Archive for ‘Bloggers Blogged’

January 4, 2017

How We Were Misled About Syria: the role of Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF)

by mkleit

Original is from Tim Hayward wordpress




I have unbounded admiration for the doctors who volunteer for the invaluable and often dangerous work of Médicins Sans Frontières (MSF). The question concerns MSF’s policy of ‘bearing witness’. MSF will speak out – even against governments – when it thinks a humanitarian situation could and should be dealt with differently by those it holds responsible.[1] It has done so in Syria.

But if none of MSF’s international doctors have been on the ground in Syria’s war zones since 2015,[2] how can MSF claim to bear witness for what is happening there?

MSF has relayed reports from the rebel-held areas to which, exclusively, its supplies and support have been dispatched. The reports – including allegations of government attacks on hospitals and civilians – come from people working with the permission and protection of such groups as Al Nusra, Isis and other foreign jihadis and mercenaries. These anti-government forces are known to exercise a rule of terror and to be not overly concerned about ordinary citizens’ access to medical attention. That is precisely why the MSF doctors withdrew from the areas under their control.[3] So there is scope to ask who the medics on the ground were, and who they were treating.


My question, though, simply concerns the reliability of uncorroborated witness statements coming from potentially compromised sources. For while press statements have been issued from various MSF offices around the world, it appears MSF had no independent access to verifiable information from Syria.

In fact, the public unavailability of detailed or verified information is a matter of record: even John Kirby of the US State Department could only assert that ‘relief agencies that we find credible are levelling these accusations’.[4]

The most prominent relief agency, and visible in all video footage linked to the alleged bombings, is the White Helmets.

It is a matter of record that the White Helmets are funded by the NATO and Gulf states whose avowed aim is regime change in Syria; or-38096it is generally believed that they work closely with terrorist organisations (how else could the Netflix documentary have shown them roaming so freely in a zone where MSF and Western journalists dared not set foot?[5]). Their independence and integrity are widely questioned.[6]

So while MSF has often been cited as an independent source of support for White Helmet testimony, its press statements have in fact merely repeated White Helmet claims![7]

Whether intending it or not, MSF thereby became complicit in purveying a particular narrative that suffused the Western media during the period from 22 September to 22 December 2016.[8] Before September, the media had been perfectly clear that the citizens of eastern Aleppo were being held captive, effectively as human shields, by forces dominated by jihadist terrorists.[9] That changed following the uncompromising statement by Samantha Power to the UN Security Council, in which she invoked the White Helmets as victims and witnesses of Russian and Syrian aggression.[10]

Western governments and media re-designated the terrorist groups as ‘moderate rebels’.[11] Concurrently, anti-government activists like Lina Shamy started tweeting in English, the celebrated twitter account in the name of the child Bana was created, and there followed a flow of ‘famous last webcams’ from purported ordinary civilians voicing fears of impending massacre by the Syrian government.

Those of us in the West who were uncertain about the authenticity of all this social media activity in a zone lacking basic infrastructure, let alone wifi,[12] were coaxed to accept the mainstream narrative because a respected organisation like MSF apparently bore witness to it.[13] Few of us realised that MSF was merely repeating White Helmet testimony, not independently verifying it.

The consistent testimony now coming from the people who have been liberated in eastern Aleppo suggests a quite different story from the one that Netflix and our media have promoted.[14] The Helmets themselves appear to have melted away with the departure from Aleppo of the jihadists and mercenaries. If there were any genuinely independent doctors working with them in Aleppo, they too have yet to be heard from. But most telling, in view of White Helmet claims to have saved some 70,000 lives (or whatever exact number we are invited to believe), is that not a single person interviewed in liberated Aleppo has thanked them.


So, in seeking to bear witness against the Syrian government, MSF has made claims on a basis that is uncertain and contested.[15]  By so publicly associating itself with the White Helmets and their narrative it may have risked compromising the reputation it relies on to attract international doctors.

Those of us who deeply appreciate the service to humankind of MSF’s international doctors are left to hope the organisation coordinating their work can be more sure to avoid bearing false witness.[16]

The problem with the false narrative is no trivial one, for it perpetuates a fundamental misrecognition of the causes of the war – and thus of all the casualities the doctors have to deal with.  A false narrative not only gives impunity to the guilty but it supports them in moving ever onwards with their murderous designs. It distracts from the ethical truth, too, that the jihadis and the states supplying them with arms and opportunity are in fundamental breach of the law and morality of just warfare.





[1] The background for this founding principle – of témoignage (‘bearing witness’) – is cited on their website: ‘Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Biafran war because of a deliberate government policy. On their return from the region, a group of young French doctors were frustrated and outraged by the inability of the Red Cross to say publicly what had happened.’

[2] MSF Voice from the Field in Syria: Dr. Nathalie Roberts

[3] Dr Nathalie Roberts has described how in the earlier days of the war in Syria, MSF had followed its usual working procedures in opposition-held areas but with the arrival of Islamic State group that became impossible: “they were not allowing all the patients to access the hospital”, they then started appropriating MSF supplies and even kidnapping MSF staff. They could not continue to work in a place where the occupying groups would not allow the doctors to do their medical job. (Dr Roberts interviewed on 13 March 2015)


[5] I personally first became curious about the White Helmets from viewing the Netflix documentary (, and the question I mention in the text here is the one I simply could not get past. I was therefore not surprised to find that others had already offered powerful critiques of the organisation.

I also had trouble imagining how people working in such desperate conditions would have the leisure to keep up with the latest Western craze of the Mannequin Challenge, and also the insensitivity to do a facsimile rescue for the purpose. The video of this PR own goal was quickly removed by the White Helmets’ promoters but remains available elsewhere at time of writing, e.g.:

A discussion of it is here:

[6] The critical sources now on the internet are far too numerous to mention, but indicative examples include:

[7] The spokespersons bearing MSF witness to the public are quite numerous and remote from Syria. They seldom make explicit the source of their information, but when they do we find it is the White Helmets.

Sam Taylor, for instance, who is Syria communications coordinator for MSF and is based in Jordan, uncritically reproduced White Helmets material: ‘The civil defense, also known as the White Helmets, said the hospital and adjacent buildings were struck in four consecutive airstrikes.’ ‘Video posted by the White Helmets showed lifeless bodies, including children, being pulled from a building and loaded into ambulances amid screams and wailing. Distraught rescue workers tried to keep away onlookers, apparently fearing more bombs.’

Taylor does mention another authority: ‘Shortly after midday Thursday, new airstrikes in rebel-held areas killed at least 20 people in two neighbourhoods, the Syrian Civil Defense and the Observatory said.’ By ‘Observatory’, he presumably means the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although this sounds like an independent organisation, it is in fact a single individual named Rami Abdulrahman (sometimes referred to as Rami Abdul Rahman) living in Coventry in the UK; and he is presumably as independent as one can expect from an opposition exile whose small network of informants in Syria consists largely of anti-government activists.

