March against Monsanto: Rallying for our Future

May 30, 2013 (RT - Eric Draitser) - The worldwide March Against Monsanto this past Saturday was no mere political demonstration. Rather, it was a worldwide mobilization against corporate greed, the assault on our health and environment, and the oppression of small farmers.

As the diverse crowd gathered in New York City’s Union Square on an unseasonably cold and rainy Memorial Day weekend – just as they did in hundreds of cities around the world – it was clear that Monsanto and the issue of health and food sovereignty transcends political ideology. People from all walks of life joined together to reject Monsanto and its pesticides, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and socially and environmentally destructive business practices.

However, some might wonder, why such focus on Monsanto? After all, isn’t Monsanto merely one of many multinational corporations that damage our political, economic, environmental, and physical well-being?

Photo by Eric Draitser

It’s true that Monsanto is not alone in promoting destructive technologies such as pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs – DuPont, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, and others are also culprits.

However, due to its global dominance and ubiquity, Monsanto has become the rallying cry, the symbol for all that is wrong with our agricultural, political, and economic systems.

Monsanto Means Physical and Environmental Damage

In recent years, the harmful effects of pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs have become well known. However, in that same time, Monsanto and its corporate brothers-in-arms have only increased their power and profits. In order to understand the extent of the problem and the role of corporations in creating and exacerbating it, one must first examine precisely how Monsanto’s products are harmful to humanity.

One of the most troubling aspects of this issue is the myriad ways in which pesticides, herbicides, and GMOs are harmful to our health. Countless studies have been conducted over the years showing a definitive link between pesticides and cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. As reported by Natural Health Magazine, “Glyphosphate (RoundUp) is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage.” These dangerous effects of pesticides and herbicides are not always immediately apparent, often taking decades to fully develop. Therefore, despite the wealth of research, the extent of the problem is still very much underestimated.

Photo by Eric Draitser

However, the problem is much greater in scope than simply the visible health effects.
Pesticides and herbicides, the most popular of which is the Monsanto-manufactured RoundUp, often can contaminate groundwater, negatively affecting livestock and agriculture that depend on clean water for survival. Additionally, the use of pesticides has been definitively linked to the growing epidemic of bee colony collapse, a troubling new trend that, if it persists, will have deadly ramifications for all of us as bees are responsible for pollinating at least one third of all the food humans consume.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Monsanto and the other big Agribusiness corporations’ work is the production of genetically modified seeds. These seeds, either engineered to be resistant to pesticides such as RoundUp or to produce their own pesticides, are seen by many as a physical and environmental threat. As Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology has explained:

"The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior. Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease."
 
The negative effect of GMOs on our health is a subject that, despite having been studied extensively, still requires more research.

However, millions of concerned citizens, farmers and scientists agree that, in light of what we do know about GMOs, we should err on the side of caution, not on the side of profits for multinational corporations.

Monsanto and the Oppression of Small Farmers

Beyond the environmental and physical damage caused by Monsanto and its corporate co-conspirators, there is the fact that small farmers all over the world are being forced or otherwise coerced into a submissive and servile position in relation to the corporate bullies on the block.
 
One way in which Monsanto, DuPont, et al dominate small farmers is through the monopolization of the seed supply. Using their teams of lawyers, these corporations have managed to patent the seeds and genetic codes within those seeds and, by introducing them into the seed supply, force farmers to buy their seeds season after season, or risk facing crippling litigation.
 

Photo by Eric Draitser

The Center for Food Safety recently issued a report entitled “Seed Giants vs US Farmers” in which it documented that Monsanto alone has “has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 US states as of January of 2013."These lawsuits, and the crippling fear of more lawsuits, has forced small farmers who could never afford to challenge Monsanto in the courts to simply acquiesce to their demands.

Moreover, many of these farmers might be “infringing” on patents through no fault of their own as the genetically modified seeds penetrate the fields of the non-GMO farmers through natural processes such as wind. Essentially then, what Monsanto has created is a closed system wherein they and their corporate cousins control most agricultural production either through the seeds or by extracting income from farmers who are unable to defend themselves.

It should be noted that many of the small farmers who fall victim to this kind of extortion are in the Global South.

Rural peasants in India and South Africa, Brazil and Mexico, and many other parts of the developing world, are being forced into this deadly corporate system. Without the means to defend themselves, and with governments that often act as willing executors of the demands of powerful corporations such as Monsanto and others, the rural peasant class has no choice but to use the GMO seeds. The health and environmental impact of this shift, along with the destruction of traditional indigenous methods of agriculture, is being painfully expressed throughout the world.

Resisting Monsanto, Defending Humanity

This weekend’s marches against Monsanto were a wonderful demonstration of the popular anger over the monopolization of agriculture by corporate interests.

Hundreds of thousands marched through the streets of hundreds of cities around the world demanding an end to the poisoning of our bodies, our children, and our environment. In New York, for example, the march was punctuated by chants of “Hey hey, ho ho…GMOs have got to go” and “Hell no G-M-O…hell no G-M-O”, as men, women, and children marched in a long, unbroken line of citizens unwilling to swallow the lies and poisons they’re being fed.

Photo by Eric Draitser

However, what is missing from many of the articles being written by concerned journalists and bloggers the world over is the fact that the fight against Monsanto and corporate control over the global food system is not relegated to one day of demonstrations. Rather, this resistance struggle has been ongoing and, for small farmers, this is an existential struggle. Organizations such as La Via Campesina have been working tirelessly to advocate the rights of peasants around the world. As the organization wrote in its recent report entitled “Combatting Monsanto”:

"With the current economic and environmental crises, global resistance against transnational corporations has become an urgent necessity.A fair society organized to address the people’s needs and guarantee their rights cannot be built in co-existence with corporations that grab power and finite resources. We are calling for collective action from all of those who share our vision of a sustainable world. There has never been a more important time to globalize our struggles and globalize hope."
 
