January 15, 2012
Qatar Emir Call For Troops In Syria Is Two Month Old
NATO denies military intervention plans in Syria, January 13 2012
"At present, there is no discussion at all of a NATO role with respect to Syria," NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero told Xinhua by phone.
Haven't we seen such before? Oh, yeah:
NATO has no plans to intervene in Libya: Rasmussen, February 24 2011
"I would like to stress that NATO has no plans to intervene and we have not received any request," Rasmussen said after talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
We documented the Rassmussen/NATO headlines which followed after the one above.
But there is another more curious headline that ran yesterday: Emir of Qatar calls for Arab troops in Syria
The Emir of Qatar says that Arab troops should be sent to Syria to stop a deadly crackdown that has claimed the lives of thousands of people in the past ten month.
Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani's comments to CBS "60 Minutes", which will be aired Sunday, are the first statements by an Arab leader calling for the deployment of troops inside Syria.
That dictator emir was also the one who pressed arranged for the Arab League to invite NATO to attack Libya.
But what is really curious here (and what only Qatar's AlJazeera(!) reports) is that the CBS interview is old:
In an interview due to be aired on Sunday with US broadcaster CBS for the news programme 60 Minutes, Sheikh Hamad was asked if he was in favour of Arab nations intervening, to which he replied: "For such a situation to stop the killing ... some troops should go to stop the killing."
The interview was recorded in mid-November.
Why and on who's request did CBS hold back this interview for two month?
Were the preparations not yet finished for the NATO intervention in Syria? Was some additional time needed to make the Arab League observer mission fail to convince other Arab states to agree to the next war phase?
The interview was given after Syria in early November agreed to an Arab league cease fire plan which the rebels immediately rejected. "Western" news by now is always forgetting that last point. Despite continuing attacks from the opposition the Syrian government has largely followed the agreement, pulled back tanks, released prisoners and is implementing reforms. The observer mission was agreed to on December 19. Unless renewed it will run out in five days.
But it seems that all along the plan was not to allow for a peaceful solution for Syria. Why else would the Emir of Qatar, in an interview for the U.S. public, call for troops to attack Syria back in mid November?
Russia now anticipates an imminent wider war in the Middle East and is preparing its options.
Posted by b on January 15, 2012 at 08:42 AM | Permalink
interesting. i read about the 60 min program and his call for troops yesterday but nothing about it being 2 months old. i guess they've decided to close in on syria. whatever gloves they were wearing, taking them off soon.
Posted by: annie | Jan 15, 2012 10:04:36 AM | 1
Mid-November was about the same time that the Arab League suspended Syria (Nov 12) primarily as a result of Qatar, buoyed by its success in Libya, promoting the move to isolate the emir's former friend Assad.
Life plays the strangest tricks. Here a dictator is on the one hand supporting repression of the Arab Spring in Bahrain, while decisively promoting the Arab Spring in certain other places -- Libya and Syria.
from the starnews, Nov 14:
But for all the contradictions in its policies — and there are many — Qatar is advancing a decisive shift in Arab politics that many in the West have yet to embrace: a Middle East dominated by mainstream Islamist parties brought to power in a region that is more democratic, more conservative and more tumultuous.
“Qatar is a country without ideology,” said Talal Atrissi, a Lebanese political analyst and commentator. “They know that the Islamists are the new power in the Arab world. This alliance will lay the foundation for a base of influence across the region.”
The Qatar emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, belongs to a family that has dominated Qatar since the 18th century, and he came to power in a coup against his father in 1995.
And the 848,000 Qataris? Living in a country the size of Connecticut with fourteen percent of total world gas reserves, they enjoy a per capita income of $145k a year. So what if the parliament building stands empty. The emir's primary concern is that its gas field is shared with -- Iran. The emir had better step lightly there.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2012 10:23:52 AM | 2
Interesting media dichotomy in the news...
Ban-Ki-Moon shills for NATO with an appeal for Assad to stop killing his own people while...
Russian Diplomats in Damascus Lead Their Usual Peaceful Existence
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2012 10:39:30 AM | 3
In other old news, the weekend Glaserwatch, looking at antiwar.com:
antiwar.com headline: U.S. troops quietly surge into Middle East -- "The Pentagon has stationed nearly 15,000 troops in Kuwait . .the extent of the build-up is only now becoming clear."
Oct 26, WorldTribune -- The Defense Department said it was deploying 23,000 American troops in Kuwait. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said those troops would be on alert for any emergency in the region.