Certainly, he is no more directly a witness than is MSF’s spokesperson. Needless to say, the Observatory’s credibility and independence is disputed:;;

Despite this lack of verified independent evidence, Taylor was prepared to state on behalf of MSF that a hospital attack ‘was deliberate’ While the basis for the accusation is not given, the cumulative effect of this sort of public statement is evident.

Pablo Marco Blanco, MSF’s Operations Manager for the Middle East in Barcelona, effectively endorsed the accusation, while admitting that the basis of the information was unconfirmed.

Similar communications came from Muskilda Zancada, ‘MSF head of mission in Syria’ in Barcelona. Zancada also stated that ‘civilians are targeted’ Paul McPhun, Executive Director MSF Australia, speaking from Australia (10 October 2016) likewise makes categorial statements about targeted bombings in Aleppo, but without indicating the source of his knowledge.

It is even possible that the accusations are true. Yet it is also possible that they are not. The fallibility of MSF sources has been illustrated by how Teresa Sancristoval, Head of MSF’s Emergency Unit for Aleppo, was clearly being fed her information in Barcelona from people with an oppositional stance towards the Syrian Government because they were ‘afraid of the retaliations they can suffer’ (see note 7).

While I have no doubt that all MSF statements are made from a standpoint of agonised human sympathy, and in good faith, they take on a life of their own when picked up by the media and disseminated for further purposes.

In the end it is clear that what matters from the humanitarian point of view is that the bombing should stop. When MSF call for all sides to stop, they can claim to speak for humankind. When they complain of ‘targeted and indiscriminate bombing by the Syrian and Russian armed forces’ ( they create unnecessary controversy: if bombing both targeted and indiscriminate is to stop on the government side, that is as much as to say – from the government’s perspective – that it should simply allow the ISIS and Al Nusra terrorists free rein over the people and sovereign territory that it has a duty to defend. MSF do not want to say exactly this, I assume, but my point is that the organisation seems not to have a firm enough grip on its communications policy or a sufficiently coherent approach to defining its extra-medical mission.

[8] MSF statements from Syria condemning the Syrian and Russian governments have been demonstrably lacking in certainty or detail. For instance, in relaying reports of attacks on hospitals around Aleppo in May they note that ‘one was the MSF-supported al Sakhour hospital in Aleppo city, which was forced to suspend activities after being bombed at least twice on consecutive days.’ ( An inexact statement like this – being equivocal as to whether the number of bombings was two, three, or some other number – may or may not be true; it cannot claim to have been properly verified, since a verification would make clear whether or not a third or further bombings had occurred.

MSF uncritically accepted the veracity of the ‘famous last webcams’ coming out of besieged eastern Aleppo. As late as 14 December 2014 MSF wrote on their own website: ‘Whatever hope remained is rapidly dissipating. People are terrified, almost certain that their own deaths are near. Messages in which they say goodbye to their love ones are proliferating.’ ]

MSF do not appear to have known as much as one might hope or expect about the doctors they supported in terrorist-held Aleppo and whose words they relay to the public. The doctors communicating from terrorist-held Aleppo whose testimony the MSF publicly cited just prior to the liberation of Aleppo were apparently not looking forward to the end of the siege, and MSF even believed that their forebodings were shared by the ordinary people of Aleppo: ‘Like the rest of the population, “doctors are terrified and losing hope,” says Teresa Sancristoval, Head of MSF’s Emergency Unit for Aleppo. “They are afraid of the retaliations they can suffer. For the last two days, our exchanges have been more about goodbye messages and requests for evacuation than anything else. They feel abandoned to their fate and with no way out.”’


[10] As Stephen Cohen has pointed out, the sea change came with the breakdown of negotiations between Obama and Putin.

The view was then forcefully asserted against Obama by Samantha Power.

In her speech to UN Security Council she singled out the White Helmets as victims and witnesses of Russian and Syrian attacks. She declared: ‘This is not the day, this is not the time to blame all sides, to draw false equivalencies. It is not the time to say that “airstrikes took place,” or “civilians were killed.” It is time to say who is carrying out those airstrikes, and who is killing civilians.’
[11] Some insights into the unreliability of the mainstream narrative have occasionally been heard from within mainstream media outlets.

For instance: (‘Tulsi Gabbard tells the truth about Syria’ on CNN)
Carla Ortiz Speaks about her Experience in Aleppo and The Little Syrian Girl

Criticisms have of course been extensive in the Russian media. Since promoters of the Western narrative do not regard the Russia Today (RT) channel as a reliable source, I mention just a couple of interviews that they might concede have some credibility – one from a Church of England clergyman and one from a former UK ambassador to Syria:
‘Consistent stories of brutality at the hands of the Syrian rebels’ – Rev. Andrew Ashdown

US effectively siding with Al-Qaeda in desire to get rid of Assad – former UK ambassador to Syria

[12] Common sense scepticism on this point is supported by the first hand testimony of Carla Ortiz about trying to get internet connections in Aleppo

[13] I have seen MSF cited as a source to discredit the account of Syria given to the UN by Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett
In fact, I was first prompted to do the research that led to writing this blog because a respected and well-informed friend on Facebook invoked MSF as a refutation of Bartlett’s claims. I believe it has since become clear that events have entirely vindicated Bartlett.

[14] Some examples of interviews with newly liberated citizens in Aleppo:

[15] Stronger criticism of MSF than I am making is found in Miri Wood’s ‘Guide to Understanding How ‘Unhospitals’ Cannot Be Bombed’ ; MSF’s relationship with the Syrian Government is known to be an uneasy one:

[16] MSF takes a certain pride in fostering debate and allowing some plurality of political views to be aired within the organisation: it does not attempt, as ICRC does, to hold a single public line. (Rony Brauman, ‘Médecins Sans Frontières and the ICRC: matters of principle’, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 888, 31 December 2012:

Yet the public hears MSF-branded messages and thinks they represent the honest and considered position of a respected organisation. They are encouraged to do so by the fact that press releases and comments are issued by the organisation and not as independent opinions of particular members.

While it is not my place to tell MSF how to conduct its affairs, I would say that their internal plurality of opinion is not necessarily a virtue: if they cannot agree on certain matters of principle about bearing witness, then the wise option might be simply to refrain, as ICRC do. At any rate, some of their internal philosophical debate strikes this reader as unhelpfully verbose and analytically unclear. More specifically relating to Syria, it is reasonable to believe that the geopolitics of the region and the machinations of its various protagonists are as complex and challenging, in their way, as are the medical emergencies in a war zone. Even the most judicious political analyst would not be much use in dealing with the latter. The people in MSF offices might reflect on whether the converse does not also apply.