La Via Campesina, which represents more than 200 million farmers, workers, and activists all over the world, is a powerful symbol of resistance against Monsanto and the domination of agricultural production by the interests of industrial and finance capital.
 
More to the point, this organization and others like it, give voice to the voiceless masses toiling in the fields the world over. For the millions of small farmers who reject GM seeds and pesticides in favor of traditional organic farming methods, this resistance struggle is in fact a struggle for their very survival.
 
The real power of the March Against Monsanto this past Saturday May 25 cannot be measured in the turnout or the media coverage. Instead, the significance could be understood in the face of a young boy kneeling on the cold, wet concrete in Union Square, New York City holding a sign that read “We want to live”, with his father next to him clutching a sign reading “The right to feed your children well.” The young boy’s sister, on the other side of her father, gripping her placard that conveyed the simple yet powerful message, “Greed kills”. As I marched along with my fellow New Yorkers against the overwhelming power of Monsanto and the seemingly immutable force of multinational corporations, I couldn’t help but feel that, by all of us uniting, we are winning… that together we can defeat them.

Read More

US Prepares to Overthrow Malaysian Government

Key to encircling and containing China, US sets proxies in motion for color revolution in Malaysian streets. 

Image: US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim leads a Bersih rally in Malaysia. While Bersih has attempted to claim it is "independent" and simply pursusing "fair and clean elections," it is clearly a vehicle for returning Anwar Ibrahim back into power. Additionally, Bersih shares the same ties to the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as its crypto-leader Anwar Ibrahim - representing a dangerous and seditious conflict of interest.

....

May 15, 2013 (AltThaiNews) - US-funded opposition fronts have vowed to overthrow the Malaysian government via disruptive and potentially violent street protests in the wake of general elections that saw their leader Anwar Ibrahim soundly defeated despite massive support from Western media, NGOs, and direct government intervention. Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported in their article, "‘BN will be toppled this year’," that:

Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally.

Speakers at a forum held yesterday unanimously agreed that waiting for five years until the next
general election was too long, and vowed to overthrow BN this year through “force”.

 FMT also added that:

Electoral watchdog group Bersih 2.0 steering committee member  Hishamuddin Rais pointed out that it was useless to take their unhappiness to the courts as he claimed the justice system was being controlled by the government.

“That is why we must take to the streets. We have to come out. What Najib likes is wrong, and what he doesn’t like is what we have to do,” he said.

“We will mobilise a big group and rally on the streets. This is not a threat, this is a promise,” he stressed.

Bersih, of course, is a US State Department-funded opposition front aimed to bolster US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim, formerly of the IMF and World Bank, and a frequent visitor to the insidious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington D.C. It is in fact, NED that funds Bersih through its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan: 

"...admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march." 

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization - before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI's rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.






Photo: NDI's website before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

....

In addition to Bersih, other faux-electoral monitors are also directly funded by the US government. While the Western media attempts to portray such organizations as "independent," the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, for example, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.

Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony - the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called "independent" election monitor Merdeka - paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

 Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)

....

Without a doubt, this premeditated sedition aimed at Malaysia's ruling government has been designed, funded, and directed from Washington on behalf of Wall Street and London, not by the Malaysian people on behalf of Malaysia's best interests.

The street protests conducted by Bersih have all the hallmarks of US-backed "color revolutions," and this recent attempt to overturn election results that do not favor an overt US-proxy, foreshadows the same destructive, divisive, violent, and regressive unrest that has plagued Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria after US-engineered uprisings have left each in turn destabilized, failed states overrun by extremists, dictators, and traitors many times worse than the governments activists sought to overthrow.

And with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria in hindsight, will Malaysians fall into this same familiar trap? Whatever discontent Malaysians may have with the current government, it is all but assured Bersih and US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim will compound perceived injustices while compromising Malaysia's political, social, and economic stability, and begin channeling Malaysia's resources and energy toward foreign interests and designs, particularly those involving the encirclement and containment of China.

An Alternative to the Tired Ploy of "Street Protests"

For the average Malaysian seeking progress, a better bet than joining US-funded sedition would be to turn their attention toward organizing locally and focusing on pragmatic, rather than political, goals. Education, local economic development, health, and local infrastructure are all areas Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, can work together on and improve regardless of who holds public office.

And while special interests, both foreign and domestic, can indeed hinder such progress, they do not make such progress impossible. What is certain, is that corruption amongst Malaysia's ruling party pales in comparison to that of Wall Street and London - and Malaysians will place themselves in the path of guaranteed destruction by inviting in the very people who dominated them before achieving a hard-won independence.

Democracy, in reality, is supposed to be a bottom-up exercise drawn from the grassroots. Bersih is clearly a vehicle for Anwar Ibrahim and his political machine - one whose message is funded, crafted, and declared from Anwar's political advisers and foreign backers, and disseminated across the movement - however cleverly "democratized" Bersih may attempt to appear.

Malaysians do not need a political party to improve education, to grow their own food, to develop business locally by leveraging technology, or to improve local infrastructure and strengthen local communities. The time being wasted to assist Anwar Ibrahim's worming back into political power at the cost of peace, stability, and prosperity could be better spent developing truly grassroots pragmatic power.

Real revolutions do not happen out on the streets - they are manifested in our schools, across industry, and within our communities. They are marked by pragmatism and true, enduring technological and socioeconomic progress - none of which are even promised by Bersih and Anwar Ibrahim's "People's Alliance."  If the people of Malaysia truly want "change," they are going to have to do it themselves by building local institutions that technologically and pragmatically solve real problems rather than simply craft slogans and campaign promises that merely pander to the concerns of the people. Following the flags of Bersih into the streets will  undoubtedly begin instability and division across Malaysian society that will jeopardize, not spur, real and very necessary pragmatic progress.