Nov 25, NationalPost -- For months, a steady stream of tanks, troop carriers, artillery and other gear has flowed from remote bases to collection yards in Baghdad and elsewhere, and then out of the country, mostly to Kuwait.
Real news: U.S. stationing fewer troops in Kuwait then planned.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2012 11:07:39 AM | 4
From B's 'Russia now anticipates an imminent wider war in the Middle East...' link:
“The main strike forces will be supplied not by France, Britain and Italy, but possibly by neighboring Turkey.” He said that the first step will be to create a no-fly zone over Syria in order to create a sanctuary on Syrian soil close to the Turkish border for mercenaries who can be labelled as Syrian rebels. In sum, it is a “Libya”-type western intervention charioted by Turkey.
Patrushev said military escalation is also likely over Iran and there is “real danger” of a US strike, pointing out that tensions over Syria are actually related to the Iran question. “They want to punish Damascus not to much for the repression of the opposition but rather for its refusal to break off relations with Tehran.”
If this is true, then this has long been a neocon concerted effort. At least since the Cheney Administration, (if not longer) need less to say, and long planned before Obomba. The peace pez, is merely carrying out said plans like a manchurian candidate.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 15, 2012 12:58:44 PM | 5
@Uncle If this is true, then this has long been a neocon concerted effort. At least since the Cheney Administration, (if not longer) need less to say, and long planned before Obomba. The peace pez, is merely carrying out said plans like a manchurian candidate.
It is true. The plans in 2001 were there and there never was a sign that they have changed. "Take out seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran. "
Posted by: b | Jan 15, 2012 1:28:55 PM | 6
These take-out affairs aren't turning out too well for the neocons (AND neolibs), what with Iraq becoming an Islamic Republic allied with Iran and Libya a prospective Islamic Republic, still aflame as is Somalia. Tunisia and Egypt were DIY projects.
Turkey is unlikely to act on Syria without UN backing -- and the UNSC ain't what it used to be for supporting aggression, particularly on Syria. All the BRICS abstained on the November General Assembly vote condemning Syria. By a strange quirk of fate, all five members of Brics currently hold seats on the United Nations Security Council. Russia was the UNSC president last month and South Africa is, this month. South Africa still resents the UN acting in Libya w/o Africa League support.
Russia is supplying ammunition to Syria and has plans to modernize its naval supply and maintenance site near Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus and develop it as a naval base. So Russia probably wouldn't abstain on a UNSC attack vote as it did on Libya. China, another abstainer, is getting fed up with US "world leadership."
Looking ahead to UNSC presidencies:
January 2012 South Africa
February 2012 Togo (scheduled)
March 2012 United Kingdom (scheduled)
April 2012 United States (scheduled)
May 2012 Azerbaijan (scheduled)
June 2012 People's Republic of China (scheduled)
So March and April might be interesting, just in time for upcoming US political conventions.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2012 2:09:10 PM | 7
The plans in 2001 were there
You are totally amazing b. How the fuck can you remember and access all the points in the puzzle, even from years ago? Do you have an infallible photographic memory? And even if you can remember everything do you have their links stored in your memory also? It's not enough that you are "as usual, cooly rational", you got some savant traits working for you well as.
I can't even begin to imagine how any wounded egos on this blog would dare to try to take you to task. They should just shut up and remember one learns nothing from speaking but lots from listening; not, not offering their insights which I value, but mostly only making those offerings. You do often acknowledge them which I consider gracious.
I'd humbly suggest though, that you waste less time setting them straight so you can concentrate on what you so valuably do. I hope you don't take me to task for suggesting so. I'd just humbly sulk back into my den and lick my wounds. :-)
Posted by: juannie | Jan 15, 2012 2:10:49 PM | 8
Dark days are ahead of us, if our worst suspicions are true. A coordinated attack on the people of Syria and Iran, and even a simultaneous attack, cannot be ruled out. If this is the plan going forward; then we are all in deep trouble. The timing of Obama's recent visit to the Pentagon at this time can also be seen as ominous. Military solutions are being given priority, along with propaganda diversions, as part of a dangerous gamble taken by the US & Allies (including Israel), during a moment of political instability, within an unstable international atmosphere of economic crisis.
Just looking at the events of the past few weeks, diplomatic and covert actions appear increasingly like preparations for war.
Posted by: Copeland | Jan 15, 2012 3:38:07 PM | 9
juannie, after we invaded libya and syria started to wobble a few people remembered that speech because he made it on several occasions. someone reposted it on youtube in june, MW posted it a few weeks ago here after two of the readers called it to our attention several times.
not that b isn't the most awesome of awesomes, because he is. but i think this speech of clark's has had a resurgence in popularity lately.
