Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 04, 2013

Syrian Oppo: "Dead Syrian Ex-Minister Defects To Turkey"

Reuters, Sep 4, 2013: Exclusive: Former Syria defense minister breaks with Assad-Labwani
Former Syrian Defence Minister General Ali Habib, a prominent member of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect, has defected and is now in Turkey, a senior member of the opposition Syrian National Coalition told Reuters on Wednesday.

"Ali Habib has managed to escape from the grip of the regime and he is now in Turkey, but this does not mean that he has joined the opposition. I was told this by a Western diplomatic official," Kamal al-Labwani said from Paris.
A Gulf source told Reuters that Habib had defected on Tuesday evening, arriving at the Turkish frontier before midnight with two or three other people. He was then taken across the border in a convoy of vehicles.

Born in 1939, Habib was defense minister from June 2009 to August 2011 and has also served as Chief of the General Staff of the Syrian Army. He is from the port city of Tartus.

YnetNews, Sep 8, 2011: Syrian opposition: Ousted defense minister dead
Websites affiliated with Syrian opposition groups reported on Tuesday that General Ali Habib was found dead in his home a day after he was dismissed as defense minister. On Monday, Syrian President Bashar Assad appointed army chief Dawood Rajha to replace Habib.

The SANA news agency reported Monday that Habib had been suffering from a deterioration in his health.
Opposition websites also quoted Syria TV reports allegedly suggesting that Habib had died a natural death.

So who dug him up?

Posted by b on September 4, 2013 at 14:25 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Gen Jack Keane has evidently told the BBC that Obama confided to people he was going to go all out to remove Assad.

if this has already been cited, sorry.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 5 2013 0:02 utc | 101

so much for the "reluctant warrior"

Posted by: claudio | Sep 5 2013 0:05 utc | 102

well I can see you are clearly not your usual chirpy,reasonable, respectful and adult-self tonight claudio, what with the ban-calls, and the butt-outs,

Clearly you are under some pressure dealing with JS, so I'll overlook that obviously temporarily-out-of-character rudeness, since anyone can have an 'off-day'.

best of luck with JS too.

I hope you two will eventually be able to sort out your differences in an amicable respectful reasoned adult fashion

Best of luck, with that.


Oh you're too kind. you're making me blush.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 0:10 utc | 103

Claudio has been posting here for years. Very reasonable person.

While I clearly see Israel's hand in this, I also see Prince Bandar's, and certainly the US and the UK...when it is suggested that others have motives, it behooves us to at listen... take in the info, process it and make a judgment.

I come here because there is an extraordinary representation of people outside the US... (If we could see ourselves as others see us?) I also appreciate the info from weapons experts and strategists. Bernard works very hard to keep this bar open. So, mosey on up to the bar, order your fav cocktail and try to engage in conversation about this exceedingly important matter in a half-way civil tone. Apologize for acting like a grandmother, but some of you are acting a little like children. (not that I haven't myself on occasion. No intent to offend.)

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 0:10 utc | 104

@ claudio

To further demolish your ridiculous claims:

Let's expand the debate to show how wrong you are and include not just VOTES but words, shall we?

Are there congresspeople against guns even though the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in the US? Yes.

Who will not only vote against the NRA but will also take the opposing side in a debate? Yes - although fewer now.

Are there congresspeople who will take the side against big business and the banks if not in votes but in debates? Yes

Are there congresspeople who will even vote against the MIC and even talk about cutting defense spending? Yes

Now are you paying attention?

Are there ANY congresspeople who will take sides AGAINST ISRAEL in either vote or word in the United States?

The answer you understand is No Way Jose.

As I stated, votes can be staged to give the illusion of democratic process but NOT ONE CONGRESSPERSON or ANY OFFICIAL for that matter will cross AIPAC/Israel in word and that is even MORE telling as to the power of AIPAC.

To further show that your arguments have never had any merit, I could easily find numerous congressional people on record saying that they oppose more defense spending but I'll be damned to find any who have unequivocally dared to question our commitment to Israel.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 5 2013 0:14 utc | 105


this surely is a strong argument in favor of the Lobby's power (almost a stronghold) over public discourse, not only in the Us but also in many western countries (for example, the laws criminalizing investigation of the holocaust); I don't want to understate its influence; I say that the Us go to war because internal consolidate imperialistic interests are in favor; I repeat: you would shatter my argument if you gave me an example where Congress voted according to AIPAC's wishes but against Boeing's or Lockheed's interests; I protest against the reduction of the analysis of Obama, Kerry and Biden's actions to AIPAC's wishes

the problem is that all the recent threads on Syria on MoA were practically sequestered by this discussion over what AIPAC really wanted, whereas I'm interested in understanding what the Us establishment (it exists, really!) wants, and the sudden rift with old reliable allies (all countries where the public discourse is hegemonized by Zionists just like in the Us)

Posted by: claudio | Sep 5 2013 0:28 utc | 106

In the US Senate (where there are 100 senators), it takes a vote of 60 senators to break a filibuster. If there proves to be at least 41 senators who are opposed to this Syria resolution, they can block the resolution by putting it into filibustered suspension indefinitely. And in particular they can delay it until after the US House votes. If a majority in the House votes against the resolution, then only 41% opposition in the Senate is enough to kill it.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 5 2013 0:34 utc | 107

Claudio, I have wondered if some of the western countries dropped off immediately because they realize that Syria is armed... that Russia feeds Syria intel... that Russia and Iran have both stated they will protect Syria. Syria is NOT Iraq... Assad has been fighting the 'rebels' for over two yrs. and is apparently winning.

Another consideration is the US' own geopolitical plans... they want to take out Iran as much as Israel does. And Bandar the same. If Iran et al move ahead with the pipeline KSA as well as other Gulf states will suffer.

There are other motives... perhaps some other posters would like to point to them, more expertly than myself.

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 0:37 utc | 108


Kerry has already stated Obama will go ahead with the 'strike' even if Congress does not authorize.

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 0:40 utc | 109

hmm, far from pressuring me, my exchange with JSorrentine has become quite interesting, after an initial ruffle;

@crone #104 - thanks!

JSorrentine - your link to Voltairenet is very interesting; I'll read it tomorrow, now it's 2:40 in the night in Italy, gotta get some sleep

Posted by: claudio | Sep 5 2013 0:41 utc | 110

@ 109 : That's not what Kerry said.
@ 109 : If Congress doesn't authorize, Obama will have to fold like Cameron did.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 5 2013 0:50 utc | 111


My "vehemence" wasn't directed at you personally as much as it was against the consciously contrived limitations of American political discourse which is only now - after the slaughter/maiming/displacement of millions of innocent people - seemingly BEGINNING to openly speak of Israeli influence in US foreign affairs.

Certainly, you are correct that other factors align with Israel/AIPAC but I feel that this Israel/AIPAC issue is such a hot button for many posters on the Intertubes b/c being knowledgeable about I/AIPAC influence and b/c they have witnessed such horrible crimes being committed over and over again without ANY mention whatsoever of said influence they are nearly beside themselves watching it all reoccur and yet the "conversation" is still limited to the nonsensical debates we are given - debates in which Israel is all but unmentionable.

At this rate, by the time we are on the borders of Iran MAYBE someone who is in some position of leadership will have the balls to break their "vows of silence" but only if people keep demanding to hear others mention the unmentionable topics/factors.

Yes, people who ardently fight to have Israel/AIPAC included in the conversation may be prone to simplify more complex issues at times but I believe they do so b/c they feel that the Israel/AIPAC issue has been systematically stripped from the debates concerning previous wars, actions, etc and they fear it may be happening again.

The posters at MOA seem to be hep to Israel/AIPAC for the most part but that doesn't mean that since MOA is talking about it other sites are.