We are not in a position to know if Syria or Russia should answer any charges in respect of the conduct of war.  We do know that their enemies must, and, more crucially, that they face the more fundamental charge of having attacked Syria and its people without just cause.

I find a rather bitter irony in the MSF position that they distinguish themselves from the ICRC in not being willing to patch up victims simply in order to make possible further harm to them; for that could be said to be what they are doing by wishing that a sovereign people should not use full lethal force against merciless invaders on its soil.

October 11, 2015

How The US Uses (Takfiri) Extremists

by mkleit



Many doubts, questions, and dilemmas have arisen concerning the contradicting conduct of the West while dealing with extremist movements. The West exploited these movements in Afghanistan during the late 1970’s, opposed them in the Arabian Peninsula in the nineties, and then launched war against them in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. However, in 2011, the West returned to taking advantage of these extremist groups and we are currently faced with a rather vague Western connection with Isis.

The reason behind the doubts and different points of view is that analyses are based on relatively rigid mental paradigms which fail to proceed in accordance with the flexibility and pragmatic segmentation of the cowboy mentality. On the other hand, the alignment of extremist groups in many instances with the West has induced powers which oppose these groups to accuse them of treacherous conduct.

This is accurate, but it is accomplished through the Western scheme of indirect control of these groups. This indirect control is due to the ideological and strategic disorder which extremist groups suffer from, and the disapproval which those in their infrastructure, supportive environment, and their mustering forces maintain toward any connection with the United States- let alone full alliance with America. This is what the inconstancies in relations from 1979 up until this day indicate.

Another factor which has spurned these doubts is the vehement self-defense which the “takfiris” display when they are accused of having connections with the United States or with any countries which adhere to America or revolve around it.

The examination of the course of this movement leads to a specific model which displays how the relation with Isis is controlled by Western powers with the United States at their head. This model is composed of three aspects:


1) Commission 2) Steering 3) Restraint

Each one of these aspects forms a set of tools which The US select according to the time and condition they deem as most appropriate. They do not necessarily benefit from all of these aspects in a simultaneous manner.

1) Commission

This policy depends on assessing which geographical area is most suitable for the movement of extremist groups, but under the condition that these movements do not pose a threat on American interests and that they also provide a strategic advantage. This policy is fulfilled according to circumstances and through certain means which are chosen according to time and place. There are five essential means.

1) Ensuring geographical domains: Weakening a country’s control in the target region through commotions, political turmoil, political settlement, and national uprising – as was the case in Syria in 2011, and Mosul in 2014.

2) Securing logistical pathways: Ensuring roads for extremists to reach target regions whether these pathways are by land, sea, or air. They also provide visas and even means of transportation in order to reach the area of conflict. They used Egypt, Pakistan, and Yemen as transits during the war on Afghanistan in 1979, and Turkey and Jordan during the war on Syria in 2011

3) Allowing financial aid and armament: Giving approval to their allied powers which wish to support extremist groups with money and weapons whether directly or indirectly (through certain institutions and weapon dealers). Rationing and organizing financial aid is done according to the time which ensures the imposition of a strategic course upon extremist groups.

The United States might also resort to direct weapon provision in some cases of tactical exceptions, such as throwing weapons and equipment from the air to Isis fighters in Kobani more than five times, and presenting this act in the guise of “a mistake”.

4) Transport: Expelling extremists from the countries which are harmed by their presence or from countries which desire to take advantage of them.

5) Facilitating the work of preachers: Allowing extremist preachers to fulfill their activity of spreading extremist ideology and mobilizing “takfiris” in the areas of transference, at departure, and at arrival. Extremist preachers are also allowed to spread their views on satellite TV stations and through different media.

2) Steering

This policy is based upon exerting an effort in media, mobilization, and in the field of action in order to direct the strategic priority of extremist groups toward movement in a certain sphere only, to target a specific enemy, or even to change the strategic and tactical course at a certain stage. All of this is done according to circumstances, requirements, and capacity.

The United States is very active in this domain with the aid of its regional and international allies. It achieves its aim through nine principal means.

1) Specifying the “preferable enemy”: the US have created “stars” among the “takfiri” environment for their own purposes and interests. They shed light on commanders or convenient extremist factions through inserting them on the list of terrorism. They focus on them in the media and select them in a way in which their prominence on the political scene leads to regional and international political achievements. For example, at the beginning of the war on Iraq, Colin Powell proclaimed that the enemy of the United States was al-Zarqawi. The US media machine placed him under the spotlight in a way where he became a prominent figure on the scene, and the conflict considerably shifted to internal Iraqi strife.

This is what Israel did a few months ago when it imposed on Jabhat Nusra to assign certain commanders in charge of control of the positions along the Jolan Heights- under threat of military intervention.

2) Assassinating commanders: Targeting extremist leaders who pose a threat on American or Western national security, or leaders whose regional influence negatively affects the scheme of steering and exploiting. For example, assassinating Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-‘Awlaqi, and most Qaeda commanders in Yemen.

3) Arabian and International Media: Delivering ideological and provocative concepts which aggravate extremist groups and urge them to head to a certain target region to fight the side which America chooses.

4) Saudi Arabian clerics: The Saudi Arabian religious institution is performing a central role through issuing fatwas which declare jihad in a target region.

5) Security Breaches: Recruiting, sending “Islamized” Western men to fight, the role of Arabian secret services, imprisonment, and attracting a supportive environment which is discontent with the conduct of the extremists. Prisons play a central role in recruiting commanders and prominent figures whether in an explicit or indirect way.

6) Taking command of conflicts: Handling the crisis in the target region in a way which achieves the goals of the United States, and preserving the controllable and exploitable extremist power through suspicious operations and different means of steering.

7) Causing a suitable environment of strife: Creating a setting of conflict in which the mustering forces of the extremist groups are presented as the targets, the oppressed, and the infringed upon – as in the case of Afghanistan and Syria.

8) Dividing the “takfiri” factions: Creating conflicts, tactical clashes in the field of combat, and producing a multiple set of goals and priorities through different means in order to prevent the formation of a unified power- as in the case of the clash between Isis and Jabhat Nusra in Syria.

9) Strategic Theorization: Presenting comprehensive strategic plans which represent the interest of the extremist scheme in the targeted geographical range. The security services infiltrates the Salafist jihadi virtual world and make their own Salafist websites, and in some cases they have the advantage of recruiting few ideologue under the coercion or persuasive instrument in the secret jails, those ideologue are capable of making the paradigm shift when needed.

