Iraq: a boomerang for the United States





November 30, 2006 - Iraq Is Bush's Boomerang War

20 January 2008 - Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”

July 17, 2012 – USA and Al Qaeda: Holy Alliance:

June 17, 2013 - Obama Lies America Into Another War:

Jun 21, 2013 - Russia Says U.S. Risks Al-Qaeda Boomerang With Syria Rebels:

September 25, 2013 - Breaking: Whistleblower Reveals U.S. State Dept. Ships Arms Directly to al-Qaeda - A former CIA gun runner revealed that the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in order to cover up the U.S. State Department’s direct arm shipments to al-Qaeda

December 16, 2013 - Al-Qaeda Now Has Weapons US Sent To Syria
For those worried that dumping US arms into the Al-Qaeda dominated Syrian opposition areas was a bad idea, you win. After President Obama bypassed a rule on funding terrorists, US arms began flowing to the Syrian opposition. The arms were, in some abysmally stupid theory, supposed to go to the “moderate” opposition only.

21.1.2014 - US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10588308/US-secretly-backs-rebels-to-fight-al-Qaeda-in-Syria.html


11:55 Gepost door Jan Boeykens in Iraq, Latest News, United States | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |


Fight terrorism before it’s too late


You can better fight terrorism and extremism than to support it with your government
because one day it will come to you and it will destroy you and your loved ones.

Photo: bomb attack Boston


July 17, 2012 – USA and Al Qaeda: Holy Alliance:

June 17, 2013 - Obama Lies America Into Another War:

September 25, 2013 - Breaking: Whistleblower Reveals U.S. State Dept. Ships Arms Directly to al-Qaeda
A former CIA gun runner revealed that the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in order to cover up the U.S. State Department’s direct arm shipments to al-Qaeda

December 16, 2013 - Al-Qaeda Now Has Weapons US Sent To Syria
For those worried that dumping US arms into the Al-Qaeda dominated Syrian opposition areas was a bad idea, you win. After President Obama bypassed a rule on funding terrorists, US arms began flowing to the Syrian opposition. The arms were, in some abysmally stupid theory, supposed to go to the “moderate” opposition only.

22:42 Gepost door Jan Boeykens in extremism, Fight terrorism, United States, US | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |


Latest News Syria: Campaign of United Nations Human Rights Council !

UN Human Rights Council .jpg

As a reminder: 'UN Watch called on the U.S. and the EU to lead a vigorous campaign to defeat Syria's candidacy for the U.N.'s 47-nation Human Rights Council'...


'Nicaragua's Ortega, supporter of Qaddafi, also a candidate'

GENEVA, March 9 - One week after Col. Muammar Qaddafi's regime was suspended from the U.N.'s 47-nation Human Rights Council for "gross and systematic" violations, the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad declared it is running for a seat, in the upcoming May 20th elections.

"It's an outrage," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights group. "Qaddafi was just ousted by the UN on grounds that a government which brutalizes its own people doesn't belong on the world's highest human rights body. Well, the Assad regime runs a notorous police state that denies the Syrian people the right to free speech and freedom of assembly, jails journalists and tortures dissidents. It sponsors some of the world's most vicious terrorist groups and has assassinated numerous journalists and opponents in Lebanon. The UN and the cause of human rights will be severely damaged if Syria's Assad regime wins a seat."

UN Watch called on the U.S. and the EU to lead a vigorous campaign to defeat Syria's candidacy, and to ensure there will be competition on the Asian slate of candidates. Currently, there are only three declared candidates for the four alloted seats.

"Last year, the democracies fought a successful campaign to defeat Iran, and persuaded other countries to compete. Yet they said and did absolutely nothing on Libya -- perhaps due to lucrative oil and business deals -- and Qaddafi won by a landslide. It's vital this year that the US and the EU announce early that they are opposed to having the oppressive Ba'athist regime of Bashar Assad judging the world on human rights," said Neuer.

