logic is: if Syria falls, Iran will follow.
As with Iraq and Libya, the US, UK and France tried to impose a UN Security Council resolution laying all the blame on the government, and calling for its immediate resignation. Only this time they’ve been vetoed by Russia and China, who are standing up to the west’s global bullying tactics.
No small matter indeed! For it hinges on how the western allies on one side, and the Russians and Chinese on the other understand the root causes of violence and turmoil in Syria and, by extension, throughout the region. On Syria, the official US/UK/French/Israeli line is that the “Arab Spring” has finally reached Syria.
In their usual Hollywoodesque boxing match-like “Good Guys versus Bad Guys” worldview, they seem to tell global public opinion, “in this corner we have heroic freedom-fighters trying to bring “democracy” (US brand, of course!) to Syria; in that corner, we have the mean, fundamentalist antidemocratic Assad regime repressing the people”. It might sound like a great script for some teary-eyed Stephen Spielberg thriller, but the real world isn’t like that…
Rather than saying it’s simply the Assad government turning against its people, Russia and China take a more balanced stance on the internal affairs of Syria, where several factions are in conflict. There are the legal authorities of Syria, and there are armed terrorist throngs taking advantage of genuine social grievances and unleashing violence throughout the country, which in turn triggers police repression. With lesser intensity, similar scenes can also been seen on the streets of London, Manchester, New York, Oakland, Athens and other western cities.
In Syria, such groups are in all likelihood profusely armed, trained, financed and abetted by foreign players, pointing straight at US, UK, French and Israeli intelligence entities: public, private, official, unofficial, overt and covert.
Clearly, this is a much more complex view than Washington’s and London’s easier-to-grasp Walt Disney version of reality with its “bad cat fighting good Tweety Bird” rhetoric.
The UN resolution the western allies are trying to get imposed on Syria is based on a report and proposal emanating from the Arab League under its present Secretary General Nabyl El Araby, which has regressed into a pro-western political and diplomatic tool. Something similar happened to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under its present Director General Yukiya Amano, as it recently produced a damning report on Iran´s nuclear program based on “intelligence from member states”, implicitly, the US, UK, France and Israel.
What’s happening in Syria today is very bad news for the Syrians, who are becoming the victims of western-style state-sponsored terrorism. Alas! It is, however good news for the rest of the world. And it has made Russia and China stand up to the US, UK, France and Israel: Russia and China are not ready to tolerate a re-run of Iraq and Libya.
Depopulation plan
Billionaire funds projects aimed at injecting upper atmosphere with sulphur particles
Microsoft founder Bill Gates continues to pour millions of dollars into high-risk geoengineering projects that purport to offer a solution to global warming yet have been savaged by environmentalists as potentially posing a greater threat than climate change itself.
“Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy,” reports the London Guardian, quoting critics who allege that Gates’ funding has enabled geoengineering advocates to “dominate the deliberations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
In 2010, Gates was criticized for ploughing $300,000 dollars into a sea trial of cloud-whitening technology which involved spraying clouds with microscopic particles in an effort to make them reflect more sunlight, an experiment dubbed “dangerous” by environmental campaigners.
The report reveals that Gates has backed Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, to the tune of $4.6 million dollars to fund studies based around the premise of injecting sulphur particles into the upper atmosphere designed to reflect sunlight.
As we have previously documented, experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.
Exposure to sulphur has been linked to innumerable physical and neurological diseases, including reproductive failure, behavioral changes, damage to the immune system, as well as liver, heart and stomach disorders.
Even pro-geoengineering scientist Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”
Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, “created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.”
Microsoft founder Bill Gates continues to pour millions of dollars into high-risk geoengineering projects that purport to offer a solution to global warming yet have been savaged by environmentalists as potentially posing a greater threat than climate change itself.
“Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy,” reports the London Guardian, quoting critics who allege that Gates’ funding has enabled geoengineering advocates to “dominate the deliberations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
In 2010, Gates was criticized for ploughing $300,000 dollars into a sea trial of cloud-whitening technology which involved spraying clouds with microscopic particles in an effort to make them reflect more sunlight, an experiment dubbed “dangerous” by environmental campaigners.
The report reveals that Gates has backed Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, to the tune of $4.6 million dollars to fund studies based around the premise of injecting sulphur particles into the upper atmosphere designed to reflect sunlight.
As we have previously documented, experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.
Exposure to sulphur has been linked to innumerable physical and neurological diseases, including reproductive failure, behavioral changes, damage to the immune system, as well as liver, heart and stomach disorders.
Even pro-geoengineering scientist Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to “acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.”
Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, “created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