When posters from outside the MOA world drop in they may be refugees from worlds in which certain things aren't ever said.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 5 2013 1:02 utc | 112

Not that anyone here is doing so, but... It would be as foolish to try and accuse AIPAC of being the sole instigator behind this latest immoral, idiotic drive towards war as it is to try and pretend they have no influence over the matter at all and are sitting quietly on the sidelines waiting for someone else to make the decision.

The facts of why the world finds itself now staring into the vast abyss of the unknowns of war are the same and as simple as always: the wealthy and powerful citizens of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations have made the decision to do so.

The wealthy and powerful Israelis - the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, now giddily following in the footsteps of their former tormentors.

The richest and most powerful of the so-called "Americans" - who grabbed the riches of a continent through slavery and murder and, from its safety, murdered millions and are perfecting the murder of millions more in ever new and novel ways.

That certain class of Europeans who happily starve their own and others citizens via debt and austerity with such an air of civility that you almost forget the heinous crimes are the foundation of it all.

These are the authors - as eager as they are foolish - of the coming disaster.

And what a disaster it is likely to be!

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 5 2013 1:10 utc | 113

I am not going to start an argument, I'll just say this: I am deathly sick of "Anonymous'" bullshit. Not least because it is bullshit is coming out of both ends.

"Both Iran and Russia know full well what a trap this is, they wont go into the trap. And really they cant do much covertly either."

"Sell that S-300 already! Are Russia slow?"

"I am quite fed up with russians half efforts to stop the war and now I see this...'[PUTIN] also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting a U.N. resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.'"

What kind of bullshit is it that you try and insinuate that Russia is weak for taking a principled position? The Russians are absolutely right to say that they would support the punishment of Assad if he used chemical weapons for the simple fact that that is the right position and they know he has not done so! You try to claim they are weak in that? That is the position which proves their strength and shows the USreal-EU utter weakness.

Every single word you say is twisted. You support the destruction of Syria a couple of months ago with your unequivocal backing of that dangerous clown Morsi and you also promoted that filthy racist scum Navalny. Now you've supposedly done a 180? You pretend to attack "the Zionists" and "the Americans" and "demand" Russia take steps it feels are not necessary (though you don't even know what steps they have truly taken) as if you suddenly are more Russian than Putin!

Enough. I need a tractor - no, a tractor factory - to deal with this much bullshit. Go back to defending your racist western puppets. At least you're honest in that.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 5 2013 1:34 utc | 114

Don't know if this was already covered here:

Why is Obama Changing the Date and Size of First CIA Death Squads to Enter Syria?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 5 2013 1:37 utc | 115

@113 well said. greed at the bottom of it all.

@111 before Obama decided to go to Congress, Kerry stated that Obama would go without. Shortly after Obama announced he would seek authorization from Congress Kerry stated that Obama would go even if Congress did not give authorization. There was immediately response from several congresscritters that it was rather futile for them to even bother to return to Washington early and vote... after which when Obama was asked (upon arrival in Sweden today I believe) he evaded by saying that authorization from Congress would make the "case stronger"... My belief is that it will not matter which way Congress votes... Obama will strike and it will be hard. I have watched this unfold 24/7 and I am not so old that I don't remember events yet, and I could go and search for the cites but I do have a life, feed the cats, get rid of the dust bunnies etc.

Returning to your comment about vote in the Senate, there has been a rumor that Rand Paul may filibuster in the Senate. Who knows? That's the problem, this entire situation is overflowing with unpredictables.

You are correct in response to my statement... (I was zigzagging to the final move, that Obama would go. That is my belief, but you're correct, that is not what is being said now.)

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 1:43 utc | 116

"AIPAC's wishes don't explain all that's going on these days; and if it was so omnipotent over the Us political system, then why not over its vassals and traditional faithful friends of Israel like Italy, Uk and Canada?"

Interesting question. Perhaps because the Italy, UK and Canada don't have as traumatic a history of racism as the US does? Our reaction against our legacy of slavery and racial segregation has given rise to an extreme aversion to any public expression that could possibly be interpreted as racist - in other words political correctness. This has short circuited any rational public debate surrounding the Israel lobby. The fear of being labeled anti-semitic is much stronger here than in Europe. I think American political correctness has left America uniquely vulnerable to a highly motivated, aggressive lobby like AIPAC.

And a country full of people who were taught not to discuss politics and religion for fear of offending someone else will have problems thoroughly airing and resolving political dirty laundry.

These are reasons but not the only ones. The political structures of the countries play a role - the role of money in politics for example - and the more racially cohesive natures of countries like Italy and the UK and the way those states have traditionally been associated with a certain ethnicity and religion unlike in the US.

And I think your claim that AIPAC and the Israel lobby are just being used as a tool by some bigger interest group is just wrong. I really do not see any cohesive effort on the part of these industrio-military overlords which is pulling the strings to bring about all these ME wars. It tops out at the israelists – who now make up enough of the government itself not to have to engage in any external hard sell lobbying to have a huge influence – and their elected co-signers in the White House and Congress.

Posted by: JBradley | Sep 5 2013 1:46 utc | 117

Personally I think there's no such thing as an "Israel" lobby.

by that I mean that I believe there IS a Lobby, but not sure what it should be called.

It just seems to me that "Israel" Lobby is not quite an adequate description, it is close-ish, but far enough from 100% that it seems pretty inadequate as a descriptor.

I accept that "Jewish" lobby isn't quite right either as that seems to go too far and be a little "over-encompassing" (if that is a word) descriptor-wise.

for me, "Zionist Lobby" also seems somewhat inadequate since imo that doesn't quite describe it either.

IMO it's somewhere between "Zionist Lobby": and "Jewish Lobby"

due to what some might call "the consciously contrived limitations of American political discourse" it may never be possible to even name it correctly.

Kind of hard to discuss, or determine, the limits of power of something one is not even allowed/capable to name correctly,

Not only that, but someone made the distinction between the ZL and "The Establishment" (a rather ill-defined group also imo)

seems to me that there is quite an large overlap between those two, but it is also hard to quantify the exact magnitude of that overlap.

And I think there are quite a lot of ZL's that might also qualify as "establishment", but far far less "establishment" that would also qualify as "ZL's", if you know what I mean.

Additionally it also appears to me that members of the ZL who are also members of "the Establishment" often seem to have a greater attachment to their ZL identity that they do to their "establishment" identity, and if forced to choose between the 2 might be more likely to choose the former rather than the latter

So the hard and fast dividing line that some might imagine exists between the want's and need's of the 2 supposedly distinct groups may not be nearly so hard and fast as some seem to think ORwhat dividing line exist, between the want's and need's of the 2 supposedly distinct groups, may be more hard and fast for members of one group than they are for members of the other.

the very very weird thing, for me, is that it is only for a few short years that people have even been allowed to acknowledge, without some potentially serious repercussions, that there even existed something called an "Israel Lobby", whereas open (and often derisory or negative) acknowledgement of the existence of something called "the Establishment" has been pretty much the norm since at least the late 1950's. certainly the mere mention of it would cause little if any serious repercussions

But we know that the ZLobby has been around for quite some time, certainly before the 1940's - Kind of hard to discuss, or determine, the limits of power of something one has only been allowed to openly discuss for maybe 10 years, out of it's at least 70 (at a minimum) year existence

And THAT may be the best indicator one will ever have of how currently powerful each of the two groups really are, in relation to each other

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 1:53 utc | 118

re 33

and the offer to pay for the US Military by "Arab Countries": I believe this is quite relevant

I posted it recently and do so again because that supposed (or ostensible?) offer by the "Arab Countries" seems to fit right into what Ned Beatty's character is explaining to Mr Beale

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 2:06 utc | 119

Video worth a look and listen. Not too long.

