CONFIRMED: Turkey Running Proxy-Invasion of Syria

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

The Washington Post has just published an article with the very misleading titled, “Turkey a hub for Syria revolution as illegal border crossing points abound,” in which it describes “Salafi Muslims,” who have “come to offer help from the countries of the Persian Gulf region” arming and joining the so-called “Free Syrian Army.” The article also claims “weapons are ferried into Syria, delivered by Turkish military trucks and picked up by fighters on the other side in the dead of night.”

A more apt title would be, “Turkey hosts invading Saudi and Qatari mercenary army.”

This confirms earlier reports featured in the New York Times and the Washington Post, that not only are the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding and arming militants via Turkey, but that the US is coordinating the logistical aspects of the operation as well.

Likewise, CNN has attempted to spin concessions made by its own Ivan Watson, traveling with sectarian extremists into Syria, where it was admitted:

Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade’s ranks.

A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a “platoon” of Libyan fighters to armed movement.

CNN has now added:

On Wednesday, CNN’s crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as … a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.

CNN then attempts to claim the “real” Syrian “revolutionaries” “do not want an Islamist political agenda to be mixed in with their revolution.”

Photo: The face of Libya’s “revolution” was literally Al Qaeda. Abdul Hakim Belhaj, commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by the US State Departmentas a “Foreign Terrorists Organization,” was armed and backed by NATO (including the US) in his efforts to topple the government of Libya. Belhaj more recently pledged (NATO) weapons, cash, and Libyan militants to the “Free Syrian Army.”

….

Unfortunately for CNN, despite its best efforts, it cannot qualify its claim that these foreign fighters are “unwanted,” – for the so-called “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) has long since exposed itself as a sectarian extremist front infiltrated with foreign fighters and foreign weapons,stretching back as far as 2007.

Saudis and Qataris Attempt “Arab League-UN” Rescue of Faltering Mercenaries

Perhaps as a sign the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are stretched to the limits of their ability to covertly undermine Syria, they have announced plans to seek “UN General Assembly action” for a “political transition and establishment of a democratic government in Syria.” For the despotic, unelected, grandiose nepotism of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to call for a “democratic government in Syria” is truly a move made as much out of desperation as it is one of farcical hypocrisy.

Image: In “progressive” Saudi Arabia, who is calling for a “democratic transition” in Syria, women are not even allowed to drive, let alone vote for their leaders – who with Qatar, are amongst the few remaining absolute monarchies on Earth.

….

Both Gulf State nations are run by absolute monarchies – some of the only kind still left in the world. In Saudi Arabia, not only are elections out of the question, but women are in fact, prohibited from even driving. How the Saudis themselves are not subject to UN resolutions, open condemnations, sanctions of all kinds, and ultimatums over their own dictatorship is a true indication of the bankrupted, hypocritical, self-serving dysfunction that punctuates a Western corporate-financier dominated “international order.” It is an “international community” that creates the illusion of urgency and injustice when it seeks to expand its interests into one nation, but conveniently ignores real injustice when it jeopardizes their interests elsewhere.


Turkey Supports Subversion of Syria, While Crushing Dissent at Home

Turkey itself has been waging a decades-long bloody campaign against its own armed uprising in predominately Kurdish areas bordering Syria, Iraq, and Iran. In fact, at one point, the US allowed Turkish tanks to cross into American-occupied Iraq to attack villages suspected of harboring armed Kurdish separatists in 2008, mirroring the very tactics Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is now condemning Syria for. The Guardian reported in their 2008 article, “Iraq demands Turkey withdraw from border conflict with Kurds,” that the conflict had been raging since 1984 and had cost the lives of 40,000 people.

Turkey has in recent weeks, violated Iraq’s airspace in order to strafe and bomb Kurdish villages inside Iraqi territory. Iraq has lodged a complaint with the UN Security Council – a complaint likely to go unnoticed.