Read More

The War on 3D Printing Begins

May 11, 2013 (LocalOrg) - It was inevitable. A technology like 3D printing that essentially puts cheap labor, manufacturing, and retail all in the same place - upon one's desktop - spells the absolute, utter and permanent end to the monopolies and unwarranted power and influence of the corporate-financier elite who have lorded over humanity since human civilization began - a permanent end the elite will fight against with the total summation of their ill-gotten power and influence.

The pretext being used to begin this war, is a 3D printed gun built and demonstrated by Defense Distributed in Austin, Texas. After designing, printing out, and firing the 3D printed gun, the US State Department demanded that the designs, distributed for free on the Internet, be taken down - claiming tenuously that by posting the designs on the Internet, arms export bans may have been violated - this the same government that is on record, openly shipping arms, cash, and military equipment to its own listed terrorist organizations from the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO) in Iraq and Iran, to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Libya, to Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra.

In the Independent's article, "US government orders Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed to remove blueprint for 3D-printed handgun from the web," it's reported that: 

The US government has demanded the removal of online files which allow users to 3D-print their own unregistered gun at home.

The blueprint has so far been downloaded more than 100,000 times since Defense Distributed - which spent a year designing the “Liberator” handgun - made it available online.

Last week Defense Distributed built the gun from plastic on an industrial 3D printer bought on eBay for $8,000 (£5,140), and fired it.

The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance wrote to the company's founder Cody Wilson demanding the designs be "removed from public access" until he could prove he had not broken laws governing shipping weapons overseas.

3D Printing: The Sum of All Corporate-Fascist Fears 

For several years now, buzz has been growing about 3D printing. Small companies have begun opening up around the world, selling 3D printers, or using 3D printers for small run production, filling niches, or shifting markets from large corporations and their globalized supply chains, to local, decentralized business models. While governments like those in China have embraced the technology and wholly encourage a grassroots, bottom-up industrial revolution, others, like the US have only feigned enthusiasm.

US President Barack Obama, in his 2013 State of the Union address, according to CNET's "Here's the 3D-printing institute in Obama's State of the Union," referred specifically to 3D printing, claiming: 

After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. After locating plants in other countries like China, Intel is opening its most advanced plant right here at home. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.

There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There's no reason this can't happen in other towns.

Caterpillar, Ford, Intel, and Apple are large globalized monopolies - the personal manufacturing revolution would not see "state-of-the art labs" open up in towns across America to help augment the bottom lines of these Fortune 500 corporations, but would see decentralized alternatives to these corporations cut into and utterly gut their bottom lines - a reality US President Barack Obama and the corporate-financier interests that dictate his agenda must surely be aware of.

Image: Local Motors' Rally Fighter vehicle. The unspoken fear the establishment holds regarding 3D printing and other forms of personal manufacturing is that their central globalized monopolies will be replaced by increasingly smaller, localized companies like Local Motors who already provides a model for "microfactories" and the localization of auto-manufacturing. Job creation, profits, wealth, power, and influence will be redistributed locally, not through government handouts, but by way of technology and local entrepreneurship - ending centuries of disparity between the people and the "elite." 

....

In the case of Ford and other big-auto giants, who by right should be shuttered and out of business already had it not been for their unwarranted influence and power buying them immense bailouts from America's taxpayers, there are already alternative business models undermining their monopolies. In America itself, there is Local Motors who recently gave a short tour of their manufacturing facility they called a "microfactory." These microfactorires represent the next step in industrialization where small companies will cater to smaller, local markets and niches, entirely replacing the centralized Fortune 500 corporations of Detroit, barely clinging to life and their unsustainable, antiquated business model as it is.

Video: Inside Local Motors' Rally Fighter and open-source collaborative microfactory production.

....

The only conceivable means by which big-auto monopolies could hope to survive is by having the same bought-and-paid for politicians it used to bail its collapsed business model out with, impose sweeping regulations to make it illegal for "microfactories" to operate. We can already imagine, by extrapolating from the US State Department's move against Defense Distributed, the arguments that will be made. These will be centered around "safety," "taxation," and perhaps even claims as bold as threatening "jobs" of autoworkers at Fortune 500 monopolies.

Similar ploys are currently working their way through a legislative and sociopolitical gauntlet in regards to the organic food movement.

In reality, whatever excuse the US government has made to take down the first fully 3D printed gun's CAD files from the Internet, it is fear of lost hegemony that drives this burgeoning war on personal manufacturing. James Ball of the Guardian, in an article titled, "US government attempts to stifle 3D-printer gun designs will ultimately fail," predicts that: 

This is a ban that's going to be virtually impossible to enforce: as almost any music company will testify, stopping online filesharing by banning particular sites or devices is roughly akin to stopping a tsunami with a bucket.

Another approach might be to attempt to ban or regulate 3D printers themselves. To do so is to stifle a potentially revolutionary technology in order to address a hypothetical risk – and that's even before the practical problems of defining a 3D printer for the legislation. It would have to be defined broadly enough for a law to be effective, but narrowly enough so that enforcing the law doesn't take out half of the equipment used in every day manufacturing. It is likely a futile ambition.

Indeed - as a 3D printer is essentially nothing more than circuit boards, stepper motors, and heating elements to melt and extrude layers of plastic - it would be as impossible as it would be ridiculous to try to stem the tide of 3D printing by regulating printers, as it will be to attempt to regulate and ban any and all "prints" that threaten the current establishment's monopolies and hold on power.

Everyone is eventually going to have access to this technology and by consequence, the ability to print out on their desktop what Fortune 500 corporations have held monopolies over for generations, including arms manufacturing, automobiles, and electronics. The age of empire, corporatism, and elitism is drawing to a close, but apparently not without one last battle.