Posted by: ben | Sep 5 2013 2:47 utc | 120

@ 118

I don't think of 'Lobby' as monolithic... but I usually refer to it as the Israel Lobby. I agree that it has only been within the last five years or so that one could even suggest there was such a thing - that situation has slowly evolved to the point that the "elephant in the room" is now, with this hard sell of war in Iran, 'scuse me Syria ;-) ~ being discussed not only on forums but in the media.

@ 177 "... And I think your claim that AIPAC and the Israel lobby are just being used as a tool by some bigger interest group is just wrong. I really do not see any cohesive effort on the part of these industrio-military overlords which is pulling the strings to bring about all these ME wars. It tops out at the israelists – who now make up enough of the government itself not to have to engage in any external hard sell lobbying to have a huge influence – and their elected co-signers in the White House and Congress."

THIS! totally agree with your statement. As for why Americans, etc., etc. The average American has NO idea the extent to which Israel in involved in the US gov't. The Lobby does use racism, especially the hyping of Islamophobia as a tool. Unfortunately, it has had great success particularly because of lack of education about the world outside US for most Americans. Many are very blase about killing brown people, I'm sorry to say. Currently the country has high unemployment, no jobs in sight, etc. so many are weary of $$$ going for war, especially wars of choice. Again, you're correct about the reluctance here to speak about "Israel" or "Jews" ~ many don't know the difference between a zionist and an American Jew... or know even what zionism means. Bias in the media has not helped the situation.

As for the Lobby being used. I agree with your statement as I said. However, I do feel "Israel" and Israelis are being used. The US gov't does have a geopolitical agenda in the region. Israel serves a purpose there... provides a launching pad for US military so to speak and as a kind of "junk-yard dog" (don't mean to use this term maliciously, but graphically) - if TPTB do manage to crush Iran, they would care less how many Israelis might die in the process, anymore than they care how many Arabs or Americans or anyone else (other than themselves of course) dies. Again, I'm speaking of Israel, not the Israel Lobby. Does that make sense?

Someone at Mondoweiss put together a short timeline for the involvement of the Israel Lobby in US foreign policy wrt Syria... it's lengthy, but worth the read, with cites:

"... I would like readers to point out to some earlier activism of Israel, her proxies and the lobby regarding the war on Syria:

1996: A Clean Break: … Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces …

Oct. 2003 Syria Accountability Act : Sanctions on Syria Drafted by AIPAC, passed by Eliot Engel [Enforcing those AIPAC-endorsed sanctions has been the happy task of the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Created in early 2004 after intensive lobbying by AIPAC and its associated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the TFI unit has been aptly described as “a sharp-edged tool forged principally to serve the Israel lobby.” With David S. Cohen succeeding Stuart Levey as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in January 2011, a leading journalist on the Middle East was later prompted to call the position “a job which seems reserved for pro-Israeli neo-cons to wage economic warfare against Tehran.”

May 2011:" target="new">…there were a lot of armed men, militants, tens of guns, and they were with weapons and just moving along the border from Lebanon to Syria …

January 12, 2012: " target="new">Michael Weiss, Pro-Israel Neocon, Authors Blueprint for Western Military Intervention in Syria Approved by Syrian Ex-Pats

February 7, 2012 : Iran’s Achilles’ Heel
Ex-Mossad boss Efraim Halevy:

July 24, 2012: Conservatives call on Obama to establish ‘safe zones’ in Syria

December 12, 2012: Israeli Envoy Sees Radicals Risk Preferable to Assad

January 17, 2013: Andrew Tabler/WINEP: Three bold steps to hasten the end of Assad’s regime.

April 26 2013: Israel ambushed the US

August 16, 2013: “Axis of Evil” Cannot Be Allowed to Win in Syria Tel Aviv Defense Minister:

August 19, 2013,Israeli ex-ambassador Itamar Rabinovich: “Assad, Russia, Iran & Hezbollah pose a greater danger than al Qaeda!”

All the way long Israel pushed the US to take military action for regime change in Syria to harm Iran. But Israel didn’t get it’s way to start the US leading the war on Syria. So what to do?

Patrick Clawson – Israel Lobbyist Suggests False Flag Attack To Start War With Iran

Then a CW attack near Damascus – conveniently when the UN inspectors were close. And: the central piece of evidence against the Syrian government comes from Israel and it seems to be “doctored” .

And now AIPAC is openly advocating war on Syria.

What else does the world and the US public need to understand what’s going on?

marc b. says:

September 4, 2013 at 9:52 am

see also 2006 diplomatic cable from US embassy in Damascus re: strategies for undermining authority of asad regime.

I don’t think the wikileaks cable is linked, but it is available elsewhere."

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 2:53 utc | 121

I don't think of 'Lobby' as monolithic

I never said it was 'monolithic', I am clearly acknowledging the existence of at least one other powerful group. the discussion I am attempting to have is regarding the power each separate group wields

I agree that it has only been within the last five years or so that one could even suggest there was such a thing

yes, and would that not indicate something significant in terms of the actual real power of a group that ,until a mere 5 or 6 years ago, one could not even openly acknowledge the mere existance of, without at least some threat of potential censure (or potentially serious repercussions)?

After all for the best part of 100 years one could quite easily have discussed the existence of "The Establishment" or even, a little later, "WASP establishment" , without any great fear of serious repercussions, whereas to merely hint at a Zionist or Israel Lobby could until very very recently cause problems for people in many walks of life.

And indeed even though we are now at least allowed to discuss it's existence, it is still potentially problematic to publicly speak of it in anything other than either a neutral or positive manner. There are few in the media that even today dare openly discuss it, and fewer still (a mere handful) that discuss it in a negative manner, and keep their media-jobs.

when Walt and Mearscheimer wrote their book they were pilloried - and still are to this day in many sections of the media.

For a very long time one could certainly speak of "The Establishment" (whatever that is) in a negative light and not fear any particularly harsh repercussions.

Does that not itself convey a great deal of information regarding the probable actual real power of such a group?

I think it does.

In fact I think it tells us a quite a lot about the relative power of the 2 groups in question.

It also possibly conveys some potentially useful (hopeful?) information I guess, regarding the possible emergence of some sort of recent push-back against that group, whose mere existence was for so long not only unacknowledged but was in fact vehemently denied.

The 'elephant in the room' may be occasionally discussed in public, but even now there are people that go to great lengths to challenge or even vehemently attack or slander anyone that even merely attempts to quantify, in some way, just how powerful that Lobby is, whose mere existence was for so long not only unacknowledged but was in fact vehemently denied.

And those that do the attacking and the slandering never themselves seem to suffer any repercussions at all.

I think, when it comes to getting a glimpse of what power such a group actually wields the above would indicate that one of the two groups is good deal more powerful than the other - and I would suggest that the more powerful is the one that it can still be dangerous to openly criticise.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” VOLTAIRE

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 3:34 utc | 122

And for the stated reasons above I think that the whole notion that the Zionist Lobby is currently "being used" is complete fucking nonsense, spouted by dishonest, blind or naive fools.

(Sorry, couldn't keep the politeness/non-swearing thingy going for any longer)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 3:37 utc | 123

The reason the conversation about AIPAC goes round in circles, is that the brainwashing still operates on a deeper level. It still deters. There is a whole level underneath this which is unmentionable, taboo. Anyone who mentions it immediately classifies himself as a neo-Nazi, unworthy of discussion, indeed you should deny him a platform ("no platform for fascists" has become a very useful slogan - for liberals). I think the best way to approach this deeper level is by way of a comparative generalisation, which sneaks up on the bull sideways rather than rushing at it and attempting to grab it by the horns.