Posted by: annie | Jan 15, 2012 5:18:24 PM | 10
Turkey attacking Syria under UN, NATO, planet Mars, etc.. well its just way out there!!! Attacking both Iran and Syria at the same time, may have a chance at making the box office hit.
Ever since Davutoğlu visit to Iran, Todays Zaman (Turkish gov media) has been making assorted comments on hinting on a potential change(?)..
Then Assad offers amnesty.
And now with Davutoğlu in Lebanon offered his views ……..
“If this [amnesty] is applied sincerely, we will evaluate it accordingly, but our experience says such great pledges usually go unfulfilled,” he added, while at the same time hinting that the move might be a strategy “to gain more time.”
During his stay in Lebanon, Davutoğlu also held a meeting with Lebanon-based Hezbollah's parliamentary group chairperson Mohammad Raad on Saturday, as developments in Syria dominated the leaders' gathering. Davutoğlu stressed again that a clash among sects should be avoided vehemently and that everybody should seek an end to the bloodshed in Syria.
IF there is a sense of change in Turkish stand, one wonders if this change had anything to do with the Israeli budgetary problems!!!!!
Posted by: Rd. | Jan 15, 2012 9:05:51 PM | 11
my take is that Obama doesn't want a war with Iran, but the genies are out of the bottle; Us Congress is a political zombie dominated by special interests, Aipca, and a "West uber alles" ideology; Israel is in the hands of vicious fanatics who promised their voters ethnic cleansing and war with Iran (it's as if Romney was elected president of the Us, to give an idea); the neocons are quite happy having a democratic president start the war this time (and take the blame);
the surviving rational part of the Empire, in niches in the State Dept, Defense Dept, Pentagon, Cia, etc might just be overrun; you can't let rhetorics dominate the political landscape too long; that's why World War I started, after all; Perry's interview is one of a series of attempt to oppose the inevitable
you would need a brave political leader, with strong principles and a clear vision, to oppose this drift, and neither Obama nor Clinton are such; their only compass are polls and contributions; let's hope they can postpone the showdown until something new happens (how I wish the Iranians announced they have a few nuclear weapons ready ...)
Posted by: claudio | Jan 15, 2012 9:06:35 PM | 12
... on the other hand, the sane part of the Empire seems bent on destabilizing Pakistan ...
and Germany seems ready to swallow the Iranian sanctions when it will be ordered to do so ... and European countries have bought their share of bombers, in spite of the economic and financial difficulties ... the more I look at it, the less I like it ...
Posted by: claudio | Jan 15, 2012 9:16:51 PM | 14
This wild-ass conspiracy theory is very probably mere hearsay and paranoid conjecture, but may be of interest to those wondering if all the smoke surrounding false flags and an alleged U.S.-Israeli policy tiff over Iran conceals something more than a smoke-making machine. It should probably be read as counterpoint to a what's now coming from a known disinformation site.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Jan 16, 2012 5:53:33 AM | 16
Hannah, your second link doesn't work. I assume it is Debka
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 16, 2012 6:35:03 AM | 17
Now that is good, strong opinion piece: USA today, tomorrow the world
Adolph Hitler made a famous proclamation to his followers. He said to them, "Today all Germany is ours, tomorrow the world!" In the exact same fashion, American leadership follows in his footsteps.
However, it was George Bush who said, "You're either with us or against us!" Now this was purposely interpreted wrong to refer to the fake, contrived war against terrorism, but what he really meant is "either do what we want and what we tell you or we will destroy you." This is today's American empire.
The latest victim was Libya, now under siege by thousands upon thousands of foreign mercenaries and terrorists, one set of terrorists installed as a "government." However, this motley group is only able to function in the capacity of giving press conferences for the western Goebbels press. Otherwise, they can't do a damn thing in Libya because not only do they hate and kill each other, but the people of Libya hate them.
Now the Empire marches on to its next victims, emboldened by the lack of opposition from the impotent, divided world community. They are targeting Syria and Iran for the same treatment as they gave Libya.
Thus, they called Gaddafi "crazy" when he told people that Al Qaeda and terrorists were causing trouble in his country. As it turns out, the man was 100% correct, as the Al Qaeda, terrorist and criminal backgrounds of "rebel" leaders have been exposed.