3) Restraint

Takfiri factions strive to maintain their own agendas – in spite of the great influence of the United States and its agents – in order to preserve their rank among their mustering forces and political authorities. Western powers need to restrain takfiri groups in order to prevent them from crossing strategic or military limits, and they fulfill this through force or control of their incomes.

Regulation is based on six essential means:
1) Direct Confrontation: Carrying out direct military operations to strike at the critical takfiri forces or those which pose a threat, as in the case of Afghanistan in 2001 for example.

2) Limiting financial aid and armament: Monitoring the flow of money and weapons; the amount, type, and timing. They also uphold the limits which prevent the takfiris from becoming a threat while allowing them to act in a way which benefits the United States, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

3) Geographical Restraint: When necessary, the military forces of the United States or its allies fire at the posts where takfiris pose a current or future threat, as the coalition forces did when Isis fighters entered Irbil.

4) Providing a Geographical Substitute: If takfiri groups increase in number or if it becomes hard to control them or their actions, a new battlefield is provided which forms a vent for emotional and military zeal. The most prominent example is allowing Isis forces to engage in fighting in Mosul.

5) Steering through the Media: Provocations in the media contribute to maintaining military and political zeal to achieve the intended and previously specified goal. Thus, it becomes difficult for the leaders of takfiri factions to turn around on the intermediate range.

6) Assassinating Commanders: This was explained among the aforementioned means of steering. The best example on resorting to this course of action during operations of restraint is the assassination of Al-Zarqawi when the United States became suspicious that he had pledged allegiance to Bin Laden and that he had restored the struggle against America as his main priority.

terrorist Abu Mes'ab al Zarqawi

terrorist Abu Mes’ab al Zarqawi


The usage of these means was fulfilled in different circumstances and course of events. In Afghanistan in 1979, the United States had previously designated the course of events. The National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had formulated a plan to bring Islamists to Afghanistan, to lure the Soviets, and to trigger a long term exhaustive struggle between them.

The second example was after the eleventh of September when the United States resorted to means of restraint in the face of takfiri groups which had left Afghanistan in search of a range of movement. A clash of interests ensued and resulted in the war on Afghanistan in 2001 and the operation of complete security restraint in Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, the zeal of these takfiri groups was directed toward Iraq in 2003 under the banner of fighting America only to be steered toward internal strife.

After that, the great operation to engage in Syria commenced and it is still continuing. The takfiri factions had envisioned in their consciousness and political cognizance an old enterprise in that country. One of the results of this operation was the emergence of Isis whose military effort has been steered once again toward Iraq- in limited mutual interests which the United States has not allowed to cross their specified sphere. Now, Isis is heading toward targeting Saudi Arabia which induced the international coalition to strike it.

Art of the Possible

The United States, its allies, and its regional adherents have adopted this three dimensional policy. This is due to the deep hostility which Arabian and Islamic nations hold toward America, the inability of the US army to engage in the battlefield for military and economic reasons, and the steady growth of powers which oppose America and Israel. Thus, the need for substitute armies able to accomplish strategic and tactical missions arose.

The second reason is the difficulty in engaging in direct combat with takfiri groups which Bin Laden had been temporarily able to drive toward fighting the far enemy in the late nineties and the new millennium, and the need which arose after September eleventh to return these groups to their favorite ideology of targeting the near enemy and regional foes.

Thirdly, Western powers were most of the time in need for an excuse for military intervention. They were also in need of signing long-term agreements (in security, economics…) with the terrorist takfiris. This is why they enabled the takfiris to be present- in order to justify intervention as in the case of Iraq in 2003.

Fourth is the need of America and Western countries to import the takfiri individuals who are active on their soil and to get rid of them.

Regional allies have other concerns – the most important which is the need to vent the internal pressure which these takfiri movements of revolutionary quality pose, and to solve jurisprudential issues when dealing with takfiri groups which lessen their excommunicative speech against certain regimes when they find a suitable range of movement abroad.

On another level, Arabian and Islamic countries need to get rid of the organizational structures of the takfiris or to weaken them as much as possible through driving them toward areas of conflict and strategic ambushes, as Saudi Arabia did in 2003 when it imported its dilemma with Qaeda to Iraq and got rid of that great predicament. The final motive for countries which are involved in the strategy of indirect control has to do with the regional aspect- they make use of takfiri groups to accomplish political regional goals, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

The nature of the takfiri groups is the reason why they have a tendency to be under this strategy. They are hostile and excommunicate everyone, even one another. Thus, they are prone to be steered in any possible direction. Due to the intellectual and jurisprudential differences among takfiri groups, and the lack of a unified command and strategy, they have a tendency to be infiltrated and to be steered in different directions. They also suffer from great vulnerability in security and this has facilitated the endeavors to recruit agents and secret intelligence infiltration.

They are also faced with a major problem which is financial aid – they lack an independent Islamic country which provides them with the money they need. This is why they depend on countries which exclusively adhere to the United States such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Pakistan. On the other hand, due to the security and political pressure exerted on takfiri groups, they are usually in search of any available outlet- especially since their speech carries very ambitious goals in comparison with their ability and narrow range of movement.

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

Courses of Action and Achievements

The main cases in this strategy are Afghanistan 1979, Iraq 2003, and Syria 2011. These cases have been generally successful in accomplishing their main goal which is transformation as much as possible of the threat which takfiri movements pose into a chance, and to take advantage of their blood-thirsty and destructive nature for the benefit of strategic US enterprises. They were successful in Afghanistan which the Soviets left, and they were successful in kindling sectarian and ethnic turmoil in Iraq in 2003. Currently, the United States has benefitted from these takfiri groups in Syria through destroying a great deal of the infrastructure of that country which is central in the allegiance of resistance. Israel has benefitted in creating an obstructive line on the border of the Jolan Heights which is formed of the Jabhat Nusra forces. In Iraq today, Isis represents a case which we wait to discover its outcomes and strategic courses.

On the long term, this strategy has been successful in shifting the military effort of takfiri groups away from directly targeting the West. In Afghanistan, the enemy was the Soviet Union, and in the period after that the targeting of American interests commenced up until the eleventh of September. Steering and indirect control were successful in Iraq in making American interests a secondary priority for takfiri groups in opposition to the priority of targeting other regional powers. As for Syria, American interests became completely distant from takfiri attacks, and Isis has almost fully eliminated attempts to target American interests. The main concern has become the geographical region- to establish the state of Isis, expand it, and to preserve its lands.

The profound and structural results show that America has been able to prevent takfiris from being active in regions where they pose threats on American interests. As a result of wide American domination, takfiri groups have not been able to move in an effective way which has influential political results anymore. They are only able to do so when there is no opposition to US interests which means where the US are at an advantage due to their presence. Thus, these takfiri groups – in an objective way- have become a part of the American scheme. With time they have avoided all regions vital to the United States and are active in less crucial areas.