I ask you to reflect on the fact that different national cultures, when they spread out in diaspora, display different styles of cultural colonisation of the countries they spread to. Obviously all this is generalisation, but it serves to make the desired point. Here in England, I have noticed that Irish immigrants generally cluster in two or three occupational areas: the building trade, the pub and off-license trade, and local government. This, I think, deserves to be treated as a 'colonial strategy' because it maximises Irish influence over Britain in quite a systematic way. However, it would be absurd to imagine that Irish strategists gathered in a smoke-filled room in 1860 or something and said, how do we do this? what role should we train our children to play in our master plan to colonise Britain? Obviously, it happened quite spontaneously, but it is quite effective, especially because links between large Irish building contractors and their compatriots in local government have an ethnic naturalness (it's perfectly innocent for Irishmen and women to enjoy one another's company) which helps to screen the old boy net that awards contracts; this is comparable to the role that Freemasonry plays in the same circles. But if you had planned to colonise another country invisibly, by cultural means rather than main force, then controlling the building trade and the booze industry would be quite a sound and realistic place to start. This is a good example because it aims neither too high nor too low, given the resources available to the coloniser (the Irish).

Now let us consider the trades into which Jewish colonisers (again, not following a plan, but just naturally) would gravitate. I see three: finance, law and media. Note that I put finance first. The banker (especially the central banker, who 'creates money out of thin air'), is in a position to finance the others, massively and invisibly. Notice the professions they avoid: government itself, the visible government, is generally one to avoid. The idea of Joe Lieberman as president, for instance, arouses unwelcome reactions. It is preferable to be "the man who squats behind the man who works the soft machine" (to quote Mick Jagger's excellent song "Memo from Turner").

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 5 2013 4:26 utc | 124

Sana says the good general is home and well. Any news on yesterdays defector, the infamous chief of the CW research that faile to meet the press in Turkey?

Posted by: estouxim | Sep 5 2013 4:29 utc | 125

123) That theory is silly. It turns the victim - the minority - into the perpretator. Basically the minority gets the job nobody wants, nobody needs or people consider too dirty.

Historically in Europe Jews were used to finance the king's wars - more than other citizens - by blackmail, extraction and privilege. They were set by priests who were part of the state against the rest of the population. And they were a safety valve for the aggression of a dissatisfied citizenry (just like Christians in the Middle East today).

Of course the tail does not wag the dog. Israel like Saudi Arabia is simply used by a corrupt elite to do the things they cannot legally do in their own country. So they are quite content to leak that Israel is the culprit, it takes the steam off.

You do know that it is stupid to go for the red cloth someone is waving instead of the person waving it.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 4:55 utc | 126

117) So what do you suggest as a solution

- make lobbying by association illegal
- forbid political association
- restrict the sources of income for politicians
- forbid civil servants to take jobs in industry after their public careers
- force politicians to publish their income
- forbid direct donations, personal payments to congress people like trips, presents etc?

It is a problem of the US political system when politicians can be pressured or bribed, to single out one group serves the interests of the PTB.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 5:11 utc | 127

122) So am I allowed to criticize you yes or no? 121) Or are you trying to rule over me?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 5:16 utc | 128

I'd like to second crone's comment about the quality Claudio's posts bring to the table. At best, based on my own reaction, long time bar flies have to laugh when reading entries accusing him of peddling zio-prop.

To address the actual discussion unfolding, to me it seems the two arguments aren't mutually exclusive.

From what I understand, one one hand we have the idea that the US Politbureau makes foreign policy decisions based on its own strategic plans and national interests, which however thanks to massive US MIC lobbying power all too often align with Israel's desired outcomes, either openly stated by AIPAC or otherwise obvious. The other side argues that based on decades of observations, there can be no doubt the entire US polit establishment is and has been in Israel's pocket and do as they are told by their zionist handlers.

To me both arguments ring true, two sides of the same coin. The shoe fits once you zoom out and realize that both nations serve the same masters.

I have been using the term USrael ever since I understood that both countries are merely real estate owned by the same people. In my mind AIPAC is not a foreign agent trying to influence US public opinion but more like a brain synapse, a junction through which decision signals are exchanged within a body, the left hand letting the right hand know whats going on.

In addition, it serves the function of giving the false impression there are two separate nations with conflicting interest trying to influence each other, works great for the gallery.

Not for a minute do I believe Obama or Netanyahu are pulling the strings, puppets don't do that. What we get to see is the theater Washington and Tel Aviv are putting on to hide the fact that the marching orders are given by a layer of power above both men's pay grade. In other words, the reason US and Israeli policies and decisions seem identical 99% of the time is because they are dictated by the same source.

Apart from being owned by the same banking families, another facet both countries have in common is their decades long engagement in territorial expansion, either by proxy or direct occupation.

In general, neither of the two nation's citizenry has shown to be ideologically adverse to their governments permanent focus on hegemonic growth. On the contrary, US and Israeli voters time and time again will reelect the same inbreds who started the last war, despite the negative effects such militarized land grabbing foreign policy would have in the medium to long term obvious to anyone with at least two braincells to rub together.

Maybe its due to self-righteousness being fed with mothers milk leading to a sense of moral superiority in adulthood, but from what I can tell in the US and Israel the believe in, or shall I say obsession with exceptionalism runs deep. The perfect people to harness when trying to ride to victory.

Straight after the ol Rothschild motto "let me control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws", the winners of every war are the ones financing them. Its not the gold diggers who got rich but the merchants who sold them the pans and shovels.

It is no accident that one of the main families owning the US Federal Reserve Bank, which now buys close to 80% of US gov issued bonds and $40 billion of US mortgage backed securities (real estate) every months, also owns large chunks of Israeli land and have for many years financed zionist expansion.

As always, when in doubt, follow the money. Who are the major shareholders at Boeing Co. and Raytheon, just to pick two? Firms like Blackrock or State Street, corporate facades hiding the true ownership by centuries old banking families. The same mob that control Exxon, Pfizer, Microsoft, Intel, Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation., CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, and the list goes on.

Now I understand not everybody will agree with my pov, rather conspiratorial and far removed from what is generally discussed here at the Moon, yet I believe it is the crucial piece missing when trying to make sense of why these two nation states act like one.

In conclusion, when one asks who owns the western military industrial complex benefiting from endless wars, and you find out its the same people who largely own the western media spinning the public anyway its needed, the same people who own the US Fed and have financed half of Israel's government buildings, you have your answer to the question whether in US-Israeli relationships the dog is wagging its tail or the tail wagging the dog. Step away from the close up and realize what matters is that its one and the same dog.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 5 2013 5:17 utc | 129

@117 First of all, AIPAC should be registered as a foreign agent, which it is IS law requires it). AIPAC stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee... their interest is what benefits ISRAEL, not America. All other lobbies exist to benefit American interests, not a foreign country. Many of the other groups that are part of the Israel Lobby ought also be required to register as foreign agents, for the same reason.

Foreign Agents Registration Act = see wiki... "... In the 1950s President Eisenhower's administration repeatedly demanded the leaders of the American Zionist Council register as "agents of a foreign government."[31] In November 1962 Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's Department of Justice ordered the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent because of FARA violations alleging it was being funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel and acting on behalf of Israel. Under pressure from the Israel lobby and the President Lyndon B. Johnson administration, the Department of Justice later withdrew its demand.[23][32]
The American Zionist Council was reorganized as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 1988 former Senator William Fulbright in the 1970s and former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti, both enemies of AIPAC, unsuccessfully petitioned the Department of Justice to register the lobby under the Act.[33]
The 2005 case of United States v. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman against United States Department of Defense employee Larry Franklin and American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman[34][35] raised the possibility that AIPAC would come under greater scrutiny by the Department of Justice. While Franklin plead guilty to passing government secrets to Rosen and Weissman, as well as to an Israeli government official,[36][37] the cases against Rosen and Weissman were dismissed and no actions against AIPAC were instituted.[33]"

I challenge you to name another organization that could get away with this? FYI, AIPAC is itself fading out, being replaced by the up and coming Foreign Policy Institute (FPI)... that sounds as though it's part of the US gov't doesn't it? Which I'm sure is intentional.