How to Win the Battle

While some may be paralyzed in fear over the prospect of their neighbor one day having the ability to print out a fully functional weapon, it must be realized that like all other prolific technologies, the fact that it will be in "everyone's" hands means that more good people than bad will have access to it, and it will be in their collective interests to create and maintain stability within any emerging technological paradigm. Just like with information technology, where malicious activity certainly exists, more people are interested in the smooth, stable function of this technology in daily life and have created a paradigm where disruptions happen, but life goes on.

People must embrace, not fear 3D printing. Key to its integration into society is to ensure that as many people as possible understand it and have access to it. This must be done as quickly as possible, to outpace inevitable legislation that seeks to strangle this revolution in its cradle. 

Education: We must learn as much about this technology as possible. 3D printing incorporates skills in electronics, 3D design, and material science. Developing skill-sets in any of these areas would be beneficial. There are endless resources available online for free that offer information and tutorials on how to develop these skills - just an Internet search away.

Alternatively, for people curious about this technology and seeking to get hands-on experience, they could seek out and visit their local hackerspace (an extensive list of spaces can be found here). Hackerspaces are essentially technological fitness clubs, where one pays dues monthly for access to a space and the equipment within it to work on projects either individually or in a collaborative effort.


Image: Cover of "Hackerspaces @ the_beginning," which chronicles the creation, challenges and successes of hackerspaces around the world. The original file can be found here, and an online version can be viewed here, on Scribd.

....

Hackerspaces generally attract people with the necessary skill-sets to assemble, use, and troubleshoot 3D printers currently on the market today. They also possess the skill-sets needed to build 3D printers and other computer-controlled manufacturing systems from parts that as of yet have not been "regulated." Generally, hackerspaces host monthly workshops that help new people develop basic skills like soldering and programming, or 3D design and even "builds" where purchased 3D printer kits are constructed with the guidance of a resident expert. The proliferation of this knowledge will make the already daunting task of stripping personal manufacturing technology from the people, all but impossible.

Developing Local Institutions: It is essential to both expand existing hackerspaces and their use of personal manufacturing technology, as well as establish and build up new spaces. Ingraining hackerspaces as essential local institutions in our communities is one of the keys to heading off the coming war on personal manufacturing and other disruptive technologies sure to gain the ire of legislators as corporate-financier monopolies begin to suffer.

A place where people can go learn and use this technology, as well as collaborate in its advancement will turn 3D printing and other disruptive technologies from curiosities, into practical tools communities can use to reinvigorate their local economies, solve local problems, and overall improve their lives themselves, independently and self-sufficiently.

A hackerspace can start with something as simple as a single table with several chairs around it and some shared equipment used during weekend get-togethers with friends, and can develop into something as significant as a full-fledged organization with hundreds of members and global reach.

For more information on existing hackerspaces, and inspiration for those seeking to start their own, please see: "Inspiration for Starting a Hackerspace."

Ignoring and Circumventing Illegitimate Governments and Their Declarations: As already cited, the US government is currently funding a myriad of its own listed terrorist organizations to horrific effect from Iraq and Iran, to Libya and Syria. To declare a 3D printed gun "outlawed" and its presence on the Internet a "violation" of arms export laws, is as hypocritical as it is illegitimate.

The government, in a free society, works for the people. The people have not asked the government to ban 3D printed guns, just like they have not asked for the myriad of laws the government is currently citing as justification for its unilateral declaration. The government does not dictate to the people what they can and cannot have or what they can and cannot make. As such, we are not obligated to respect their declarations in regards to 3D printing any more than we have demonstrably respected their declarations regarding so-called "intellectual property."

Just as file sharing continues unabated, while alternative media supplants what is left of the corporate-media's monopolies, a similar paradigm must be developed and encouraged across the tech community in regards to 3D printing, personal manufacturing, and other emerging disruptive technologies such as synthetic biology.

Conclusion 

Already, parallels are being drawn between 3D printing and the shifting paradigms of information technology and file sharing. Whether or not the average person joins in against the war on 3D printing and personal manufacturing, the tech community will almost certainly continue on with their success from the realm of shaping and moving information to the world of shaping and moving atoms. However, for the average person clearly aware that "something" is not quite right about where things in general are going and who are seeking solutions, establishing local institutions that leverage unprecedented technology to solve our problems ourselves, without disingenuous politicians and their endless schemes, seems like a sure choice.

There is already a burgeoning community of talented people working on bringing this technology to its maturity and leveraging it for the benefit of communities and individuals. If we are to ensure this technology stays in the people's hands and is used in the best interests of the people, then as many of "the people' as possible must get involved.

Do some additional research into 3D printing, locate your local hackerspace, and/or start a hackerspace of your own. Start looking into buying or building a 3D printer and developing ideas on how to use this technology both for education and for local, tangible development. The future is what we make of it, and if we - with our own two hands - are making nothing, we have no future.

Read More

US "Pivot" Toward Asia Trips in Malaysia

Image: Despite the US mobilizing the summation of its media power and pouring millions of dollars into the opposition party, including the creation and perpetuation of fake-NGOs such as Bersih and the Merdeka Center, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak sailed to a comfortable victory in this year's general elections. The cheap veneer has begun peeling away from America's "democracy promotion" racket, leaving its proxies exposed and frantic, and America's hegemonic ambitions across Asia in serious question. 

....

May 8, 2013 (LD) - Wall Street and London's hegemonic ambitions in Asia, centered around installing proxy regimes across Southeast Asia and using the supranational ASEAN bloc to encircle and contain China, suffered a serious blow this week when Western-proxy and Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's party lost in general elections.

While Anwar Ibrahim's opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or "People's Alliance," attempted to run on an anti-corruption platform, its campaign instead resembled verbatim attempts by the West to subvert governments politically around the world, including most recently in Venezuela, and in Russia in 2012.