One can only imagine the “threat” Syria would be portrayed as if it were to likewise strafe and bomb targets beyond its borders in pursuit of now admittedly foreign-armed, foreign fighters invading its country via Turkey. Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, would most likely invoke “Chapter V” of NATO’s treaty, a mutual defense clause that makes an attack on one alliance member an attack on all members – thus opening up the door for more direct foreign military intervention.

Turkey’s ruling government led by PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is in fact undermining its own national security by running errands for NATO versus Syria. By supporting foreign terrorists invading neighboring Syria, it undermines the legitimacy of its own campaign against Kurdish rebels within its borders, not to mention beyond them. Turkey’s current stance vis-a-vis Syria is not shared by all members of Turkey’s government, and at this critical stage, now more than ever they need to make their voices heard both to the Turkish people and to the people of the world.

Carving Out “Safe Havens” for the US State Department’s SNC

The ultimate goal of inundating Syria with foreign fighters and weapons while Saudi Arabia and Qatar farcically call for a “democratic transition” in Syria is to create a “safe haven” from which the US State Department coached and directed “Syrian National Council” (SNC) can rule from – further dividing and undermining the Syrian nation-state.

This geopolitical objective was first summarized in the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s March 2012 Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf)and recently reiterated almost verbatim by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran. In their report, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is specifically stated (emphasis added):

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership.This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” –page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Image: Also out of the Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

The Brookings Institution’s “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” are meant to be established by NATO-member Turkey, who had been threatening to partially invade Syria in order to accomplish this. And while Turkey claims this is based on “humanitarian concerns,”examining Turkey’s abysmal human rights record in addition to its own ongoing armed campaign against the Kurdish people both within and beyond its borders, it is clear they are simply fulfilling the agenda established by their Western patrons on Wall Street and in the city of London.

There is still extreme danger that with Aleppo still under threat by foreign fighters and the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” NATO is preparing cross-border provocations to justify the “limited military power” Brookings calls for in establishing its prescribed “safe havens.” Fabricated “massacres,” “humanitarian crisis,” and false flag attacks involving chemical weapons are also pretexts the West might use for a limited military incursions into Syria in an attempt to cripple its military and lend its militant proxies a “safe haven” in Syria to rule over.

Tony Cartalucci is the writer and editor at Land Destroyer

US Military and Local Police Working Together on American Streets

Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

The US military is being usedto protect civilian events, like the 2012 Democratic and Republican Party National Conventions in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina.

USNORTHCOM and Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, has readily admitted that US armed forces will collaborate with local law enforcement “if called upon”.

In fact, more than 20,000 troops were brought home and readied for deployment within the US to assist in “civil unrest and crowd control”.

The US military will prop up the US Secret Service “for operational security reasons we do not discuss the numbers of military personnel and resources that are involved. Additionally, we do not share our operational plans,” said U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. William G. Lewis.

The extent of use of military forces on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building.

An estimate 500 military police and dogs will be used as “law enforcement battalions”. These soldiers, having served on tours in Afghanistan, will now be activated and based out of military bases across America to help local police forces.

National Guard has been witnessed in Virginia conducting “wellness checks” and patrolling residential neighborhoods as well as downtown city areas.

In Southern California, the TSA have been caught patrolling train stations and bus terminals.

The US Congress has given over $25 million in more funding to support unannounced TSA checkpoints.

According to one whistleblower : “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”

Military soldiers and TSA checkpoints are not the only tricks up the US government’s sleeve.

Researchers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, led by Roland Brockers, have developed micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs) that utilize a camera pointed at the ground to navigate, choose landing destinations and identify people and targets.

Operators have only to command the MAVs to a location, beginning with the starting point, and the specialized GPS system will guide the micro-drone through mapped out sites, dimensions and landscapes.

Other military defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and LaserMotive have combined to preform drone testing with the use of wireless energy technology.