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 6:03 utc | 130

127) The economic situation (and I agree, that is where the power is) of the US is this - Congressional research service

Despite expressing concerns at times about the U.S. net international investment position, Members of Congress generally have been reluctant to intervene in the investment process, whether inward or outward. Indeed, successive Congresses and Administrations have led international efforts to eliminate or reduce restraints on the international flow of capital. If the U.S. net investment position continues to turn more negative, prospects increase that the positive U.S. net income receipts will turn negative as U.S. income payments overwhelm U.S. income receipts. In such a case, the U.S. economy will experience a net economic drain as income that could be used to finance new U.S. businesses and investments will be sent abroad to satisfy foreign creditors. Such a drain likely will be small at first relative to the overall size of the economy, but it could grow rapidly if the economy continues to import large amounts of foreign capital.

Some observers are also concerned about the growing role foreign investment is playing in the
economy by bridging the gap between domestic sources and demands for credit. One chief
consideration is how the capital is being used. Investment funds that are flowing into direct
investment and into corporate stocks and bonds presumably are being used to bolster investments
in plant and equipment and other investments that aid in corporate productivity over the long run.
As such, those investments may well provide a boost to U.S. economic growth well into the
future. Foreign investment in U.S. Treasury securities directly aids in financing the federal
government’s budget deficits and indirectly eases the federal government’s demands on domestic
credit markets, which assists U.S. firms and consumer consumption by freeing up capital in the
economy and by relieving some of the pressure on domestic interest rates.
Some observers contend that a sharp decline in capital inflows or a sudden withdrawal of foreign
capital from the economy could spark a financial crisis. Congress likely would find itself
embroiled in any such financial crisis through its direct role in conducting fiscal policy and in its
indirect role in the conduct of monetary policy through its supervisory responsibility over the
Federal Reserve. Such a coordinated withdrawal seems highly unlikely, particularly since the vast
majority of the investors are private entities that presumably would find it difficult to coordinate a withdrawal. Short of a financial crisis, events that cause foreign investors to curtail or limit their purchases of U.S. securities likely would complicate efforts to finance budget deficits in the current environment without such foreign actions having an impact on U.S. interest rates, domestic investment, and long-term rate of growth.

Hint - the Israeli/US double citizenry is a minute part of the World/US economy. To claim otherwise is completely irrational.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 6:17 utc | 131

sorry, the above should be addressed to 125

my apologies...

Juan @ 127 ~ thank you for your most enlightening post. I have gotten as far in my own thinking as TPTB decide what US will do... hesitate to say so on a forum, as the 'conspiracy charges' start up. I must say I never got as far as including Israel into the equation. And lately I have come to think of TPTB as the 1% who have 95% of the money. Your connection of the dots answers a lot for me; I will certainly give it some thought.

Let me also say that I have lurked at MoA since Billmon was here... and only once in a while posted... until last couple of days when my fingers just can't stay still. This madness of going into Syria and then onto Iran, and wherever is driving me to protest wherever possible. I have enjoyed your posts over the years, and hope you will return soon to comment on events seen and hidden. Namaste

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 6:18 utc | 132


Back to being a compete dick again, I see, well done!

The old honesty thing didn't last long, did it?

had a feeling it wouldn't last more than a few hrs.

And it only took you about 2 seconds into your dumb reply to rowan to play the usual pathetic victim card, again, well done, you dick!

See? Credit where credit is due!

This non-stop bullshit everyone always has to endure, about the poor old jews, that those poor uniquely wonderful dears that they are, were terribly oppressed by being the only people in christendom who could lawfully practice earning interest on monies loaned.

Oh how terrible! A very lucrative monopoly placed right into their hands!

If THAT is "oppression" , I'd take it anyday, and so would just about anybody with an ounce of business sense

What did they do for, or have on, EmperorConstantine that they managed to swing that lucrative monopoly for themselves?

Your moronic pretence that the poor jews took the filthy job of being able to make free money just because there was no one else around that would like to make free money is frankly retarded.

Practically every merchant in every city in europe would have loved to have been "forced" to become a member of a monoply cartel in the production of free money

So well done again for proving yourself yet again to be a dishonest retard.


Credit where credit is due!

Take yer bullshit and your stupid oppression myths and fuck off and whine to someone that might be supid enough to give a shit.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 6:22 utc | 133

129) And I think this is where the sudden panic mode comes from, they realize that if military power can no longer enforce investment, US debt situation will get unsustainable.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 6:29 utc | 134


Thats the problem, Russia doesnt have a "principled position" as I and many of us have tried to show. Its just a denial and weakness by you by trying to uphold a a theory that Russia would protect Syria. Not going to happen.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 5 2013 6:36 utc | 135

I really hate beating a dead horse, but this oldie but goodie is just too delectable to pass up.

Only 20 percent of U.S. House of Representatives will visit Israel during summer recess

I mean, does that not say anything?Are there any members of congress who *haven't* visited Israel? Other than Ron Paul, who has retired. Is there any other country that has been visited by nearly every single member of congress during their terms?

That said, I don't toss around accusations of hasbarism at anyone. The fact is, many intelligent people who otherwise understand and loath the nature of colonialism, simply don't want to wrap their heads around this very disconcerting fact, and all that it implies. I sympathize because I used to be one of them. But after a while, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 5 2013 6:45 utc | 136

The people who love to invent myths about opposing power blocks within the US structure being composed of different disparate groups with completely different and often conflicting aims, are basically talking out of their asses, whether through ignorance of history, or basic dishonesty (such as our mutual friend at 124/5&6) is immaterial.

Two of these alleged separate and distinct power blocks, that we have to endure hearing so much pseudo-academic-bollix being talked about, are the Zionist Lobby (or "Israel" Lobby if you prefer to lie to yourselves ) and the Military Industrial Complex.

Never seems to occur to these pseudo-academic geniuses that the members or backers of the euphemistically and quite inadequately/misleadingly named "zionist" or "Israel" Lobby are also members-in-good-standing of the MIC-Lobby.

Thus negating most of the imagined distinctness or separateness that supposedly exists between these 2 groups.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 6:55 utc | 137

" Only 20 percent of U.S. House of Representatives will visit Israel during summer recess"


after reading a sentence like that, why are we even having a discussion where completely clueless people actually taken seriously when they dispute which ficticiously-separate group runs the US ?

"simply don't want to wrap their heads around this very disconcerting fact, and all that it implies."

a LOT of money and time and effort has gone into programming these people from birth, with a fear of ever even asking the questions that might cause them to have even a little clue of how the power is distributed

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 7:02 utc | 138

" I think American political correctness has left America uniquely vulnerable to a highly motivated, aggressive lobby like AIPAC. "

I think American political correctness was created [mostly] by members of the tribe that also created a highly motivated, aggressive lobby like AIPAC, just so they could leave the US uniquely vulnerable in that regard

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 7:15 utc | 139

Man, it hurts to be away for so long! So many posts so little time, Ay Dios mio!!
Hmmmm and JSorrentine are owning mi amigo Claudio, vamos hombre!
The posts issued make anything I say totally irrelevant, so I just wanted to say hello and just mention that I listened on Bloomberg Radio that Putin may offer Obama not to continue selling the S-300's, during the upcoming G-20 summit.
I don't know what good that will do. I still see sunken USA warships in the future.
Plus, one more thing. Next year will be 100 years since the Great War of 1914. Cryptic, no?

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 5 2013 7:29 utc | 140

IMHO the "Zionist" or "Jewish" or "Israeli" elite don't give two hoots for the majority of Jewish people.

the very term "Holocaust" tells us something about how these "Zionist" or "Jewish" or "Israeli" elite (whichever lie you prefer) thought

It literally means "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering,"

THAT should tell intelligent people something important regarding how these "Zionist" or "Jewish" or "Israeli" elite (whichever lie you prefer) viewed the shetl-dwelling Jewish Population of Eastern Europe.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 7:32 utc | 141

" Plus, one more thing. Next year will be 100 years since the Great War of 1914. Cryptic, no?"