September 3, 2015

الأدوار الخفية للمنظمات غير الحكومية

by mkleit

هادي قبيسي


“إن الكثير مما نقوم به اليوم كانت تقوم به وكالة الإستخبارات المركزية قبل خمس وعشرين عاماً”

آلان وينستاين 1991 / مؤسس الوقفية الوطنية للديموقراطية

تأسست الوقفية الوطنية للديموقراطية بعد مرحلة ريغان مباشرةً بعد انكشاف عدد كبير من أنشطة السي آي إي، فتم إنشاء لجنة متخصصة للإشراف على عمل الإستخبارات، رسمت توجهاً جديداً للعمل تحت غطاء المنظمات غير الحكومية التي ترفع الشعارات الديموقراطية في مختلف أصقاع العالم، فكان إنشاء الوقفية في هذا السياق. ويوضح لنا الرئيس الأول للمؤسسة كارل غيرشمان في تصريح له عام 1986 طبيعة الوقفية والحاجة الكامنة خلف تأسيسها بالقول :”لم يعد ممكناً للمجموعات الديموقراطية حول العالم أن تنظر لنفسها على أنها عميلة للسي آي إي”. ويعتبر الكاتب ديفون دوغلاس بوير تعليقاً على حالة الوقفية ومؤسسات أخرى مشابهة من حيث الدور والغطاء أنه و”في حين أن للمنظمات غير الحكومية تأثيراً إيجابياً على المجتمع ككل، ينبغي الإلتفات إلى خلفيتها، من المسؤول عنها، ومن أين تحصل على تمويلها، لأن طبيعة هذه المنظمات في تغير، وهي تنخرط أكثر فأكثر في المنظومة الإمبريالية للسيطرة والإستغلال، وأصبحت تمثل بعثات امبريالية” (للمزيد أنظر : NGOs: Missionaries of Empire).

أخذنا هذا المثال للإضاءة على قضية من قضايا الآن، البالغة الحساسية، وهي تمويل الدول الإستعمارية الغربية القديمة والجديدة، لمنظمات غير حكومية وفق برامج “ديموقراطية” محددة، في البلدان التي كانت سابقاً، في الأمس البعيد أو القريب، هدفاً للإحتلال الإستعماري المباشر، وهي الآن هدف للإستعمار الحديث.

ترى هل بدأت هذه الأنشطة بعد ريغان فقط؟ أم أن لها سوابق تاريخية؟ يؤكد الباحث المتخصص وليام ديمارس في دراسة له نشرت في الفصلية المتخصصة للإستخبارات أن :” التعاون بين المنظمات غير الحكومية والأجهزة الإستخباراتية الأمريكية له تاريخ طويل من التطور، فمنذ تأسيس وكالة الإستخبارات المركزية عام 1947 قامت ببناء خطوط اتصال مع عدد كبير من المؤسسات الأمريكية خارج البلاد، من ضمنها المؤسسات التجارية، الكنائس، المؤسسات الإعلامية، والمؤسسات الرعائية والخدماتية. بعض تلك الخطوط تمت الإستفادة منها لتمويل بعض المؤسسات بشكل سري. وتلك المؤسسات كانت تدعم وتمول المنظمات غير الحكومية. حركة هذه المؤسسات تمت الإستفادة منها في جمع المعلومات الإستخبارية، وكذلك شكلت جزءاً من البنية التحتية للأفراد الذين يمكن تجنيدهم للعمل السري”. إذن هي جزء من عملية تهيئة بيئة سياسية واجتماعية لنقلها من حالة العداء مع المستعمر إلى حالة التعاون “الديموقراطي” معه مروراً بحالة انكسار الحواجز النفسية المختلفة بالتدريج. ويؤكد الباحث في نفس الدراسة أن ” المنظمات غير الحكومية المتنوعة ومختلف الأجهزة الإستخباراتية الأمريكية تجد نفسها بشكل متزايد جنباً إلى جنب على خطوط الجبهات في مواجهة الحروب الصغيرة وحركات التمرد في العالم الثالث والدول السوفياتية السابقة”، مرجعاً تعويل أجهزة الإستخبارات الأمريكية على المنظمات غير الحكومية إلى أن” المنظمات غير الحكومية والعاملين فيها يحصلون على معلومات لا تستطيع أجهزة الإستخبارات الحصول عليها من طرق أخرى”، حيث ” تشكل الشبكة العالمية من المنظمات غير الحكومية مصدراً هاماً للمعلومات بالنسبة لأجهزة الإستخبارات الأمريكية” وفي كثير من الأحيان “يتم إرسال المعلومات التي تحصل عليها المنظمات غير الحكومية بشكل مباشر إلى قيادة وكالة الإستخبارات المركزية لتحليلها” (للمزيد أنظر : NGOs and United States Intelligence in Small Wars).

منظومة تعاون متكاملة وراسخة بين الإستخبارات والمنظمات دعت جامعة هانلي بوتنام المتخصصة في المجال الأمني إلى تقديم برنامج تعليمي خاص حول الدور الإستخباراتي للمنظمات غير الحكومية، وتوضح الجامعة على موقعها على الإنترنت مبررات إنشاء هذا البرنامج بالقول إن ” ثمة أعمالاً استخباراتية عديدة جداً في دائرة نشاط المنظمات غير الحكومية، وهي تستفيد من باحثين ومحللين يمتلكون مجموعة مهارات استخباراتية خاصة”.

يهتم موقع وكالة الإستخبارات المركزية بهذا الموضوع أيضاً فينشر دراسة حول ضرورة تطوير التعاون مع المنظمات غير الحكومية يؤكد فيها الباحث ألن ليبسون أن “أجهزة الإستخبارات الأمريكية تعمل في مناطق النزاعات جنباً إلى جنب مع المنظمات غير الحكومية” معتبراً أن ” المعلومات التي توفرها المنظمات غير الحكومية تعد حيوية في عملية اتخاذ القرار السياسي” (للمزيد أنظر : Can the USG and NGOs Do More ).