Just as in Russia where so-called "independent" election monitor GOLOS turned out to be fully funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Malaysia's so-called election monitor, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED. Despite this, Western media outlets, in pursuit of promoting the Western-backed People's Alliance, has repeatedly referred to Merdeka as "independent." 

The BBC in its article, "Malaysia election sees record turnout," lays out the well-rehearsed cries of "stolen elections" used by the West to undermine the legitimacy of polls it fears its proxy candidates may lose - with  the US-funded Merdeka Center cited in attempts to bolster these claims. Their foreign funding and compromised objectivity is never mentioned (emphasis added) : 

Allegations of election fraud surfaced before the election. Some of those who voted in advance told BBC News that indelible ink - supposed to last for days - easily washed off.

"The indelible ink can be washed off easily, with just water, in a few seconds," one voter, Lo, told BBC News from Skudai.

Another voter wrote: "Marked with "indelible ink" and voted at 10:00. Have already cleaned off the ink by 12:00. If I was also registered under a different name and ID number at a neighbouring constituency, I would be able to vote again before 17:00!"

The opposition has also accused the government of funding flights for supporters to key states, which the government denies.

Independent pollster Merdeka Center has received unconfirmed reports of foreign nationals being given IDs and allowed to vote.

However, an election monitoring organization funded by a foreign government which openly seeks to remove the current ruling party from Malaysia in favor of long-time Wall Street servant Anwar Ibrahim is most certainly not "independent."

The ties between Anwar Ibrahim's "People's Alliance" and the US State Department don't end with the Merdeka Center, but continue into the opposition's street movement, "Bersih." Claiming to fight for "clean and fair" elections, Bersih in reality is a vehicle designed to mobilize street protests on behalf of Anwar's opposition party. Bersih's alleged leader, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has admitted herself that her organization has received cash directly from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy's National Democratic Institute (NDI), and convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society.

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan: 

"...admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march." 

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization - before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI's rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.






Photo: NDI's website before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)

....

The substantial, yet carefully obfuscated support the West has lent Anwar should be of no surprise to those familiar with Anwar's history. That Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony - the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called "independent" election monitor Merdeka - paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.

 Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)

....

In reality, Bersih's leadership along with Anwar and their host of foreign sponsors are attempting to galvanize the very real grievances of the Malaysian people and exploit them to propel themselves into power. While many may be tempted to suggest that "clean and fair elections" truly are Bersih and Anwar's goal, and that US funding via NED's NDI and convicted criminal, billionaire bankster George Soros' Open Society are entirely innocuous, a thorough examination of these organizations, how they operate, and their admitted agenda reveals the proverbial cliff Anwar and Bersih are leading their followers and the nation of Malaysia over.

As Bersih predictably mobilizes in the streets on behalf of Anwar's opposition party in the wake of their collective failure during Malaysia's 2013 general elections, it is important for Malaysians to understand the true nature of the Western organizations funding their attempts to politically undermine the ruling party and divide Malaysians against each other, and exactly why this is being done in the greater context of US hegemony in Asia.

Anwar & Bersih's US State Department Backers

The US State Department's NED and NDI are most certainly not benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom. A quick look at NED's board of directors reveals a milieu of corporate-fascists and warmongers: 

• William Galston: Brookings Institution (board of trustees can be found on page 35 here).
• Moises Naim: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (corporate funding here).
• Robert Miller: corporate lawyer.
• Larry Liebenow: US Chamber of Commerce (a chief proponent of SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA), Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).
• Anne-Marie Slaughter: US State Department, Council on Foreign Relations (corporate members here), director of Citigroup, McDonald's Corporation, and Political Strategies Advisory Group.
• Richard Gephardt: US Representative, Boeing lobbyist, Goldman Sachs, Visa, Ameren Corp, and Waste Management Inc lobbyist, corporate consultant, consultant & now director of Ford Motor Company, supporter of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
• Marilyn Carlson Nelson: CEO of Carlson, director of Exxon Mobil.
• Stephen Sestanovich: US State Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, CFR.
• Judy Shelton: director of Hilton Hotels Corporation & Atlantic Coast Airlines.
• Francis Fukuyama: Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
• Zalmay Khalilzad: Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
• Will Marshall: Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory
• Vin Weber: Neo-Con, pro-war, pro-hegmonic PNAC signatory

Does Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, the SOPA, ACTA, CISPA-sponsoring US Chamber of Commerce, and America's warmongering Neo-Con establishment care about promoting democracy in Malaysia? Or in expanding their corporate-financier interests in Asia under the guise of promoting democracy? Clearly the latter. 

The NDI, which Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan herself admits funds her organization, is likewise chaired by an unsavory collection of corporate fascist interests.

Some select members include:

