No Peace in Syria unless Assad dies

Western supported terrorists admit to attacking infrastructure as a strategy to fight the Assad regime.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 15, 2013

“The war in Syria will end up being very similar to that of Libya. We will liberate city by city until we get to Damascus, ” said Gen. Abu Abeida, a rebel leader from the Al Liwa Derea Shabaa militia. According to him Aleppo is important for the regime, and if the city falls, it will mean the fall of the regime.

“After Aleppo and Idlib,” he says, the rebels will continue to fight to recover the rest of the country, “that the regime’s army defends tooth and nail,” such as Homs, Latakia and Damascus. “These will be our next targets” he asserts.

The same view is shared by Abdul Khader the Salad, commander of all operations in northern Syria, and who is a member of Liwa Al Tawhid. “We will not stop when Aleppo falls. Right now it is the stronghold of Assad, but when we move our troops to areas of Latakia and Tartus, we will enter the final battle for Syria, ” he said.

After nearly eight months of fighting in the city of Aleppo, the second largest city in Syria, the fight has become an entrenched battle between rebels and troops loyal to Assad. The bombings have decreased significantly and the fight has moved to the outskirts of the town.

“We started fighting in the city because we had a well-developed plan, most of the soldiers of the SLA-Free Syrian Army were civilians with no military experience and we needed a thinking head to develop, unify and come up with combat tactics.

The union of the ‘katibas’ or brigades was vital to put a spin on the strategy and “then we focused on attacking military bases, airports and schools that are scattered in the province of Aleppo, so we could do much more damage to the regime,” said the leader of Al Liwa Derea Shabaa.

According to the general, the situation in Aleppo is 50% of the city for each side, but he says he controls about 80% of the territory of the province. “We only need five or six military bases to choke the regime,” said the officer.

“We are focusing on Aleppo International Airport, the Artillery Academy and the Central Prison to give a blow to the regime within the city,” he added.

“Possibly, the battle over Aleppo becoming the most important element of this war. The regime was economically dependent on this city and with the outbreak of war, the industries stopped, causing them much economic damage, “says Abu Abeida.

“Assad sent many troops to regain control of the city and we have stopped them, causing the loss of many soldiers. In Aleppo the regime signed his death,” he says.

Abeida accusses the Syrian Army of bombing civilian targets because “they want the citizens to expel the ELS from Aleppo”. He adds that the regime wants the people to hate the rebels and to fight them, but that such strategy is not working and it is having the opposite effect.”

Abdul Khader believes that the Army has lost a lot of power in recent months. “At first it all depended on the firepower of tanks and we have destroyed a lot. Also they do not have enough soldiers to fight, as they have many fronts throughout the country.” He assures the press that the regime will collapsed and eventually die, but he just doesn’t know when. “Maybe a month, maybe three … maybe a year.” ELS has become the new army for the Syrian rebels, who are recognized by the international community as the acting government.

“You can not negotiate with someone who butchers his own people to stay in power.” Given a hypothetical negotiation with the Syrian regime, the generals have it clear. “There will be no negotiation if it does not include the death of Assad,” Abdul Khader says.

After nearly two years of war, the aim of the revolution is still the same. “A free Syria without Assad … There will be time to decide if we will have democracy or Islam, what is important now is to defeat the regime.”

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Advertisement

25 Questions Society needs to answer before getting out of the Scum Hole

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 16, 2012

As if there is a need to prove that big government and excessive government action in any scope of life is a direct result of social immorality, or that government intervention has created the mess where most of the world is into right now, there are a series of questions that need to be asked, so that the public gets to answer them individually in a conscious effort to recognize that government, as it stands today, is the origin of the problems, not the solution.

Let’s review a few examples of the consequences of what I called government intervention, before asking those tough but necessary questions. Although each country suffers from different degrees of financial and economic pain, the appearance of the consequences of government interventions are pretty much the same.

For starters, government has grown exponentially. That alone should be an indicator of the problem. With such an excessive growth, government has had to increase taxes, so it can finance its debt. Along with the out of control increase in the tax burden, governments have also enhanced their power to regulate, mandate and impose its own rules, which are different from the ones already in existence before it was created.