So then they move on target Syria. It's the same pattern as in Libya. In his speech the other day, Assad said the following:
Assad is 100% correct, as was Gaddafi. However, speaking on behalf of the Empire, Hillary Clinton used the Goebbels nonsense as previously:
"Instead of taking responsibility Syrian President Bashar al-Assad only made 'excuses, blaming foreign countries and conspiracies'."
She went on to say that the televised address by President Al Assad where he vowed to "strike terrorists with an iron fist" was "chillingly cynical."
"We cannot permit Assad and his regime to have impunity," she said.
Isn't that special? We are reminded that the US has destroyed how many persons and countries all in their moaning, groaning and whining about 9-11, and how they have broken every international law, the Geneva Conventions, the UN charter and violated UN resolutions in the commission of war crimes worse than that of Hitler and the Nazis with total impunity.
Somebody should put their foot through that female's face the next time she opens her poisonous lying mouth.
Posted by: b | Jan 16, 2012 6:48:49 AM | 18
Thanks to Dan of Steele for pointing out the "missing link", which was indeed to Debka.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Jan 16, 2012 7:42:03 AM | 19
Why would anyone bother to cite DEPKA, unless it is to underscore the epitomy of journalistic policy advocation? DEPKA exists ONLY to justify certain ideologies and agendas, NOT to inform or report.
Something tells me a serious rift in Israeli/Obama Administration relations could actually be worse than Obama continuing to suck Israeli dick. The neocon factions here will undoubtedly use public ignorance to paint Obama as working against our own security interests if relations with Israel become too contentious. The public will buy it too, because our media is not reporting about the dark side of Israeli actions and policies, and how it endangers and exploits us. Should relations with Israel deteriorate much further, than all bets are off. Israel may well attack Iran while public sentiment here, buttressed by right wing election year pro-Israel posturing by Romney and Santorum, would still be sympathetic to such a move. If Obama refused to jump in militarily to support Israel, Romney would be a shoe-in to the presidency.
Its easy to forget, when posting or debating on blogs such as this one, that people such as we are a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the population. The majority, if they are attempting to inform themselves at all beyond the features of the new KIA or I-Phone, are doing so at the mercy of the media entities that, really, are no better than DEPKA.
I would really prefer to see a weaning of Israeli influence in our governance and foreign policies, rather than an explosive tiff between the Obama Adminstration and Netanyahu. If this becomes a battle of the balls, this spineless sack of shit Obama is gonna come out on the bottom. Or worse, he will over react to Israeli arrogance in an attempt to reaffirm his manhood, and we may well find ourselves in the beginning stages of WWIII. Dangerous times to be throwing testosterone back and forth, because when it comes to balls, ICBMs make a pretty diffinitive statement.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 16, 2012 9:48:04 AM | 20
Any riff between the US and Israel, I think, is manufactured disinformation. Bibi and Barack will do what they're told, when they're told, to further the interests of the Globalists.
Posted by: ben | Jan 16, 2012 10:24:27 AM | 21
Good catch. I surveyed the current Saudi newspapers (in English) but while they cover disturbances everywhere else there was nothing (of course) about the Eastern Province.
al Jazeerah does cover it, as well as others including Reuters.
Jan 13, 2012 - Saudi forces clash with protesters in Qatif
Saudi security forces have clashed with protesters in the country’s Eastern Province, home to a large Shia minority, killing one person, the interior ministry and activists reported.
Amnesty International urged the Saudi government to launch an independent investigation into the death of Abu Abdallah. "This is the latest of several disturbing protester deaths in Saudi Arabia in the last couple of months," Philip Luther, the UK-based organisation's interim director for the Middle East and North Africa, said.
I also found this from the US embassy.
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
EMERGENCY MESSAGE FOR U.S. CITIZENS
October 5, 2011
U.S. Embassy in Riyadh advises U.S. citizens considering travel to Qatif, Awamiya, Safwa and Saihat in the Eastern Province to exercise caution and be aware of the potential for protests. On successive nights this week, groups of protesters have clashed with government security forces. Press reports indicate that some protestors fired weapons and threw incendiary devices.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 16, 2012 12:15:56 PM | 23
That Hitler quote reminds me of the Ahmadenijad quote of destroying Israel.I wonder if they purposely misquoted his tomorrow the world(from a German nationalist?)line(And what a line it was,as it is still a powerful hit on Hitler)?Such is the danger of serial lying,that all disinformation issued by these extremist wackos and the discovery of such rehabilitates the Hitlers of this world.(of which Ahmadednijad is certainly not.)
Posted by: dahoit | Jan 17, 2012 12:55:33 PM | 25