Neuer said that Syria clearly failed to meet the criteria of UNGA Resolution 60/251, which established the UN Human Rights Council in 2006.  General Assembly members are obliged to elect states to the Council by "tak[ing] into account the candidates’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto." The resolution also provides that consideration ought to be given to whether the candidate can meet the obligations of Council membership, which include (a) to "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" and (b) to "fully cooperate with the Council."

If there is competition within a regional slate, the candidates with the most votes in each region win, so long as they receive the affirmative votes of 97 other countries (an absolute majority of the membership of the UNGA).

The frequent use of "closed lists" in the elections, said Neuer, deprive the Member States of the UNGA of the opportunity to exercise the responsibilities described in the 2006 UNGA Resolution creating the Council and – because of the records of many of this year’s candidates – threaten to further weaken the Council, which still struggles to establish a reputation superior to its widely disparaged predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission.

Neuer expressed concern that many regions would not offer any competition, ensuring the election of Syria and also Nicaragua.

UN Watch slammed Nicaragua's candidacy."Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, who accepted the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize in 2009, recently renewed his support for the Libyan dictator despite Qaddafi's ongoing massacre of innocent civilians. By effectively supporting murder, Ortega's government is clearly disqualified from being an arbiter of human rights." 


Note: UN Watch is an instrument of the American government

May 29, 2013: 'Israel ready to reengage with UN Human Rights Council':

20:33 Gepost door Jan Boeykens in Israel, Latest News, Syria, UNHCR, United States | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |


China daily: 'Iraq war a bitter lesson for US'

Iraq war a bitter lesson for US.jpg


On March 20, 2003, former US president George W. Bush joined hands with Tony Blair, then British prime minister, to invade Iraq without declaring a war, saying that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was harboring al-Qaida.

Although the US-led coalition overthrew Saddam Hussein, it got entangled in a long "counter-terrorism" and "counter-insurgency" war that not only claimed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis' lives, but also eroded US hegemony. It was left to Bush's successor Barack Obama to get the US out of the mess by withdrawing American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

By wantonly demonizing Saddam Hussein and waging an unjust war against Iraq, the US wanted to dominate the Middle East and consolidate its hegemony over the world. Colin Powell, then US secretary of state, even gave false testimony before the UN Security Council and presented fake "evidence" to prove Iraq had unconventional weapons in an attempt to get the council's authorization to launch an attack on Iraq.

After failing to obtain the approval, the US-led coalition bypassed the Security Council and launched an all-out war against a sovereign state on the pretext of "liberating" its people from a "tyrant". The US action was a blatant violation of the UN Charter and the norms governing international relations, and had repercussions across the face of the globe. It was clear right from the beginning that the US invasion of Iraq was not for the "liberation" of Iraq but to consolidate American hegemony.

After the Sept 11, 2001, attacks, the US used its might as the only superpower (and to a lesser degree the sympathy of the international community) to launch a war in Afghanistan at the end of 2001.

But instead of withdrawing from Afghanistan after ousting the Taliban from power, Washington broadened the scope of its "war on terror" by trying to orchestrate a "democratic" transformation in the Islamic world, labeling some countries as "axis of evil" and pursuing unilateralism in international relations. In the process, the US extended the "war on terror" to Iraq.

The US-led invasion of Iraq resulted in mass civilian casualties and huge economic loss, leaving the country in tatters and fuelling bloody sectarian violence that gave birth to a new faction of al-Qaida in a country where it never had any base. The blame for this mayhem and chaos rests squarely on US shoulders.

The Iraq war (along with that in Afghanistan) has also had strategic implications on international relations.

First, it signaled the decline of US hegemony. Along with the US-led "war on terror" and the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war led to a sharp increase in US military spending that put the federal government under heavy debt and indirectly triggered the 2008 financial crisis. The highly expensive Iraq war is also closely related to the "fiscal cliff" and debt crisis facing the US today.