War has been made a primary tool to promote government control of everything, especially those that seek to ‘save us’ from unknown threats. Those wars are waged without any authorization from The People, or their representatives, because such wars, the psychopathic leaders say, are too important to let the people decide whether they should be fought or not.

Government spending to finance the wars skyrocketed as a consequence of the numerous conflicts it is involved in. As a result, less money is invested in improving infrastructure, keeping the peace at home, promoting real economic growth or embracing policies that allow individuals to become successful in their own right. It has been quite the oppossite, in fact. Globally, poverty is at its highest level in history and the gap between the poor and the rich is wider that ever before. The middle class is a species threatened with extinction, while government dependency is at its highest level.

Even though the deficit spending recipe has not worked since it was adopted at the start of the 20th  century, governments not only continue to use it, but encourage uncontrollable levels of debt to finance their bribery programs intended to keep the ignorant masses calm, cool and collected. Politicians in government found a way to use consensus as tool to reinforce deficit spending as the base of any and all ‘development’ models, setting government as the creator, manager and judge of everything — even private business  and private life.

Even though the economic and fiscal policies of the past resulted in the bankruptcy of many governments worldwide, politicians in all political parties lied to the public about such state of affairs, advocating for more deficit spending. Despite the supposed major disagreements in Congress, corrupt politicians were able to agree on one thing: spending is the way to go! Meanwhile, the masses of ignorant people accepted and agreed on spending more as a way to guarantee their piece of the pie even though such spending will mean their continues slavery to a central almighty government. The immoral people embraced authoritarianism as a mechanism of survival.

It is through this mechanism that the immoral people managed to accept illegal wars, government bribery also known as entitlement programs, overregulation of the economy, flawed monetary policy, undeclared economic and military wars, illegal arrests for speaking against the government, sanctions, currency manipulation, bailouts of corrupt banks and so on.

Now that authoritarianism has failed, and after many people — still a minority — realized they have been swindled all along by different management teams that work for the same interests, there is a list of questions The People need to ask themselves to start affecting real change. The answers to those questions will show all the options and the way forward.

So, here is the list. (From Ron Paul’s Congressional Farewell Speech)

1. Why are sick people who use medical marihuana sent to prison?

2. Why do governments restrict and in some places ban the drinking of raw milk?

3. Why do governments limit or ban the production of finished goods from hemp?

4. Why aren’t people allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender?

5. Is the supremacy of the Dollar as the reserve currency beginning to end?

6. Why are political leaders opposed to auditing central banks?

7. Why can’t people decide what kind of light bulbs they can buy?

8. Why are thugs at airport security checkpoints allowed to abuse passengers?

9. Why do governments continue to fight the war on drugs, when all it’s achieved is perpetuate the circulation of massive amounts of laundered money through the corrupt banking system, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and given the government the monopoly of production and sale of such drugs?

10. How can converting society into a prison solve crimes such as drug smuggling, murder and corruption, when the government is the most significant perpetrator of these and other crimes?

11. Why do politicians around the world continue to surrender all power to the executive branch?

12. Why has changing the political party in power never changed the policies supported by government?

13. Why did large banks and corporations get bailed out in 2008 while the middle class and poor people around the world lost their jobs, homes and lives?

14. Why do bureaucrats believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

15. Why do so many people believe the government bureaucrats can protect us all without harming our liberty?

16. Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

17. Why do people throw their arms up and accept executive orders that allow a president to compile a kill list, to detain indefinitely and to murder citizens if he deems them enemies of the state?

18. Why do people believe that patriotism is equal to blindly believing and supporting anything that comes from government?

19. Why don’t people understand that real patriotism is all about challenging government when it is wrong?

20. Why did people give government a safe heaven to initiate violence against them and to hold the monopoly of force?

21. Why does the use of religion to oppress those with a different belief system go unchallenged?

22. Why is Democracy held in such a high esteem, when it is the enemy of the minority and the tyranny of the majority?

23. What is the explanation for the growing discontent with politicians and the political system?

24. Why do people have so much trust in government and little or not trust in themselves?

25. Why do people choose to believe in utopian outcomes such as the American Dream and the immoral use of force in their search for peace and liberty?