• Robin Carnahan: Formally of the Export-Import Bank of the United States where she "explored innovative ways to help American companies increase their sale of goods and services abroad." The NDI's meddling in foreign nations, particularly in elections on behalf of pro-West candidates favoring free-trade, and Carnahan's previous ties to a bank that sought to expand corporate interests overseas constitutes an alarming conflict of interests. 
• Richard Blum: An investment banker with Blum Capital, CB Richard Ellis. Engaged in war profiteering along side the Neo-Con infested Carlyle Group, when both acquired shares in EG&G which was then awarded a $600 million military contract during the opening phases of the Iraq invasion. 
• Bernard W. Aronson:  Founder of ACON Investments. Prior to that, he was an adviser to Goldman Sachs, and serves on the boards of directors of Fifth & Pacific Companies, Royal Caribbean International, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, and Chroma Oil & Gas, Northern Tier Energy. Aronson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which in turn represents the collective interests of some of the largest corporations on Earth.  
• Sam Gejdenson: NDI's profile claims Gejdenson is "in charge of"  Sam Gejdenson International, which proclaims on its website "Commerce Without Borders," or in other words, big-business monopolies via free-trade. In his autobiographical profile, he claims to have promoted US exports as a Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. Here is yet another case of conflicting interests between NDI's meddling in foreign politics and board members previously involved in "promoting US exports."
• Nancy H. Rubin: CFR member. 
• Vali Nasr: CFR member and a senior fellow at the big-oil, big-banker Belfer Center at Harvard.
• Rich Verma: A partner in the Washington office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP - an international corporate and governmental legal firm representing for Verma, a multitude of conflicting interests and potential improprieties. Setptoe & Johnson is active in many of the nations the NDI is operating in, opening the door for manipulation on both sides to favor the other.
• Lynda Thomas: A private investor, formally a senior manager/CPA at Deloitte Haskins & Sells in New York, and Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte in London. Among her clients were international banks. 
• Maurice Tempelsman: Chairman of the board of directors of Lazare Kaplan International Inc., the largest cutter and polisher of “ideal cut” diamonds in the United States. Also senior partner at Leon Tempelsman & Son, involved in mining, investments and business development and minerals trading in Europe, Russia, Africa, Latin America, Canada and Asia. Yet another immense potential for conflicting interests, where Tempelsman stands to directly gain financially and politically by manipulating foreign governments via the NDI.
• Elaine K. Shocas: President of Madeleine Albright, Inc., a private investment firm. She was chief of staff to the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations during Madeleine Albright's tenure as Secretary of State and Ambassador to the United Nation, illustrating a particularly dizzying "revolving door" between big-government and big-business. 
• Madeleine K. Albright: Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group and Chair of Albright Capital Management LLC, an investment advisory firm - directly affiliated with fellow NDI board member Elaine Shocas, representing an incestuous business/government relationship with overt conflicts of interest. Albright infamously stated that sanctions against Iraq which directly led to the starvation and death of half a million children "was worth it."   

The average Malaysian, disenfranchised with the ruling government as they may be, cannot possibly believe these people are funding and propping up clearly disingenuous NGOs in direct support of a compromised Anwar Ibrahim, for the best interests of Malaysia.

The end game for the US with an Anwar Ibrahim/People's Alliance-led government, is a Malaysia that capitulates to both US free trade schemes and US foreign policy. In Malaysia's case, this will leave the extensive economic independence achieved since escaping out from under British rule, gutted, while the nation's resources are steered away from domestic development and toward a proxy confrontation with China, just as is already being done in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.  

Stitching ASEAN Together with Proxy Regimes to Fight China 

Image: Lemuel Gulliver on the island of Lilliput, having been overtaken while asleep by ropes and stakes by the diminutive but numerous Lilliputians. Western corporate-financier interests envision organizing Southeast Asia into a supranational bloc, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), to use the smaller nations as a combined front to "tie down" China in a similar manner. Unlike in the story "Gulliver's Travels," China may well break free of its binds and stomp the Lilliputian leaders flat for their belligerence. 

....

That the US goal is to use Malaysia and other Southeast Asian nations against China is not merely speculation. It is the foundation of a long-documented conspiracy dating back as far as 1997, and reaffirmed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as recently as 2011.

In 1997,  Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution policy scribe Robert Kagan penned, "What China Knows That We Don't: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment," which spells out the policy Wall Street and London were already in the process of implementing even then, albeit in a somewhat more nebulous manner. In his essay, Kagan literally states (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

Here, Kagan openly admits that the "world order," or the "international order," is simply American-run global hegemony, dictated by US interests. These interests, it should be kept in mind, are not those of the American people, but of the immense corporate-financier interests of the Anglo-American establishment. Kagan continues (emphasis added): 

In truth, the debate over whether we should or should not contain China is a bit silly. We are already containing China -- not always consciously and not entirely successfully, but enough to annoy Chinese leaders and be an obstacle to their ambitions. When the Chinese used military maneuvers and ballistic-missile tests last March to intimidate Taiwanese voters, the United States responded by sending the Seventh Fleet. By this show of force, the U.S. demonstrated to Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of our Asian allies that our role as their defender in the region had not diminished as much as they might have feared. Thus, in response to a single Chinese exercise of muscle, the links of containment became visible and were tightened.

The new China hands insist that the United States needs to explain to the Chinese that its goal is merely, as [Robert] Zoellick writes, to avoid "the domination of East Asia by any power or group of powers hostile to the United States." Our treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and our naval and military forces in the region, aim only at regional stability, not aggressive encirclement.

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America's military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region's hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will "play Gulliver to Southeast Asia's Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes."

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call "international norms" of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider "complaints about China's violations of international norms" to be part of "an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.

What Kagan is talking about is maintaining American preeminence across all of Asia and producing a strategy of tension to divide and limit the power of any single player vis-a-vis Wall Street and London's hegemony. Kagan would continue (emphasis added):

The changes in the external and internal behavior of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s resulted at least in part from an American strategy that might be called "integration through containment and pressure for change."

Such a strategy needs to be applied to China today. As long as China maintains its present form of government, it cannot be peacefully integrated into the international order. For China's current leaders, it is too risky to play by our rules -- yet our unwillingness to force them to play by our rules is too risky for the health of the international order. The United States cannot and should not be willing to upset the international order in the mistaken belief that accommodation is the best way to avoid a confrontation with China.

We should hold the line instead and work for political change in Beijing. That means strengthening our military capabilities in the region, improving our security ties with friends and allies, and making clear that we will respond, with force if necessary, when China uses military intimidation or aggression to achieve its regional ambitions. It also means not trading with the Chinese military or doing business with firms the military owns or operates. And it means imposing stiff sanctions when we catch China engaging in nuclear proliferation.

A successful containment strategy will require increasing, not decreasing, our overall defense capabilities. Eyre Crowe warned in 1907 that "the more we talk of the necessity of economising on our armaments, the more firmly will the Germans believe that we are tiring of the struggle, and that they will win by going on." Today, the perception of our military decline is already shaping Chinese calculations. In 1992, an internal Chinese government document said that America's "strength is in relative decline and that there are limits to what it can do." This perception needs to be dispelled as quickly as possible.