OT, but just for you Fernando

Notice anything? ;-)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 8:13 utc | 142

Is there any truth in: Russia threatens to bomb Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

Thanks for your comments crone and Juan!

Posted by: Karin | Sep 5 2013 8:31 utc | 143

134) Actually and Israel, surprise, is not the most attractive country for congress people, but Turkey. I mean there are considerations like good food, landscape, sunshine, beaches, atmosphere ... Scotland should not really be on this list.

Lawmakers have traveled to a variety of locales this year on trips paid for by private groups and foreign governments, with Turkey the top destination so far, followed by Israel, LegiStorm said. Over many years, Israel’s Dead Sea and other resort spots have been popular, along with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, it added.

Despite the bad publicity years ago from the Abramoff-sponsored Scottish travel, four House Republicans and one Democrat – all members of the “Friends of Scotland Congressional Caucus” – are traveling this month in Scotland, at the Scottish government’s expense.

Their visit, in the midst of Edinburgh’s world-famous international festival, will include meetings with Scottish officials to discuss “business, economics, energy, infrastructure and natural resources,” according to the Scottish Affairs office at the British Embassy in Washington.

The caucus sponsors an annual “Tartan Day” on Capitol Hill.

Also this month, 10 members of the Congressional Black Caucus visited Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong on a trip financed by China. Democratic Representative Marcia Fudge, who heads the caucus, said the trip’s purpose was to “increase mutual understanding” between her members and China’s government “through an educational and cultural exchange.”

More than 60 House Democrats and Republicans, along with some aides, traveled to Israel and the West Bank on two trips organized and financed by the American Israel Education Foundation. It is an arm of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby that pushes for U.S. aid to Israel “to ensure that the Jewish state maintains its qualitative edge over its adversaries.”

This education foundation is one kind of tax-exempt, non-profit organization that lobbying outfits can use to ease the impact of the 2007 travel restrictions.

Actually, the Greek really hate the devious Turkish lobby

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 8:40 utc | 144

141) No, kavkazcenter is chechen jihadist. Saudi Arabia is trying to intimidate Russia.

This here is "The vast power of the Saudi Lobby"

Somehow, though, I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.

The long and corrupt history of American-Saudi relations centers around the kingdom's vast reserves of easily extractable oil, of course. Ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt met aboard ship in 1945 with King Ibn Saud, the special relationship with the desert kingdom has only grown stronger. The House of Saud is usually happy to sell us oil at a consistent and reasonable price — and then increase production if unseemly market forces drive the world price of a barrel too high for U.S. consumers.

In exchange we arm the Saudis to the teeth and turn a blind eye to their medieval approach to crime and punishment.

Even during the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1973-74, an exceedingly hostile action against the United States supposedly justified by Washington's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the Nixon administration treaded very softly. Despite the illegality of the embargo — it arguably violated international law as well as a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia — the White House and the State Department could hardly have been more diplomatic toward their Bedouin friends.

As the historian J.B. Kelly recounts, the U.S. ambassador to Riyahd, James Akins, did his best to placate King Faisal by urging the Saudi's American-owned oil concessionaire ARAMCO to, in Aken's words, "hammer home" to the White House that the embargo wouldn't be lifted unless "the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs."

In all, as Kelly wrote, "a most peculiar recourse for an ambassador to employ to influence the policy of his own government."

But this was a blip on the screen of harmonious petrol politics. After Iran's Islamic revolution overthrew the trusted shah, in 1979, the thoroughly anti-democratic Saudi oligarchy appeared an island of stability and thus of greater strategic value to Washington. Indeed, in a head-to-head match-up with the Israel lobby in 1981 over the proposed American sale of AWACS planes to the Saudis, the Saudi lobby won a close vote in the Senate. Leading the Arab charge on Capitol Hill was the debonair Prince Bandar, who demonstrated that charm mixed with a lot of money could beat the Israelis, even during the pro-Israel administration of Ronald Reagan.

Bandar was quickly promoted to Saudi ambassador to Washington, where, in 1990, he was assigned the task by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney of, in effect, doling out press passes to the U.S. media before the Gulf War — this in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. troops were swarming into the kingdom to defend it against a perceived invasion threat from Saddam Hussein. When he wasn't entertaining congressmen and spreading good cheer through his highly paid lobbyist, Fred Dutton, Bandar was busy making friends with, at first vice president, and then president, George H.W. Bush, and by extension with Bush's son, the future president. This personal relationship with the Bush family has served Bandar and his family very well, as documented in Craig Unger's book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

But the prince and his royal relatives evidently also impressed the Clinton administration. Before he died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill complained to French investigator Jean-Charles Brisard that Saudi pressure on the State Department had prevented him from fully investigating possible al-Qaida involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and of the destroyer Cole in 2000. As with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, there's always talk of the Saudis playing a double game with al-Qaida — publicly denouncing it and privately paying it off — but you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that the Saudis don't have America's best interests at heart.

So it gets worse. Now, according to Seymour Hersh, Bandar has virtually joined the Bush administration as a shadow cabinet member. Hersh's New Yorker article last month described "the redirection" of U.S. foreign policy against Iran and Arab Shi'ite terrorists in collaboration with such Sunni-dominated countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt (this in spite of the fact that Sunni rebels, funded in part by Saudi "private citizens," have killed the bulk of American solidiers who have died in Iraq).

The wise men in this new policy council reportedly include Vice President Cheney, deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams (an Iran-Contra convict who is very pro-Israel), the nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, and none other than Bandar, now the Saudi national-security adviser. Such is the cynicism of Bushian, Israeli and Saudi foreign policy that Abrams collaborates with Bandar, whose country does not recognize Israel and whose "charities" give money to the families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up inside the Jewish state.

Lately, King Abdullah has been making anti-American noises, calling the U.S. presence in Iraq an "illegitimate foreign occupation." But like the Saudis' paper-thin devotion to the Palestinian cause, this is just so much realpolitik. In March 1974, the oil embargo was lifted without any conditions concerning Palestinian rights. Today, as the Shi'ism scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb told Mohamad Bazzi, of Newsday, "the Saudis are being more autonomous, but it's a very contrived sense of autonomy" designed "to give [them] more political cover so they can rally Arab support against [Shi'ite] Iran."

If you're naíve enough to believe that the Saudi king's rhetoric signifies a genuine break with the United States over Iraq, or anything else, then you might also believe that the Israel lobby is more powerful than the Saudi lobby. And if you think that Israeli security means more to George Bush than Saudi oil, then you might even believe that Bush saw 9/11 coming.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 8:56 utc | 145

Somebody, the Sauds have been puppets ever since they were invented by the British to counter the Hashemites. Read more widely. Read this, if you can be bothered.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 5 2013 9:41 utc | 146

143) Even if the analysis is they are puppets with no will of their own who controls the strings? Who is blackmailing whom? Who decides where the money is spent?

It is not the democratic Western public that controls them, it is a system of kickbacks where democratically Western politicians are bribed and blackmailed into acts that are not in the interest of their countries.

It is stated by a British court that Tony Blair was blackmailed by the threat of terrorism to his country into - illegaly -preventing a fraud investigation that concerned the Saudis. He was not just threatened but quite obviously also bribed.

Do puppets lobby? Are the Israelis puppets then? If US citizens want their country back they have to confront the bribery - and that is first and foremost done by Gulf countries.

Israel, the Israel Lobby, Antisemitism are red herrings.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 9:52 utc | 147

ambitious! Obama redefines the international system:
'The US state is above international law, according to US president Barack Obama. In an address announcing that he was referring to the US Congress the decision to take military action against Syria, Obama declared that the United States needs to violate international law in order to enforce “the international system” and “international rules.” '
when obama promised to be the change the change people could believe i in! he wasnt a -woofin!