Second, the two wars indirectly accelerated the multi-polarization process in international relations, allowing emerging powers to come into the limelight. The two wars and the "war on terror" have greatly denuded the US of its strategic resources and eroded its "sole superpower" status.

As a result, the Obama administration has made extensive changes in its foreign policy by ending the "war on terror", withdrawing US troops from Iraq, speeding up the withdrawal from Afghanistan and shifting its strategic focus to the burgeoning Asia-Pacific region. The US has also begun using smart power in greater measure in its foreign affairs.

Third, the war in Iraq broke the existing balance of power in the Middle East, especially that between Iraq and Iran. It changed the political landscape of and severely weakened Iraq, leaving Iran, which the US considers its "enemy No 1" to become stronger. The rise of pro-Iran Shiites to power in Iraq has been favorable to Iran and detrimental to US interests, which is a bitter irony of history.

The Iraq war has been more than a lesson for the international community.

An important reason why the US could wage wars in two countries was the serious imbalance of power that prevailed in the world a decade ago. Had global checks and balances been in place, the US could not have had its way.

Now that the global financial crisis and the emergence of BRICS have checked the marauding policies of Washington and brought about some sanity in the global power balance, the US-led West can no longer continue its hegemonic policies. Hegemonism and wars of aggression, no matter how high-sounding they are made out to be, are doomed to fail.

Only with the authorization of the UN Security Council can a country (or a group of countries) exercise the right to intervene in another. Countries that pursue unilateral intervention violate international law.

Toward the end of 2010, some North African and Middle East countries experienced political upheavals. One among them, the Syrian civil war, is still on. Some Western powers are eager to seize the opportunity to "intervene" in the country and have stepped up efforts to arm Syrian opposition forces in an attempt to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government and minimize Iran's influence in the region.

The security situation in the Middle East has become increasingly sinister, which should remind the Western powers of the painful lessons of the Iraq war. If they ignore that lesson, they will end up shooting themselves in the foot.

The author is deputy director of World Politics Research Institute, affiliated to the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.


21:18 Gepost door Jan Boeykens in China, China daily, Iraq, United States | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |


News Syria: United States prepares bombing of Syria


As was the case in Indochina, the U.S. government uses special forces to destabilize governments and to prepare bombings

From 1964 through 1973, the United States flew 580,000 bombing runs over Laos — one every 9 minutes for 10 years. More than 2 million tons of ordnance was unloaded on the countryside, double the amount dropped on Nazi Germany in World War II.