Kagan's talk of "responding" to China's expansion is clearly manifested today in a series of proxy conflicts growing between US-backed Japan, and the US-backed Philippines, and to a lesser extent between North and South Korea, and even beginning to show in Myanmar. The governments of these nations have capitulated to US interests and their eagerness to play the role of America's proxies in the region, even at their own cost, is not a surprise. To expand this, however, the US fully plans on integrating Southeast Asia, installing proxy regimes, and likewise turning their resources and people against China.

In 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled the capstone to Kagan's 1997 conspiracy. She published in Foreign Policy magazine, a piece titled, "America's Pacific Century" where she explicitly states: 

In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.

To "sustain our leadership," "secure our interests," and "advance our values," are clearly hegemonic statements, and indicates that the US' goal for "substantially increased investment," including buying off NGOs and opposition parties in Malaysia, seeks to directly serve US leadership, interests, and "values,"  not within US borders, but outside them, and specifically across all of Asia.

Clinton continues:

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so.

The "architecture" referred to is the supranational ASEAN bloc - and again Clinton confirms that the US' commitment to this process is designed not to lift up Asia, but to maintain its own hegemony across the region, and around the world.

Clinton then openly admits that the US seeks to exploit Asia's economic growth: 

Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.

Of course, the purpose of an economy is to meet the needs of those who live within it. The Asian economy therefore ought to serve the needs and interests of Asians - not a hegemonic empire on the other side of the Pacific. Clinton's piece could easily double as a declaration by England's King George and his intentions toward emptying out the New World.

And no empire is complete without establishing a permanent military garrison on newly claimed territory. Clinton explains (emphasis added):

With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

And of course, by "advancing democracy and human rights," Clinton means the continuation of funding faux-NGOs that disingenuously leverage human rights and democracy promotion to politically undermine targeted governments in pursuit of installing more obedient proxy regimes.

The piece is lengthy, and while a lot of readers may be tempted to gloss over some of the uglier, overtly imperial aspects of Clinton's statement, the proof of America's true intentions in Asia can be seen clearly manifested today, with the intentional encouragement of provocations between North and South Korea, an expanding confrontation between China and US proxies, Japan and the Philippines, and with mobs taking to the streets in Malaysia in hopes of overturning an election US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim had no chance of winning.

Clean & Fair Elections?

While the battle cry for Anwar Ibrahim, his People's Alliance, and Bersih have been "clean and fair elections," in reality, allegations of fraud began long before the elections even started. This was not because Anwar's opposition party had evidence of such fraud - instead, this was to implant the idea into people's minds long before the elections, deeply enough to justify claims of stolen elections no matter how the polls eventually turned out.

At one point during the elections, before ballots were even counted, Anwar Ibrahim declared victory - a move that analysts across the region noted was provocative, dangerous, and incredibly irresponsible. Again, there could not have been any evidence that Anwar won, because ballots had not yet been counted. It was again a move meant to manipulate the public and set the stage for contesting Anwar's inevitable loss - in the streets with mobs and chaos in typical Western-backed color revolution style.

One must seriously ask themselves, considering Anwar's foreign backers, those backers' own stated intentions for Asia, and Anwar's irresponsible, baseless claims before, during, and after the elections - what is "clean and fair" about any of this?

Anwar Ibrahim is a fraud, an overt proxy of foreign interests. His satellite NGOs, including the insidious Bersih movement openly funded by foreign corporate-financier interests, and the equally insidious polling NGO Merdeka who portrays itself as "independent" despite being funded directly by a foreign government, are likewise frauds - drawing in well-intentioned people through slick marketing, just as cigarette companies do.

And like cigarette companies who sell what is for millions essentially a slow, painful, humiliating death sentence that will leave one broken financially and spiritually before ultimately outright killing them, Anwar's US-backed opposition is also selling Malaysia a slow, painful, humiliating death. Unfortunately, also like cigarettes, well-intentioned but impressionable people have not gathered all of the facts, and have instead have based their support on only the marketing, gimmicks, slogans, and tricks of a well-oiled, manipulative political machine.

For that folly, Malaysia may pay a heavy price one day - but for Anwar and his opposition party today, they have lost the elections, and the cheap veneer of America's "democracy promotion" racket is quickly peeling away. For now, America has tripped in mid-pivot toward its hegemonic agenda in Asia, with Malaysia's ruling government providing a model for other nations in the region to follow, should they be interested in sovereignty and independent progress - no matter how flawed or slow it may be.

Read More

In Wake of US-Israeli Attack on Syria, UN Reveals Terrorists Not Government Used Sarin Gas

So-called "red line" both drawn and then crossed by US-Saudi-Israeli axis and their terrorist proxies. 

May 6, 2013 (LD) - The reasoning behind recent US-Israeli attacks on Syria has been undermined further as the UN reveals Western-backed terrorists, not the Syrian government, deployed sarin gas during the 2 year conflict. Reuters reported in their article, "U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator," that:

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

Why the Small Amounts of Sarin Cited by Washington, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv are a Set Up 

The small amounts of sarin gas reportedly used would defy any tactical or strategic sense had they been deployed by the Syrian government to tip the balance in the destructive 2-year conflict. According to the US military's own assessments of chemical weapon use during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War, only under ideal conditions and with massive amounts of chemical agents can tactical and strategic outcomes be achieved - and that conventional weapons were still, by far, superior to chemical weapons of any kind.

A document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War" under "Appendix B: Chemical Weapons," provides a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the devastating 8 year Iranian-Iraqi conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial, not mass casualties.

The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):

Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.

We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.

Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.

