Wikileaks ha publicado correos electrónicos condenatorios embarazosos para Siria y exponiendo a los “opositores de Siria”, dice Julian Assange. Había más de 2,4 millones de correos electrónicos que muestran entre la correspondencia a “figuras políticas sirias, de ministerios y empresas asociadas” entre agosto de 2006 y marzo de 2012.
En un informe de la Associated Press, Sarah Harrison de “WikiLeaks” le dijo a los periodistas del Frontline Club de Londres que los correos electrónicos revelan la interacción entre el gobierno sirio y las empresas occidentales, aunque se negó a entrar en detalles. … WikiLeaks publicó sólo un puñado de los documentos a su sitio web el jueves, pero la revelación – cuya fuente de WikiLeaks no ha dejado en claro – no sería la primera fuga importante de correos electrónicos de Siria “.
Harrison dijo que el “material es vergonzoso para Siria”, pero afirma que los oponentes de Siria también se avergonzarán. ”Esto nos ayuda no sólo para criticar a uno u otro grupo, sino para comprender sus intereses, acciones y pensamientos. Es sólo a través de la comprensión de este conflicto que podemos tener la esperanza de resolverlo. “
Los llamados ” archivos sirios” poseen numerosas correspondencias diplomáticas que son más que una exposición a información privilegiada que la revelación de WikiLeaks referente al papel del gobierno de los EE.UU. y la responsabilidad en Irak y Afganistán.
The North African nation of Mali, whose borders exist within the epicenter of recent Western-backed destabilization efforts throughout the continent, has French-backed war in Cote d’Ivoire on its southern borders and Western attempts to destabilize Algeria to the north.
Image: Mali, represented in green, is located just south of Algeria, west of uranium-rich Niger, and north of Guinea and the recently French-besieged nation of Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast.)
As recent reports of a military coup emerge, indicating that troops have seized control of the capital city Bamako, including the presidential palace, the flickers of Western-destabilization can be seen at play in the country’s north. Labeled as a “Tuareg rebellion,” the resulting violence from warfare in Mali’s north has been cited as a contributing factor to the military’s move to overthrow the government in Bamako, claiming the ruling government has left troops under-armed to deal with the increasing violence.
Western media cites “weapons left over from the Libyan civil war,” as the impetus for “Tuareg” separatism. However, while it is true the nomadic Tuareg people exist in a region that includes Mali, southern Algeria, Niger, and parts of western Libya, it should also be noted that Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) operate in territory that almost perfectly overlays that of the Tuareg. AQIM are also the more likely recipients of Libyan weapons handed to them by their Libyan Al Qaeda affiliates, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who led the 2011 NATO-backed rebellion against Qaddafi.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the country. On March 4-6, AIPAC will hold its annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. The speakers include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich, and a host of other powerful politicians.
AIPAC has tremendous clout, but its influence has been disastrous for U.S. foreign policy and U.S. democracy. Here are 10 reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous.
1. AIPAC is lobbying Congress to promote a military confrontation with Iran. AIPAC — like the Israeli government — is demanding that the United States attack Iran militarily to prevent Iran from having the technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons, even though U.S. officials say Iran isn’t trying to build a weapon (and even though Israel has hundreds of undeclared nuclear weapons). AIPAC has successfully lobbied the U.S. government to adopt crippling economic sanctions on Iran, including trying to cut off Iran’s oil exports, despite the fact that these sanctions raise the price of gas and threaten the U.S. economy.
2. AIPAC promotes Israeli policies that are in direct opposition to international law. These include the establishment of colonies (settlements) in the Occupied West Bank and the confiscation of Palestinian land in its construction of the 26-foot-high concrete “separation barrier” running through the West Bank. The support of these illegal practices makes it impossible to achieve a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
3. AIPAC’s call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens our national security. The United States’ one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, thus endangering our troops and sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks against us. Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, 2010, admitted that the Israel-Palestine conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.” He also said that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”
“The President just got in there. But in four years, will we still like him? In eight years, are we gonna still hype him? What if he says we’ve gotta go into Iran and kill a million people? Will you still be down with the man? You’d better wake up and smell the coffee.
This is why the radio station don’t toss me. Me–and I’m on the microphone–I stand with people like Alex Jones. This is the truth I’m down with. I’ve never been about no fuckin’ government. I do for myself; speak for myself. Teach myself; reach for myself. Hip hop, you gotta do the same thing. Listen to me now, while I rap and sing. The New World Order just put on a black face.” – KRS-One, January 24, 2009.
Obama has a PR advantage over his Republican rivals because he is a black President. A Black President doesn’t get criticized by the left because he is black. They think that a black president can’t be an evil imperialist in the same way as a white president. I think that is one of the political codes in politically correct Washington.
In American politics, ambitious black politicians use the race card like it is a magic card. And it is. Being black in power is a good image boost, which is why Obama was handpicked to be President by the oligarchy during this time of trial and transition.
When Obama bombs Persia, Obama’s Zombies Will Say: How can Obama be evil when he’s black? Black presidents don’t start evil wars. Only white presidents do that because the white man is the devil.