Only moral and honest answers to these questions can help society pick itself up from the scum hole it is in right now. Only the correct identification of the real causes of today’s generalized state of crisis will bring true solutions to help us solve the problems that immoral people and their government have so successfully created for the rest of society.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Nobel Peace Joke: The Prize goes for the European Union

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 12, 2012

The European Union is the newest recipient of the largely depreciated Nobel Peace Prize Award. Previous winners include current US president Barack Obama, whose extended wars continue to kill thousands of people around the world. The prize given to the EU is as unexpected as it can get.

The announcement was made Friday morning in Oslo by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which praised the achievements of the EU for “the advancement of peace and reconciliation” in Europe and the establishment of “democracy and human rights” in the continent.

According to the Nobel Committee the award intends to highlighted the achievement of the banker controlled club, which is composed by 27 members. The EU is charged with building Europe after the Second World War, even though its creators kept its existence quite until late in the 20th century so that its operations and efforts to create a giant technocracy were kept under the radar.

The EU is also praised for expanding democracy and stability in the Eastern part of the continent, even though it has been a key to promote military invasions, genocide and death in that very region of Europe. Supposedly, the EU was relevant during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the communist bloc. This assumption is false, because Communism never collapsed. The EU received one million euros as part of the Prize, which will be officially given to the globalist organization next December 10 in Oslo.

Ironically, Norway, the state that awarded the Prize to the EU has refused to become part of the corrupt political and economic bloc. Its people rejected the call to become part of the European Union twice; first in 1972 and later in 1994. According to the latest polls, Norwegians still refuse to join the EU today.

The Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union comes to crown a project born 55 years ago, which had the ambitious goal to integrate the whole continent in order to hand it over to the banking oligarchies. Just as it happened with the United Nations, the EU was an attempt to concentrate political and economic power into fewer hands. The EU creators fancy themselves as responsible for avoiding war in the continent, although the real reason for the lack of war is that all countries there are controlled by the same people, who found a better way to wage war against their people.

Instead of launching military attacks in order to conquer nations, the authoritarian control freaks adopted a fraudulent way to enhance and perpetuate their power which also includes soft kill mechanisms. That seed has a leafy tree, well-known today for its success in bringing down and destroying millions of lives around the old continent by collapsing the economy and robbing people of their livelihoods. That is what the EU is celebrating today.

The European Union is what the African Union is to Africa, or what the North American Union is for Mexico, the United States and Canada. The proposal to create an European Union is full of “good intentions” which are actually part of a list of bullet points that are a danger to the world’s society. The EU is not only a commercial or political alliance, but a project to consolidate nations into regional governments, in preparation to establish a one world government. The European Union is the precedent to having the people of the region give away their sovereignty in exchange for world peace

The EU model succeeded so well, that the same kind of continental engineering was planned for and implemented on all other regions of the planet. The same tools for implanting control through the slow and progressive use of false crises to bring about the ideal framework for law and order around the world originated from the globalist minds in Britain, the US, and other nations that sought to build a structure that promoted global interdependence.

The lies about free trade, lower prices and less limitations to traffic and commercial exchange made by the controllers were a political and economic hook to attract more fans. What has resulted from those promises is a system of control which has been put into written form and adopted in international conventions and agreements such as the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and others.

Since the promises of bountifulness did not come true, the globalists in control of the EU had to implement another mechanism to find common ground in the pursuit of a One Europe project. First, they promoted the idea of making membership to the EU mandatory and later the decided to precipitate the financial fall of the continent as an excuse to call for more political and economic control. Even the leaders of member nations have now called for the concentration of power into the hands of supranational organizations as the only way to avoid financial Armageddon.

One of the clearest proposals contained in manuscripts that have been proposed for the EU is that countries will no longer have the option to leave the bloc. This move is meant to assure the controllers that every single measure created by the EU government will be absolutely binding for its members and that if a member state does not like a determined policy, its representatives cannot simply decide to leave the group. Right now, the global crisis — engineered by the same globalists who are behind the EU — has prompted its founders to call for the tougher controls over trade, higher taxes and homogeneous socio-communist solutions as the only way out of the crisis.