Sergei Lavrov: Russia to oppose replacement of governments by foreign intervention

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov speaks about the tasks facing the Foreign Ministry in 2013 and the ministry‘s approach to key international problems in an interview given to Interfax in the run-up to the New Year holidays.

Russia is determined to oppose attempts to legalize the practice of replacement of governments in various countries by foreign intervention, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Interfax on Thursday.

Posted by: brian | Sep 5 2013 10:39 utc | 148

In his book "Jewish Power", J.J. Goldberg cited a study performed in 1990 that found a significant positive correlation between the voting record of Senators and campaign contributions from Jewish donors.

“It is one of the worst-kept secrets in Jewish politics that campaign contribution is a major key to Jewish power. Strikingly, almost none involved in the process – donors, fundraisers, candidates, monitors – are willing to talk about it on the record.” – J.J.Goldberg, Jewish Power, p. 266


Times Of Israel

Jewish donors prominent in presidential campaign contributions

Sheldon Adelson is biggest giver of all; Obama’s top two donors also Jewish


The biggest single contributor to American political campaigns in 2007 was Haim Saban, an Israeli Jew.
- Source: Israeli Website

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 10:52 utc | 149

I wonder what the level of Saudi donations to US political campaigns are, any idea?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 10:53 utc | 150

It is stated by a British court that Tony Blair was blackmailed by the threat of terrorism to his country into - illegaly -preventing a fraud investigation that concerned the Saudis. He was not just threatened but quite obviously also bribed. Do puppets lobby? Are the Israelis puppets then? If US citizens want their country back they have to confront the bribery - and that is first and foremost done by Gulf countries. Israel, the Israel Lobby, Antisemitism are red herrings. Posted by: somebody | Sep 5, 2013 5:52:07 AM | 147
Puppets do whatever they're asked to do, often by the western secret services and predominantly by the CIA, and this often means pursuing a covert agenda which is in important ways the exact opposite of the State Dept's official agenda. And this includes manipulating phony terrorist threats and pretending to make phony blackmail threats, playing the mustachioed villain in a CIA or MI6 script. All this sounds so different from consensus 'reality' that I really don't expect you to believe it. There is no substitute for doing the research yourself (which unfortunately includes spending large sums on buying books you will probably only read once). And it takes years. But eventually, if you do it, you will accept that I am telling you the truth, and not exaggerating in the slightest. In the meantime, don't try to argue it back and forth, because arguing about metapolitics and parapolitics and 'deep politics' can go on forever, because there is never any open & shut 'proof', only the cumulative conviction that comes from years of reading. Perhaps you have to start from an intuitive sense that it just doesn't make sense as normally stated, otherwise you won't persist.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 5 2013 11:01 utc | 151

France: 'well go if you go'
US: we wont go less u go also
France: chicken?
US : woos!

McClatchy reports: #France won’t attack #Syria if U.S. doesn’t, prime minister tells his Senate

Posted by: brian | Sep 5 2013 11:06 utc | 152

Bottom line, Syria called big "O" bluff and he lost..

Of course there's no proof!!!!

Posted by: Zico | Sep 5 2013 11:53 utc | 153

re 146. the Sauds have been puppets ever since they were invented by the British to counter the Hashemites.

Rubbish. Ibn Saud did it all himself. The Brits and the Saudis were not that close. Britain just didn't try to prevent Ibn Saud when he knocked off the Sharif of Mecca.

Posted by: alexno | Sep 5 2013 12:29 utc | 154

151, Not really. Saddam Hussein used to be a so called puppet remember. What colonial powers do is they watch the power play on the ground and hedge their bets supporting adversaries of sides they think are getting too strong. Life is not simple when a small country like Britain tries to control India.

How many US citizens speak Arabic do you think? How many Middle Eastern foreign policy people and think tanks in the US are funded by Gulf lobbies? Who is whose puppet here? How long did US "puppets" survive in Iraq?

I don't think calling anyone puppet explains anything.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 12:42 utc | 155

"Not really. Saddam Hussein used to be a so called puppet remember. "

absolutely correct Saddam DID used to be called a Puppet. Well done!

and he was a rather excellent puppet too, from his masters point of view, performing his puppet-duties quite dutifully right up until the puppet-masters told him they had no problem with him attacking Kuwait.

but of course they were lying to him, and as soon as he did attack kuwait the Puppet masters turned on him and he suddenly became Nuevo Hitlero, Numero uno.

So basically the first line was spot-on, but then flushed with that triumph, you got carried away in the moment and the rest of it is just your usual mix of half-truths & obfuscation topped off with a healthy dollop of outright bullshit.

Well Done!

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 12:53 utc | 156

@129 somebody,

Instead of writing "Hint - the Israeli/US double citizenry is a minute part of the World/US economy. To claim otherwise is completely irrational." you might as well have typed the following words: "Whoever dies first will be dead for longer." Whilst true it makes no sense in the context of my post.

I made no reference to how many actors in world economic affairs have dual Israeli/US citizenship, nor has their actual number any weight in the matter discussed. A straw man if ever I've seen one. Smartly dressed, but still made off straw.

But since you brought it up, especially seeing how by sheer numbers comparatively few USraeli citizens are big players in the overall global world of finance, don't you find it funny how many of those Wall Street shysters and financial elite Obama surrounds himself with are from that exact small circle?

What matters is that the small number that does exist is running the joint, occupying crucial seats in the Washington and Wall Street power spectrum. Think Lloyd Blankfein, Laurence "Larry" Fink, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Rahm Emmanuel, etc. and you might get my drift. Not their collective global number but their respective position in the hierarchy counts. Let me know if you have trouble understanding that concept.

However, the point I actually tried to make in the comment you replied to was that even though those USraelites were put into the top jobs, their role is not to make decisions, their job is to implement them.

It matters little who they place in front of the cameras for the pundits to cheer and yell at as the important decisions are being made by people we don't get to see, people not listed in the Fortune 500 as they own more wealth than those 500 combined, including Time Warner, the company that publishes the list.

But don't get me wrong, non-USraelites are just as eager to serve their overlords, perhaps not as reliably and motivated by money rather than blood. Best to have one of your own clan running the departments, provinces and protectorates.

Regarding your statement of "Israel, the Israel Lobby, Antisemitism are red herrings., on par with 'Bananas, Lemons, Cherries are yellow fruit'. Not even a preschooler would fall for that.

@ 132 Cheers crone. As you would have noticed I myself contribute only sporadically to the discussion here, appreciate very much though the regulars who add a heart beat to b's interesting analysis. Over the years the names in orange along the right side of the homepage have of course changed, the quality and range of information found in the comments section has not. A true gem this place.

@ 143 Hi Karin, your link didn't work but I am sure you are referring to this site. I don't know, a Chechen internet news site reporting a senior source in the Russian Air Force told them Putin plans to wipe out the Saudi Royal family as they are

[...] a key US ally in the region, not Israel, as many suggest, [...]
Doesn't smell right for a variety of reasons. To name one, why would a senior Russian official be talking to this obscure pro invasion Jihadi psy-op site? Check out their other articles, mostly anti-Putin rants praising FSA (think Saudi) efforts in Syria's killing fields. What had me in stitches is this piece here, reporting on a successful raid on a US supply base near the Pakistan border a few days ago.
The group of three martyrdom seeking Mujahideen, Muhammad Yasin from Nangarhar, Abdur Rahman from Kunar and Farooq Jan from Kandahar province stormed the huge base early this morning and after breaching the main base, engaged in head-on fight the with the enemy forces that lasted for about five hours.