دول عديدة واجهت هذه الظاهرة الشديدة الخطورة، المتمثلة بغزو المنظمات غير الحكومية لكل جوانب الحياة السياسية والإعلامية والإقتصادية والأمنية بتمويل وتوجيه من دولة أجنبية معادية بغطاء “ديموقراطي”، مصر ما بعد الثورة هي إحدى تلك الدول فبتاريخ 27 كانون أول 2011 داهمت قوات الأمن المصرية 17 مركزاً لمنظمات غير حكومية في القاهرة، كانت تعمل كغطاء لوكالة الإستخبارات المركزية، ولاحقاً وضعت أكثر من 400 منظمة غير حكومية تحت التحقيق، وكانت تلك العملية ذات تأثير سلبي كبير على نشاط الإستخبارات الأمريكية في الشرق الأوسط، ويؤكد الباحث باتريك هانينغسن أنه و” في العقود الخمس السابقة، عملت وكالة الإستخبارات المركزية الأمريكية بشكل غير مكشوف تقريباً في حين أنها كانت تتحرك تحت غطاء المنظمات غير الحكومية مثل USAID ” (للمزيد أنظر : The CIA Operating behind a Web of “Pro-Demcracy” NGOs ).

في بوليفيا كذلك، تمت مواجهة زحف المنظمات العميلة، ويعتبر الرئيس البوليفي أن المنظمات غير الحكومية عملت بشكل سري متعاونةً مع أعداء بوليفيا للتآمر ضد البلاد، وهي تعتبر كمنظومة تجسسية. روسيا هي الأخرى أقرت قانوناً تعتبر فيه المنظمات الأجنبية جواسيس، و يقول الكسندر سيدياكين الذي اقترح القانون في مجلس الدوما بأن ثمة شبكة كاملة من المنظمات غير الحكومية التي تقع تحت نظر الشك لناحية تمويلها. (للمزيد أنظر : For Russian Government NGOs are Like spies).

إيران واجهت نفس المشكلة خلال الثورة الملونة التي جرت هناك عام 2009، ويشير موقع قناة برس تي في الإيراني باللغة الإنجليزية إلى الدور البريطاني الكبير في هذا المجال حيث تشعر بريطانيا بالحاجة إلى الحضور في الدول المعادية للقيام بالتغيير من الداخل على الرغم من استفادتها من كافة الوسائل الإستخباراتية المعاصرة المختلفة، مع التذكير بأن هذا المسار له تاريخ طويل، فبريطانيا استعملت المستكشفين والرحالة والكتاب وعلماء الآثار للتجسس على البلدان المختلفة (للمزيد أنظر : British govt. exploits NGOs to spy other countries ).

لبنان هو إحدى ساحات نشاط تلك المنظمات التي تعمل ضمن شبكات مرتبطة بالسفارات الأجنبية، واللافت للنظر عددها وانتشارها وتنوع نشاطاتها، ويمكن العودة إلى موقع يو أس إيد فرع لبنان لإلقاء نظرة واستكشاف طبيعة الإجتياح الأمريكي الذي يجري بصمت مستهدفاً العقول والقلوب في بلد المقاومة العربية الأول.

لا يمكن وضع كل المنظمات غير الحكومية في سلة واحدة وتصنيفها في خانة العمل الواعي لخدمة الأهداف الأمريكية لكن الأكيد أن المنظمات التي تتعاطى الشأن السياسي والإعلامي والتي شهدت طفرة في التمويل بعد حرب عام 2006 هي تخدم المشروع الأمريكي، الذي يحدد المصلحة الأمريكية في الشرق الأوسط بحماية اسرائيل. الدولة اللبنانية المنقسمة على نفسها في غاية العجز والضعف، تاركةً الحبل ملقىً على غاربه، فيما تجتاح مئات المنظمات البلاد ليجمع بعضها المعلومات عن المقاومة وتقوم أخرى بتحضير شرائح مختلفة للتعاون والتواصل مع وكر التجسس في السفارة الأمريكية.


January 19, 2015

Charlie Hebdo Shootings: False Flag?

by mkleit

Written by Paul Craig Roberts

The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.

Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.

Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story.

The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi.

Some media merely reported Mourad’s surrender in a headline with no coverage in the report. The list that I googled includes the Washington Post (January 7 by Griff Witte and Anthony Faiola); Die Welt (Germany) “One suspect has turned himself in to police in connection with Wednesday’s massacre at the offices of Parisian satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo;” ABC News (January 7) “Youngest suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack turns himself in;” CNN (January 8) “Citing sources, the Agence France Presse news agency reported that an 18-year-old suspect in the attack had surrendered to police.”

Another puzzle in the official story that remains unreported by the presstitute media is the alleged suicide of a high ranking member of the French Judicial Police who had an important role in the Charlie Hebdo investigation. For unknown reasons, Helric Fredou, a police official involved in the most important investigation of a lifetime, decided to kill himself in his police office on January 7 or January 8 (both dates are reported in the foreign media) in the middle of the night while writing his report on his investigation. A google search as of 6pm EST January 13 turns up no mainstream US media report of this event. The alternative media reports it, as do some UK newspapers, but without suspicion or mention whether his report has disappeared. The official story is that Fredou was suffering from “depression” and “burnout,” but no evidence is provided. Depression and burnout are the standard explanations of mysterious deaths that have unsettling implications.

Once again we see the US print and TV media serving as a ministry of propaganda for Washington. In place of investigation, the media repeats the government’s implausible story.

It behoves us all to think. Why would Muslims be more outraged by cartoons in a Paris magazine than by hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by Washington and its French and NATO vassals in seven countries during the past 14 years?

If Muslims wanted to make a point of the cartoons, why not bring a hate crime charge or lawsuit? Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming every aspect of it.

If a Muslim lawsuit was deep-sixed by French authorities, the Muslims would have made their point. Killing people merely contributes to the demonization of Muslims, a result that only serves Washington’s wars against Muslim countries.

If Muslims are responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo, what Muslim goal did they achieve? None whatsoever. Indeed, the attack attributed to Muslims has ended French and European sympathy and support for Palestine and European opposition to more US wars against Muslims. Just recently France had voted in the UN with Palestine against the US-Israeli position. This assertion of an independent French foreign policy was reinforced by the recent statement by the President of France that the economic sanctions against Russia should be terminated.

Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb.

Some will contend that Muslims are sufficiently stupid to shoot themselves in the head in this way. But how do we reconcile such alleged stupidity with the alleged Muslim 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo professional attacks?

If we believe the official story, the 9/11 attack on the US shows that 19 Muslims, largely Saudis, without any government or intelligence service support, outwitted not only all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, Dick Cheney and all the neoconservatives in high positions throughout the US government, and airport security, but also the intelligence services of NATO and Israel’s Mossad. How can such intelligent and capable people, who delivered the most humiliating blow in world history to an alleged Superpower with no difficulty whatsoever despite giving every indication of their intentions, possibly be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the head when they could have thrown France into turmoil with a mere lawsuit?

The Charlie Hebdo story simply doesn’t wash. If you believe it, you are no match for a Muslim.

Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France. Operation Gladio proves this. The largest part of the government of Italy was ignorant of the bombings conducted by the CIA and Italian Intelligence against European women and children and blamed on communists in order to diminish the communist vote in elections.

Americans are a pitifully misinformed people. All of history is a history of false flag operations. Yet Americans dismiss such proven operations as “conspiracy theories,” which merely proves that government has successfully brainwashed insouciant Americans and deprived them of the ability to recognize the truth.

Americans are the foremost among the captive nations.

Who will liberate them?

Ron Paul Institute

January 8, 2015

The French Connection – False Flags and the Charlie Hebdo Incident

by mkleit

On Charlie Hebdo “attack”, here’s another point of someone who thought outside the box

December 28, 2014

10 Things You Didn’t Know About Libya Under Gaddafi’s So-called Dictatorship

by mkleit

Ruling the country for for 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa. So despite what you’ve heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV Gaddafi did some powerful things that were not very reminiscent of a vicious dictator. Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…

1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right.

In Gaddafi’s green book it states: ” The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.


2. Education and medical treatment were all free.

Under Gaddafi’s reign Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Arab and African world. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

3. Gaddafi carried out the worlds largest irrigation project.

The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.


4. It was free to start a farming business.

If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.


5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies.

When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

Mother and child ride atop a camel as a Tuareg caravan travels north through a remote region of southern Niger

6. Electricity was free.

Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!


7.  Cheap petrol

During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.


8. Gaddafi raised the level of education.

Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees.

9. Libya had It’s own state bank.

Libya was the only country in the world to have a bank owned by the state meaning they were able to give loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.


10. The gold dinar


Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency made of gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar  – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

So, was Muammar Gaddafi a Terrorist?

Few can answer this question fairly, but if anyone can, it’s a Libyan citizen who has lived under his reign? Whatever the case, it seems rather apparent that he did some positive things for his country despite the infamous notoriety surrounding his name. And that’s something you should try to remember when judging in future.

This quirky video documentary spells out an interesting, if rather different, story from the one we think we know.

(via urbantimes)


January 10, 2014

الفكر المنتج بين بدائية الماضي وتعقيدات الراهن

by mkleit


بقلم الأستاذ حسين عبيد من موقع صوت الفرح:

منذ أن بدأت ناصية الوعي تتشكل، ولامست الفكرة بنية العقل الإنساني المنبثق من الفطرة، انسلت من بين حوافي الذهن ملوثات عقديّة وفكرية انتجت محكّات ضلال وزيف على طول الزمن، بدأ العقل ينكشف، أمام حملات التضليل والتشويه على يد الكهنة المتلبسين لبوس الحقيقة، فانحرفوا بالبشرية في منزلق التأليه البشري والحيواني ومظاهر الطبيعة، ليبنى على ضفاف هياكلهم المجد المزعوم.

إذن هي الفكرة التي أنتجتها أوهام تفيّأت بظلال الحقيقة وتمترست خلف المقدس، الذي جوبه بالدعوة إلى التوحيد وفق سيرورة تكاملية قائمة على التوازن ما بين النظرة في الآفاق ومجريات الواقع. ولكن الفكرة هنا قد تبقى حبيسة في عالم الذهن والتجريد إن لم تنجّز في عالم الواقع مصداقًا في الكلمة التي ترسم ملامح الشخصية الإنسانية عبر الزمن بتلاوينه المختلفة.

والكلمة هنا التجسيد الأمضى لمنتج انساني يحمل منظومة قيمية تشدو العدالة أساسا للملك، والحق عنوانًا لمسيرة التكامل الإنساني.

هي تشدو الحقيقة المبتغاة في المراحل والحقب، ولكن بتمظهرات مختلفة، وبأساليب متنوعة، انتقلت مع وسيلة الإعلام من البدائية والبساطة في الإبلاغ والتبليغ والإنباء، في المناداة من عُلا التلال ، أو إضرام النار على القمم، وتطور عبر الحمام الزاجل،والرسائل، ولكن  بمنسوب عادي وبوتيرة بطيئة تتماشى مع طبيعة الأحداث والسيرورة الزمنية.

ولكن مع عوامل النهضة وبدء ثورة الاتصالات بدأت ملامح المشهد بالتغير، تسارعت الصور الملتقطة عبر موجات الأثير، بالتزامن مع شيوع أفكار منبثقة من المجتمعات المنتجة للراديو والتلغراف والفاكس. وما عداها من وسائل اتصالية.

  ومما لا شك فيه أنّ المنتِج في الاتجاهين هو الأقدر على تسويق أفكاره وأجهزته، وتبقى المجتمعات المتلقية في الاتجاهين صدى لسوق استهلاكيّة للمنتج مع ما يستلزم ذلك من اتباعيّة مفرطة وانقياد أعمى وراء هذا المنتج باعتباره دليل تقدم ورقي لمستعمليه ومقتنيه. وهو بلا شك كذلك كجهاز لاقط أو كجهاز بث، باعتبار أن الوسيلة تكمن وظيفتها المثلى في تحديد وجهة استخدامها.

 والخطورة هنا تكمن في التقاط موجات الأثير ومحاولة تقمص شخصيّة المنتَج مع ما يحمل من أفكار ومعتقدات ورؤى، إن لم نقل تضليلية، فهي بلا شك مغايرة وقد تصل إلى حدّ التناقض مع مرتكزاتنا الفكريّة والعقديّة، حيث باتت الساحة مفتوحة للأفكار الوافدة من كل حدب وصوب، يتم تلقفها من دون تدبر. ربما مع مقاومة لهذه الأفكار أحيانًا وبصور مختلفة من مشاريع قومية وإسلامية، قد تصل هذه المشاريع في طروحاتها، وربما داخل الفصيل الواحد، إلى حدّ التناقض وأحيانًا تكون في القيام بالتبني المطلق لهذه الأفكار، وعليه وقعت مجتمعاتنا في فوضى المصطلح والمفهوم وبتنا تحت رحمة الوافد من أفكار وقيم منفصلة عن واقعنا وسيرورتنا الفكريّة والقيميّة في ظل غياب الثقافة الحواريّة المنفتحة على الآخر من جهة، والتماهي مع حركة الآخر إلى درجة الانسحاق من جهة أخرى، خلا قلة من دعاة التوازن.