July 15, 2012

Strategically Timed Syrian Massacre
By Stephen Lendman

Insurgents are enlisted, armed, funded, trained, and directed by Western and regional special forces.
They decide strategy, targets, and timing. Armies need leadership to operate effectively. So do killer gangs.
Special forces have tactical expertise. They're directing Washington's war on Syria. They plan and lead attacks and bombings.
Treimseh's massacre was strategically timed. Questions about it remained unanswered. More on that below.
Coming when the Security Council considered harsher anti-Assad measures raises obvious red flags.
Why then is clear. At issue is pressuring Russia and China to bend. So far both countries hold firm. They oppose further sanctions and outside intervention.
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov was clear, saying.
"In case (Western countries) decided to submit the draft resolution for voting on Thursday although they already know that it is rejected, Russia will veto the draft resolution."
Washington won't quit trying. Hillary Clinton is an unabashed war criminal. She had direct involvement in America's war on Libya. She's at it again targeting Iran and Syria.
She's pushing for Security Council authorization for war without saying so. On July 13, a State Department Press Statement headlined "Assad Regime Massacre in Traymseh," saying:
She's "outraged (about) another massacre committed by the Syrian regime" she claims killed "over 200 men, women, and children...."
Official death toll numbers aren't known. Reports suggest insurgents comprised most of them.
Despite no corroborating evidence, she claims "the regime deliberately murdered innocent civilians. Syria cannot be peaceful, stable, or democratic until Assad goes and a political transition begins."
"Those who committed these atrocities will be identified and held accountable."
"(T)he international community must keep increasing the pressure on the regime...."
"The Security Council should put its full weight behind" regime change.
There must "be consequences for non-compliance."
"History will judge this Council. Its members must ask themselves whether continuing to allow the Assad regime to commit unspeakable violence against its own people is the legacy they want to leave."
Washington's bloodstained hands are all over the Treimseh massacre. Obama officials also bear direct responsibility for earlier Houla and Qubair ones.
Expect much more ahead. Likely larger-scale false flags are planned. Assad will be wrongfully blamed.
Washington will either get Security Council authorization for intervention or circumvent it. None approved war on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya.
International law is clear. The UN Charter prohibits attacking another nation except in self-defense - until the Security Council acts. It has final say.
The right of self-defense is limited solely to deterring armed attacks, preventing future ones after initial assaults, or reversing the consequences of enemy aggression, such as heavily armed Western-backed Syrian insurgents.
International law supports Assad. He's obligated to defend his people under armed attack.
At the same time, he must conform to the principles of necessity, distinction, and proportionality.
Necessity permits only attacking military targets.
Distinction pertains to distinguishing between civilian and military ones.
Proportionality prohibits disproportionate force likely to damage nonmilitary sites and/or harm civilian lives.
A fourth consideration requires preventing unnecessary suffering, especially affecting noncombatant civilians.
If these objective aren't possible, attacks are prohibited, but not when civilian lives are threatened by hostile elements doing most of the killing.
Clearly that's the case in Syria.
Just war, humanitarian intervention, and/or responsibility to protect (R2P) notions don't wash. International law is clear and unequivocal. So is constitutional law. Only Congress can declare war, not presidents.
It hasn't deterred America's permanent war policy. Multiple direct and proxy ones rage illegally. Obama itches for more. So does Clinton. Media scoundrels support them.
On July 13, the Washington Post published an AP report headlined " 'Outraged' Clinton demands UN Security Council action after new Syria massacre," saying:
She demands Security Council action. Without naming either country, she effectively blamed Russia and China for blocking Washington's rage for war.
She wants Security Council language authorizing stiffer sanctions and clear steps for regime change. Noncompliance assures consequences, she warned.
Ban Ki-moon played his usual complicit role. On July 13, he said:
He's "outraged by reports of horrific (Treimseh) mass killings."
Despite no evidence whatever, he "condemn(ed), in the strongest possible terms, the indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and shelling....including by firing from helicopters."
Again he pointed fingers the wrong way. Assad was wrongfully blamed for Western-backed killings.
"The Syrian Government must halt this bloodshed," he said.
"I call upon all Member States to take collective and decisive action to immediately and fully stop the tragedy unfolding in Syria. Inaction becomes a license for further massacres." 
"Members of the Security Council must build on the Action Group communiqué and follow through on their promises to act accordingly."
