Syrian Opposition Linked to Globalist Organizations

By ALEX NEWMAN | THENEWAMERICAN | JULY 16, 2012

The foreign-financed armed rebellion and the Western-backed opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has been falsely portrayed as a spontaneous uprising of “democracy” activists since violence first broke out more than a year ago. But according to a recent investigation published in the U.K. Guardian, top figures in the “regime-change” coalition — most notably the Syrian National Council (SNC) — have intimate links to the highest ranks of the world elite: the shadowy Bilderberg conference, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Goldman Sachs megabank, billionaire financier George Soros, and, of course, the U.S. government. It is all out in the open, too.

On top of that, the report suggests that much of the war propaganda being used to promote international military intervention and “revolution” is actually slick public-relations gimmicks financed by large tax-exempt foundations and even the governments being asked to intervene. And there is big money behind the spread of the disinformation. Consider the seemingly never-ending reports about “civilian massacres” blamed on the Syrian tyrant — almost always from anonymous “activists” — that continually prove to be exaggerated, fabricated, or even perpetrated by the Western-backed rebels themselves, and then blamed on the regime.

The most recent example occurred just last week when anonymous “activists” prompted the global press and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to claim that over 200 civilians, including women and children, had been massacred, only to be contradicted later — even by a UN investigation and “opposition activists” themselves. What actually happened, as The New American originally reported even before the UN probe, was apparently a battle between armed Western-backed “rebels” and the dictatorship’s military forces that resulted in some deaths of combatants.

So who are the “opposition activists” in reality? “The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as ‘official spokesmen’ or ‘pro-democracy campaigners’ without, for the most part, scrutinizing their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections,” observed Charlie Skelton in his detailed and well-sourced article for the Guardian, noting that many of the most frequently quoted sources are openly connected to what he calls “the Anglo-American opposition creation business.” As The New American documented a year ago, many of the Syrian “opposition” groups and leaders were being showered with American taxpayer dollars to undermine the regime long before the “Arab Spring” even erupted.

Read Full Article →

Fahrenheit 11/11/11

by David Swanson
Global Research
November 10, 2011

Believe it or not, November 11th was not made a holiday in order to celebrate war, support troops, or cheer the 11th 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.

Corporate Media, NATO Psy-op in Libya Collapses

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
August 23, 2011

Once again a defiant Qaddafi has prevailed against the full might of NATO aggression including a murderous bombing campaign followed by NATO special forces on the ground supporting mobs of US/UK/French/Qatari backed Al Qaeda thugs which swarmed Tripoli over the weekend. “Illustrious” news agencies from the Qatari government’s AlJazeera, to the now exposed frauds at CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP, AFP have been caught perpetuating a concerted war propaganda campaign in order to break the will of both Libya and in particular Tripoli.

Reports that Qaddafi’s son Saif Al-Islam was “captured” by Libyan rebels by the disingenuous media outlets and “confirmed” by the Fortune 500 contrived International Criminal Court (ICC), who went as far as saying preparations were already under way to transfer Saif to the Hague,are now confirmed lies with Saif Al-Islam very much free, appearing to journalists at the Rixos Hotel in southern Tripoli flanked by Libyan military forces and very much leading what appears to be a significant Libyan government counterattack. It appears that NATO operations are ending just as they began, based on a verified pack of lies. (Please see March’s “Libya: Another War, Another Pack of Lies“)

Everything we have been told, from President Obama’s teleprompter readings to Luis Moreno-Ocampo of the ICC’s claims of Saif’s “confirmed” capture, to the mainstream media and the Al Qaeda infested “Transitional National Council” are now systematically being exposed as overt, verified lies as part of what may be the biggest psychological operation in modern history. Al Jazeera who was already featuring lofty “The Last Days of Gaddafi” narratives is now forced to face reality and irrefutable evidence that the rebel operations in Tripoli were clearly over-hyped war propaganda and the reality is Qaddafi and the Libyan people have called NATO’s bluff.

To illustrate just how absurd the Western media has become as their lies break upon the rocks of reality, a recent farcical attempt to save face regarding Saif’s appearance before journalists at the Riox included an Al Jazeera report claiming that rebel leaders had confirmation Saif al-Islam was arrested “but have no idea how he escaped.” To help out the media it might be suggested that Saif was never captured in the first place and that reports of his arrest were simply a ploy to embolden rebels and make it appear as if the momentum had swung in favor of NATO. (For more on US State Department lies rehashed through “media” please see: “Libyan Rebels Lying Left and Right“)

Read Full Article…