I told you. Communism wasn’t dead.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Fahrenheit 11/11/11

by David Swanson
Global Research
November 10, 2011

Believe it or not, November 11^th was not made a holiday in order to celebrate war, support troops, or cheer the 11^th year of occupying Afghanistan.  This day was made a holiday in order to celebrate an armistice that ended what was up until that point, in 1918, one of the worst things our species had thus far done to itself, namely World War I.

World War I, then known simply as the world war or the great war, had been marketed as a war to end war.  Celebrating its end was also understood as celebrating the end of all wars.  A ten-year campaign was launched in 1918 that in 1928 created the Kellogg-Briand Pact, legally banning all wars.  That treaty is still on the books, which is why war making is a criminal act and how Nazis came to be prosecuted for it.

“[O]n November 11, 1918, there ended the most unnecessary, the most financially exhausting, and the most terribly fatal of all the wars that the world has ever known. Twenty millions of men and women, in that war, were killed outright, or died later from wounds. The Spanish influenza, admittedly caused by the War and nothing else, killed, in various lands, one hundred million persons more.” — Thomas Hall Shastid, 1927.

According to U.S. Socialist Victor Berger, all the United States had gained from participation in World War I was the flu and prohibition. It was not an uncommon view. Millions of Americans who had supported World War I came, during the years following its completion on November 11, 1918, to reject the idea that anything could ever be gained through warfare.

Sherwood Eddy, who coauthored “The Abolition of War” in 1924, wrote that he had been an early and enthusiastic supporter of U.S. entry into World War I and had abhorred pacifism. He had viewed the war as a religious crusade and had been reassured by the fact that the United States entered the war on a Good Friday. At the war front, as the battles raged, Eddy writes, “we told the soldiers that if they would win we would give them a new world.”

Eddy seems, in a typical manner, to have come to believe his own propaganda and to have resolved to make good on the promise. “But I can remember,” he writes, “that even during the war I began to be troubled by grave doubts and misgivings of conscience.” It took him 10 years to arrive at the position of complete Outlawry, that is to say, of wanting to legally outlaw all war. By 1924 Eddy believed that the campaign for Outlawry amounted, for him, to a noble and glorious cause worthy of sacrifice, or what U.S. philosopher William James had called “the moral equivalent of war.” Eddy now argued that war was “unchristian.” Many came to share that view who a decade earlier had believed Christianity required war. A major factor in this shift was direct experience with the hell of modern warfare, an experience captured for us by the British poet Wilfred Owen in these famous lines:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

The propaganda machinery invented by President Woodrow Wilson and his Committee on Public Information had drawn Americans into the war with exaggerated and fictional tales of German atrocities in Belgium, posters depicting Jesus Christ in khaki sighting down a gun barrel, and promises of selfless devotion to making the world safe for democracy. The extent of the casualties was hidden from the public as much as possible during the course of the war, but by the time it was over many had learned something of war’s reality. And many had come to resent the manipulation of noble emotions that had pulled an independent nation into overseas barbarity.

However, the propaganda that motivated the fighting was not immediately erased from people’s minds. A war to end wars and make the world safe for democracy cannot end without some lingering demand for peace and justice, or at least for something more valuable than the flu and prohibition. Even those rejecting the idea that the war could in any way help advance the cause of peace aligned with all those wanting to avoid all future wars — a group that probably encompassed most of the U.S. population.

As Wilson had talked up peace as the official reason for going to war, countless souls had taken him extremely seriously. “It is no exaggeration to say that where there had been relatively few peace schemes before the World War,” writes Robert Ferrell, “there now were hundreds and even thousands” in Europe and the United States. The decade following the war was a decade of searching for peace: “Peace echoed through so many sermons, speeches, and state papers that it drove itself into the consciousness of everyone. Never in world history was peace so great a desideratum, so much talked about, looked toward, and planned for, as in the decade after the 1918 Armistice.”

Let us try to revive some memory of that foreign world on the occasion of the latest “veterans day” this Friday in this brave new era of searching for more war.

David Swanson is the author of “When the World Outlawed War” from which this is adapted.