While the US government is facilitating the military on American streets and the TSA are beefing up their range with new checkpoints and areas of patrol, the national debate over gun control continues.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) are bringing attention to the anti-gun purveyors like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who are calling for immediate restriction of gun sales to average Americans.

Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston and member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, commented: “The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead – and we demand they act now.”
NRA members are reporting, according to a new survey, that they are not only purchasing more guns because of recent events like the Batman shooting, but recognize that their purchases may put them on a terrorist watch list.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, acknowledges that gun control is a heated topic “in the wake of this horrible shooting” but that “more gun control could actually make situations worse by making it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry guns, which means for lunatics that there are more unarmed, potential victims.”

Velleco admits that as of now, legislation is lacking in the gun control debate, however he recognizes that these anti-gun advocates are “kind of like vultures to take advantage of a situation to further an agenda that doesn’t get traction and that people don’t support.”

The NRA has political pull in swing states, which is being suggested by the MSM as a deterrent from Obama to support stricter gun laws; however Obama and Clinton have both publicly stated their support of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being discussed by the UN in conference in New York until July 27th.

Susanne Posel’s post first appeared on her blog, Occupy Corporatism.

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.

Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.

Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.

Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?

Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.

Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axerlrod, announced earlier this week that the administration will push for a constitutional amendment to rollback free speech if his boss is re-elected in November.

“When we win, we will use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn this back,” Axlerod said on Wednesday. “I understand the free speech argument, but when the Koch brothers can spend $400 million, more than the McCain campaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that’s very concerning.”

http://r.unicornmedia.com/content.aspx?uid=AC26FE85-334B-4A21-B72C-154F743F5739&at=7b3c6199-eae4-4027-bdcf-136a2c01c5c6

“This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,” remarked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

“America was built on free speech — the most important part of the Bill of Rights — and so we need to defend speech we don’t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up,” he said.

McConnell accused the Obama administration of using the the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to muzzle its critics. He added that the tactic is reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list in the 1970s. White House Counsel John Dean said Nixon wanted to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

In April, Rory Cooper wrote about Obama’s “Truth Team“ campaign website. He noted “subtle differences between Obama’s and Nixon’s enemy lists. President Nixon kept his secret, and allegedly used the force of the government to punish adversaries. President Obama’s list is open and designed to elicit public scorn, shame and rebuke. There is no current evidence the President has manipulated the federal machinery punitively. But the message remains clear, if you support a philosophical adversary, you will face some retribution.”

Cooper penned his commentary following remarks made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed a three tiered plan to ram through Congress what is known as the DISCLOSE Act. It would restrict the political speech of “covered organizations,” including most television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and think tanks.

Axlerod’s remarks about the First Amendment reveal that the so-called Team Obama approach to silencing the political opposition is not particularly effective. It also reveals a brazen contempt for the Bill of Rights.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the court said the First Amendment applies to all entities, including corporations:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. … This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. … Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

Obama and Axlerod may disagree with the concept of “corporate personhood” (except, of course, when it comes to the banks and corporations that support Obama), but the issue has far larger implications than simply preventing the dreaded Koch brothers from spending a small portion of their billions for the purpose of political speech.

If Obama manages to amend the Constitution – a remote possibility at best (but then considering the way the Supreme Court is currently construed, maybe not) – restrictions on free speech will undoubtedly be used against opponents outside the political establishment.

Axlerod’s comments underscore a deep-seated hostility toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as McConnell noted (not that Republicans are exactly champions of liberty).

Obama and the Democrats apparently hate that the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as inherent in our humanity. Axlerod’s comments reveal Obama – who we are told is a constitutional scholar – does not agree.

War Drums for Syria?

Ron Paul
Infowars.com
June 5, 2012

War drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of “regime change” in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.

It may be the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait for a full investigation — unless the truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a US attack.

There is ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.

Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.

Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops are still there.

The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.

We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct “non-lethal” assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don’t know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, “I think the military option should be considered.” And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.

We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.

The above was taken from Ron Paul’s House web page.