Clearly, the minute amounts of sarin the West has accused the Syrian government of using, makes no tactical, political, or strategic sense. However, these small amounts of sarin gas, now suspected to be the work of Western-backed terrorists, would have been perfect for establishing a pretext for Western military intervention, and in fact, have been in part cited by the US and Israel in their latest, unprovoked aerial assault on Damascus.

The terrorists operating in Syria possess the means and motivation to carry out such an operation, as do their Western sponsors.

Where Did Western-backed Terrorists Obtain Sarin? 

A number of methods could have lent sarin gas to terrorists operating in Syria - from Turkey, Israel, and the US simply handing select units the chemical agent in a clandestine operation, to Libyan terrorists confirmed to have been flooding into Syria for the past 2 years, bringing looted chemical stockpiles with them after NATO's disastrous invasion in 2011 left them in the hands of a sectarian extremist regime.

Image: (via the Guardian) "Chemical containers in the Libyan desert. There are concerns unguarded weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist militants. Photograph: David Sperry/AP"

....

Indeed, Libya's arsenal had fallen into the hands of sectarian extremists with NATO assistance in 2011 in the culmination of efforts to overthrow the North African nation . Since then, Libya's militants led by commanders of Al Qaeda's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) have armed sectarian extremists across the Arab World, from as far West as Mali, to as far East as Syria.

Libyan LIFG terrorists are confirmed to be flooding into Syria from Libya. In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, "Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group," would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there."

Another Telegraph article, "Libya’s new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels," would admit

Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya's new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad's regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.

"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."

Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and have been flooding into the country ever since.

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion." 

....

In Time's article, "Libya’s Fighters Export Their Revolution to Syria," it is reported: 

Some Syrians are more frank about the assistance the Libyans are providing. “They have heavier weapons than we do,” notes Firas Tamim, who has traveled in rebel-controlled areas to keep tabs on foreign fighters. “They brought these weapons to Syria, and they are being used on the front lines.” Among the arms Tamim has seen are Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, known as the SAM 7.

Libyan fighters largely brush off questions about weapon transfers, but in December they claimed they were doing just that. “We are in the process of collecting arms in Libya,” a Libyan fighter in Syria told the French daily Le Figaro. “Once this is done, we will have to find a way to bring them here.”

Clearly NATO intervention in Libya has left a vast, devastating arsenal in the hands of sectarian extremists, led by US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization LIFG that is now exporting these weapons and militants to NATO's other front in Syria. It is confirmed that both Libyan terrorists and weapons are crossing the Turkish-Syrian border, with NATO assistance, and it is now clear that heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons have crossed the border too.

The Guardian reported in their November 2011 article, "Libyan chemical weapons stockpiles intact, say inspectors," that:

Libya's stockpiles of mustard gas and chemicals used to make weapons are intact and were not stolen during the uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, weapons inspectors have said.

But also reported that:

The abandonment or disappearance of some Gaddafi-era weapons has prompted concerns that such firepower could erode regional security if it falls into the hands of Islamist militants or rebels active in north Africa. Some fear they could be used by Gaddafi loyalists to spread instability in Libya.

Last month Human Rights Watch urged Libya's ruling national transitional council to take action over large numbers of heavy weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, it said were lying unguarded more than two months after Gaddafi was overthrown.

On Wednesday the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said the UN would send experts to Libya to help ensure nuclear material and chemical weapons did not fall into the wrong hands.

And while inspectors claim that Libya's chemical weapons are in the "government's" hands and not "extremists'," it is clear by the Libyan government's own admission, that they themselves are involved in sending fighters and weapons into Syria to support NATO and Al Qaeda's joint operation there.

Furthermore, it is confirmed that the US had been providing select terrorist units training in the handling of chemical weapons. CNN had reported in December of 2012, in a report titled, "Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons," that: 

The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

NATO not only ensured that chemical weapons in Libya remained in the hands of a proxy regime now openly arming, aiding, and sending fighters to assist terrorists in Syria, but also appears to have ensured these terrorists possessed the know-how on handling and using these weapons.

Israel vs. Hezbollah - Lie of Last Resort 

It appears that once again, those truly responsible for the most egregious atrocities and the crossing of "red lines," are the very Western interests drawing these lines in the first place.

The decision to shift attention away from the chemical weapons "red line," and toward Israel and Hezbollah is a desperate ploy to extend the faltering viability of the West's current operations in Syria.

While Israel, with the help of the Western media, attempts to portray itself as reluctantly entering a war it has so far avoided, it has been documented since as early as 2007 that Israel, along with the US and Saudi Arabia were openly conspiring to overthrow the Syrian government via armed and funded Al Qaeda terrorists and an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article, "The Redirection," stated (emphasis added):

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Of Israel and Saudi Arabia's partnership it specifically stated: 

"The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations."

Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region. It was stated even then, that using Israel to publicly carry out attacks on Iran would be preferable to the US, which would ultimately implicate the Saudis. It was stated: 

"The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”"

This ploy was further developed in 2009 by the Fortune 500-funded (page 19) Brookings Institution in their document, "Which Path to Persia?" In regards to Iran, and now clearly being utilized against Syria, the gambit was described as follows (emphasis added):

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) " -page 84-85, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

And:

"Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed.  Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest)  in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.

However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion)." -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

It is unlikely the West possesses the political, economic, or even tactical ability to pursue a greater regional war against Syria and Iran. The aim of using Israel against Syria is to alleviate pressure on Western-backed terrorists, create tension and opposition within the Syrian government and military, and perhaps even crack "fortress Damascus" ahead of one final push by whatever remains of the so-called "opposition." 

Brookings, in another report titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," stated specifically that: 

"In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly." -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Clearly, Israel has been involved in Western designs against Syria from the beginning. Its role has been intentionally kept subtle until now, specifically to exercise options of last resort. It is now up to Syria and its allies to ensure they both survive increasingly provocative assaults by the West, while both winning the political battle abroad and sweeping away the remnants of the West's terrorist proxies at home.

Read More