He wants regime change. He suggested outside intervention. Initiating it means war. NATO or third party belligerence violates international law. He's sworn to uphold it.
Like Kofi Annan, his predecessor, his record reflects failure and betrayal. They're both imperial tools. They spurned their mandate to promote peace. They're complicit with Washington-led NATO's crimes of war and against humanity.
They're both at it again. They're advancing the ball for war. On Friday, the Security Council met in closed session. Talks got nowhere. Russia and China won't play Washington's game.
An unnamed Western diplomat blamed Moscow, saying:
"The problem is Russia. I'm not saying they are not working behind the scenes, but clearly it hasn't worked and they have to admit that either they haven't been pushing Assad hard enough or they have and they have failed to persuade him."
"At the moment, the effect of what they are doing, maybe not the intention, but the effect, is just to give space for the massacres to continue."
French President Francois Hollande added:
"A regime has decided to use force to crush its own people." By blocking tougher action, Russia and China let "chaos and war take hold in Syria."
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said:
"Without anticipating the results of the investigation of the crime, on which we insist, we would like to stress that we have no doubt that this atrocity benefits the forces that do not seek peace but obstinately keep trying to sow the seeds of sectarian strife and civil conflict in Syria, and those for whom the grief and suffering of the Syrian people mean nothing."
He added that reports suggest civilians were shot at point blank range "by unidentified monsters."
He emphasized that killings occurred while Security Council members met behind closed doors. Without saying so, he likely inferred its suspicious timing.
Russia's UN envoy Alexander Pankin said:
"We are prepared for various compromises, but there is the ‘red line’ that we cannot step over."
Conflict resolution can't succeed "with the stick of sanctions directed against only one party to the Syrian process – the government."
Russia drafted a resolution extending UNSMIS observers another three months.
Washington, Britain, and France want it limited to 45 days. They also insist on a 10 day deadline imposed solely on Syria to end violence and withdraw all troops from cities and towns.
Otherwise they demand Security Council action under the UN Charter's Chapter VII. They range from economic sanctions to blockades or military intervention if other measures fail.
Pankin knows the risks. He warned about "harsher steps (including) the use of military force" Moscow opposes.
Events in Treimseh are still being sorted out. Insurgents attacked the village and nearby Syrian troops. They counterattacked. Killer gangs were routed. They suffered heavy casualties.
SANA state media reported it. Many insurgents were captured.
SANA said terrorists "spread across the town before the army entered it, and that this was based on orders they received to attack law-enforcement forces and prevent civilians from going to work."
Four captured insurgents appeared on Syrian television. They participated with "around 250 gunmen."
They acted on direct orders. They were surprised when security forces confronted them. Many insurgents were killed. Scores were arrested. Clashes lasted around 90 minutes.
Gunmen had been gathering in and around the town for nearly three weeks. On Thursday, they heard that army forces encircled it. They got orders to attack.
Insurgent Mohammad Sattouf said "he was in charge of fabricating videos of protests and uploading them to YouTube."
On July 14, SANA said security forces acted "in response to" Treimseh residents calls for help. Death squads were attacking civilians and "exploding a number of houses."
Large weapons supplies were seized. They include:
"45 machine guns, 13 Nato sniper rifles, 9 RPG launchers, 7 BKC machineguns, 3 mortars, 3 hand-made rockets, 14 pump-action rifles, 10 military pistols, 24 mortar shells, 32 RPG shells, 53 machinegun chargers, 30 sniper rifle chargers, 8 explosive devices, 10 grenades, 150 detonators, 1500 sniper rifle bullets, 5000 BKC machinegun bullets, 4200 machinegun bullets, 500 pistol bullets, 7 gas masks, 5 prism binoculars, 25 satellite wireless devices, 30 shields, in addition to materials for making explosive devices, explosives and large amounts of gunpowder, TNT templates, highly explosive C4 material, a field hospital and an amount of military equipment, stolen cars and registration licenses."
Eyewitnesses said over 50 civilians were killed and many more injured before security forces arrived. Most deaths likely were insurgents.
Western accounts are entirely fabricated. They're bald-faced lies. Media scoundrels regurgitate them. They're complicit in Washington's rage for war. Attacking Syria could happen any time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Image: The Lao National Regulatory Authority for UXO (NRA) has created a Google Earth file showing US Airforce air strikes in Khammouane Province, Lao PDR (screengrab above).


austemb.laos@dfat.gov.au (Australian embassy in Laos), embassyprc@laonet.net (Chinese embassy in Laos), embajada@laotel.com (Cuban embassy in Laos), indiaemb@laotel.com (Indian embassy in Laos), malvntian@kln.gov.my, mwvntian@laopdr.com (Malaysian embassy in Laos), rusemb@laotel.com (Russian embassy in Laos), dsqvn@laotel.com (Vietnamese embassy in Laos), kbrivte@laotel.com (Indonesian embassy in Laos)