After five hours of firefight and a series of explosions, the three brave Mujahideen destroyed as many as 154 armoured personnel carriers, 12 mine clearing tanks, 85 trailer trucks and 9 container trucks filled with important and advanced military gears and arms.
[...] Meantime, Mujahideen having destroyed the strategic targets oil and arms depots and stores, attacked the residential parts of the base and killed several US-Nato invaders as well as killing and wounding 13 puppets.

Argh. I want the drugs those 3 guys must have been on. Western media reports 40 vehicles destroyed with no one but the three Taliban suicide missionaries killed.

Its hard to know who to believe these days, but 154 APC's, 12 tanks, 85 trailers? Saudi Arabia a more important US ally than Israel? Somewhere between distortion and wishful thinking.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 5 2013 14:22 utc | 157

157 They sit on top of oil wells close to other oil wells, the Israelis don't, they are - counting all citizens - approx. 30 million the Israelis 8 million, they have billions to invest and bribe, the Israelis don't, they own the heartland of a religion of 1.57 billion, the Israelis the heartland of three religions, representing the smallest of the three ....
frankly, the only military or otherwise importance Israel has is that a lot of military gear is stored and tested there, that could easily be transferred to Turkey, Cyprus or Nevada if necessary ....
you can't even protect the Suez canal with Israel ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 14:50 utc | 158

157) Sure I understand what you are saying, people of Jewish descent are over represented in the US finance industry and in Hollywood. You do not find a black or Irish banker, though presumably a lot of people of non Jewish English descent. The roots of that are historic. You probably will find people of Jewish descent underrepresented in other industries. When you consider the demographic make-up of the US non Jewish people of English descent presumably are still over represented in most fields. It is very difficult to change that as recruiters are always biased towards people who are just like themselves.
I wonder though - election wise it is possible now in the US for a very gifted Christian man of mixed race to get elected (same as a stupid emotional ex alcoholic of English descent), it might be possible to get elected for a Christian woman or a Christian person of Hispanic descent, can you see the US voting for a Jew or a Muslim as president?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 15:04 utc | 159

Mate, who has the nukes! Further questions?

As I've outlined before, Israel is as much an ally of the US as you can whisper in your own ear. Its not Israel and the Saudis competing for influence in the US, its the House of Saud tagging onto USrael.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 5 2013 15:12 utc | 160

Are you kidding me somebody? Summers, Geithner, Bernanke et all ended up controlling today's US money supply for historic reasons? Won't be long now and modern day Spartans will be made US generals. You crack me up.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 5 2013 15:24 utc | 161

161) ok. The Rothschild family goes back to the 18th century Frankfurt am Main Jewish ghetto. The Oppenheim family also goes back to 18th century Germany. They predate the founding of the United States.

There were just not that many trades open to European Jews. The guilds were a Christian closed shop. Jews were not allowed to settle outside of the ghetto. Only the French Revolution and the occupation by Napoleon beginning of the 19th century forced the end of the ghettos and the emancipation of Jews. So historically they were a very close knit community specialized in a few trades.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 15:58 utc | 162

re: 162

Yes but the ones that were open to them were highly lucrative

If I were to be "oppressed" by being confined to, let's say, 2 or 3 business activities, I'm pretty sure I'd be absolutely delighted if one of those legal activities were the right to make Free Money in the form of interest - and Tax collection & Rent collection would be pretty good too, back then.

Imagine the power the local Rent & Tax collectors would have had over the local Merchants, Farmers and Peasantry , especially when the Taxes were often decreed to be paid in Gold and Silver coinage, and even more especially when co-religionists already had a monopoly on dealing in the local Gold and Silver coinage.

sure sounds like a pretty lucrative monopoly to me.

If THAT is "oppression" I'll take it anyday

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 16:18 utc | 163

163) Actually the Rothschilds came late ..., capitalism is connected to Protestantism by sociologists ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 17:09 utc | 164

162) It was pretty crammed, I am not sure you would have liked that.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 5 2013 17:18 utc | 165

capitalism is connected to Protestantism by sociologists ... Posted by: somebody | Sep 5, 2013 1:09:21 PM | 164
That merits a dose of my heretical marxism. Let us distinguish between 'finance capital' and 'productive capital'. These are certainly loaded terms, because they imply that finance capital is unproductive. But the alternative would be to list every sector of production: 'industrial capital', 'agricultural capital', 'housing capital', where would you stop? The point is, finance capital is basically just playing with numbers, and what do the numbers denominate? Fantasy money. Monopoly money. Many people probably imagine that a nation has to limit its money supply to a certain multiple of the value of the gold in the vaults of its Treasury, but in the dominant countries that hasn't been true for four hundred years. But that doesn't stop them enforcing it on the dominated countries. It's a gigantic bluff. It takes major chutzpah to keep that bluff going. But a carefully groomed beard will help. A central banker, in particular, needs the beard to be credible. We are talking about a form of theatre. Perhaps this will help.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 5 2013 17:46 utc | 166

Thanks Juan for your answer and the later comments!

Posted by: Karin | Sep 5 2013 18:42 utc | 167

(General) Ali Habib has managed to escape from the grip of the regime ...

Actually this quite probably is less funny than it seems. The quote tells us about the starting point.

From then on we would have been told that General Habib, a high level insider, is willing to give testimony against Assad, the "poison mass murderer", telling whatever lies were asked for by the zionist fractions.
Of course, Habib can't be seen or talked to, nor could his location be told for reasons of security. But there would be a "signed witness account" ...

This is our great weakness as normal humans. We have at least some honour and at least try to usually be halfway honest - and that forms our perception and thinking. zusa/zuk/franze/zaudi/israe are free from all that. They lie even without opening their snout.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 5 2013 19:14 utc | 168

@144 Somebody - Have you ever been to Scotland or Turkey?

It might surprise you to know that Scotland has things like good food, some of the finest landscapes in the world, pure white beaches, incredible wildlife, a great friendly atmosphere which is world renowned and we even have sunshine, somtimes, in fact we have just had one of the best summers in years.

I come here everyday, I don't always comment as there are many here who are far more eloquent and knowledgable than I. Those who don't rely quite so much as on cut and paste jobs as some others.

I'm a Scottish Nationalist and I really take exeption to your comment about my country.

So, at the risk of bringing b down on me.

Awa an throw shite at yersel ye fuckin muppet!

Posted by: BillyBoy | Sep 5 2013 21:32 utc | 169

Crone @ 121 Does it make sense? I really don’t see the US having any coherent agenda in the ME in the post-cold war world other than israelism. There are oil interests of course but they seem to be able to do business with whomever happens to be in power over there because it is a mutually beneficial relationship for both them and the oil states.

In this vacuum there is only the agenda of the super-motivated and hard-working Israelists. Almost being exterminated not long ago has, understandably, really shot the jews out of a cannon in terms of dedication to their cause. But it’s the rest of America who are really at fault for being so apathetic and either blind or overly compliant about how their country is being run and not “the jews”.

These links you posted look very interesting. Thanks.

@ 117 There are some political reforms that could help. And as crone says the Israel lobbies should be registered as foreign agents. The pass they've been given on that has really allowed them to blur the line between America’s national interest and Israel’s

But I’d like it to be solved by more of a grass-roots up movement. It looks like consciousness of this issue is growing and once the electorate gets on board we’ll see some different attitudes in public office.

Posted by: JBradley | Sep 6 2013 0:03 utc | 170

@Anonymous: "Thats the problem, Russia doesnt have a "principled position" as I and many of us have tried to show. Its just a denial and weakness by you by trying to uphold a a theory that Russia would protect Syria. Not going to happen."

I wouldn't expect someone with no principles to be able to recognize them.

You rotten rat. You're a stain on this whole conversation.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2013 1:44 utc | 171


You make no sense, why would you ask me questions if you then say I make no sense? You mad? Yes you are, now get over it. Russia wont protect Syria.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 6 2013 7:54 utc | 172

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.