ولعل المشهد يرتقي ويصل إلى حدّ الانفجار المعرفي الذي طاولت شظاياه كل مندرجات العولمة فكرًا وثقافة واقتصادًا وإعلامًا وما إلى ذلك، من خلال الشبكات العنكبوتية وقنوات التواصل الاجتماعي وما شابه، مع ما يحمل من صور قيمية متشابكة ومعقدة يصعب فك رموزها وشيفراتها بسبب التداخل والتشابك في دواخلها، فضلًا عن السرعة القياسية في تدفقها إلى حد نصل فيه إلى درجة القصور في المواكبة والتقصير في فهم تلك التدفقات من جهة، والتزاحم المفرط في ترتيب الأولويات، والصعوبة في تناول ذاك السيل المعرفي من جهة أخرى، للنقص المفرط في اعتماد منهجيات التحليل وبناءات الرؤى، فضلًا عن الانسحاق أمام سطوة الآخر، فبتنا عاجزين عن التقاط الحدّ الأدنى في المقاومة لتلك الأفكار باعتبار أنّ الأبواب مشرعة أمام كل الوافد، ولا نغالي إذا قلنا إن الأبواب باتت في خبر كان.

  هذا الواقع يرتّب علينا مسؤوليات جسام في إنتاج المعرفة التي تعتبر المدماك الأساس في عملية البناء المجتمعي، وهذا لا يعني أن ننقطع عن الآخر ونرفض نتاجاته، بل أن نستفيد من تلك الإنجازات في إنتاج معرفة منبثقة من صلب منظومتنا القيمية برؤيّة واضحة ومنهجية مرتكزة على البعد الأصالتي في الفكر والحركة والممارسة، باعتماد آليات محددة وقادرة على نظم الأمور، وبخطى متكاملة مع تعميم ثقافة التكامل والانفتاح المدروس حتى لا نبقى أسرى موجات الأثير ومشهد العولمة الكونيّة مترامية الأطراف، أو أن نعيش على هامشها، فعلى الأقل إذا ما أردنا الانخراط  في السيرورة الإنسانية أن نكون فاعلين في تشكيلها وتصويب مساراتها…
October 11, 2013

Enhance privacy by being deliberately inaccurate

by mkleit

This is an expert article on privacy online by Dennis O’reilly from 


Devise a fake you that is close enough to the real you for friends to recognize, but that doesn’t disclose personal information to strangers.


When I go to the local sandwich shop, I don’t care whether the person taking my order knows my birthday or my mother’s maiden name.

So why does Google or some other Web site I register with need to know so much about me? Especially considering the company is likely to barter and sell the information to third parties, who aggregate, analyze, repackage, and resell it.

There’s nothing new about purposely providing false information when registering for a Web service — from a simple throwaway e-mail address all the way to a phony name. Totally false identities are associated with shady characters who want to hide.

The association of fake names and crime got a boost from the recent arrests in the Silk Road drug busts, as Dara Kerr reports. Not surprisingly, the people behind the operation used pseudonyms.

When services get too nosy, fabricate
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prevent Web sites from collecting your personal information, and you can do so without “hiding.” An Internet pseudonym that’s a variation of your real name lets you hide in plain sight: you’re still identifiable to people who know you, but you’re more difficult for strangers to spot.

Note that some big-name sites are bringing an end to anonymous comments. Among them are the Huffington Post and the Sacramento Bee.

Many people rankle at the thought of people using fake names on the Internet. Last October asecurity official with the British government took heat after he recommended at a conference that people not provide their correct names and other personal information to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks.

Facebook states unequivocally that you are required to use “the name on your credit card,” as the Facebook Help Center states. After a recent crackdown by the company, The Verge’s Adrianne Jeffries reported on the widespread use of pseudonyms on Facebook.


Facebook allowable-names policyFacebook’s rules require that you use your real name, although the service does let you add an “alternate name.”

(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O’Reilly/CNET)


Facebook isn’t alone in requiring real names. Most terms of service stipulate that you must provide accurate information. Even if your pseudonym is recognizable to your acquaintances, and even if you use your own picture, deliberately entering false information violates the agreement.

Then again, there’s a privacy risk whenever you share personal information. Each time you disclose your name, address, and other private data, you increase the chances of the information being stolen or misused. Maybe the prospect of being booted off a “free” Web service is more palatable than presenting an even bigger target for data thieves.

Supply Web sites with just the information they require to authenticate you and transact your business. If you’re asked to supply the answer to a security question such as your high school or the city you were born in, get creative.

Of course, if you’re buying something, you’ll have to provide accurate billing and shipping information. But your birthday, mother’s maiden name, and other private data that could be used to identify you — or to steal your identity — should be given up strictly on a need-to-know basis.

Write down your fake information, if necessary. For instance, my online birthday is January 1, 1905. When I see ads for old-age products, I can blame it on the fake birthday — at least for a little while.

For several years I’ve used a Facebook profile that uses a variation of my real name. The pseudonym is similar enough to the genuine moniker to allow acquaintances to ID me but different enough to fool a stranger. I use my real picture and make no other attempt to mask my identity.

Technically, Facebook could give me the boot — and based on the company’s terms of service, it would be within its rights to do so. For me, the meager attempt to minimize the authorized or unauthorized dissemination of my private data is worth the risk of having the account shut down.

Full disclosure: When I review or otherwise test a service such as Facebook, I create a test account that doesn’t disclose my personal information. Perhaps I could request a press privilege to use a name other than my own.

Shaking the Web trackers is nearly impossible
Web sites aren’t the only ones hungry for information about their customers, but they are adept at collecting it. The “private browsing” settings of popular browsers don’t prevent the Web sites you visit from collecting information about you. They merely keep your browsing history from being recorded on your own machine.

Likewise, a browser’s “do not track” option depends on sites voluntarily honoring your request. The site Respect MyDNT explains the pros and cons of the technology.

The “do not track” effort took a hit recently when the Digital Advertising Alliance dropped out of the World Wide Web Consortium’s Tracking Protection Workgroup, as Stephen Shankland reported last month. A spokesperson for the group, which is comprised of online advertisers, stated that no “workable… solution” was possible. The W3C workgroup intends to proceed to the final stages of its standardization effort without further participation by the advertisers, according to a W3C official.

The simplest way to minimize tracking is to set your browser to block third-party cookies and to delete cookies and your browsing history each time you close the program. In last May’s post “How to improve security in Firefox, Chrome, and IE” I describe how to do so in those three browsers.


Even more insidious than tracking via first- and third-party cookies is computer “fingerprinting,” which identifies you based on the characteristics of your computer. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s freePanopticlick service indicates how identifiable your browser settings are. I explained how Panopticlick works in January 2012’s “How to prevent Google from tracking you.”

To prevent computer “fingerprinting” technology from identifying you, block JavaScript by default and allow scripts to run only on the sites you trust. Last May’sbrowser-security post also explains how to block JavaScript until you allow it in the three top browsers. For example, the NoScript add-on for Firefox (free for non-commercial use) lets you decide which scripts to allow and which to block.

Our ability to be anonymous is rapidly fading
As the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Online Privacy Fact Sheet states, it is virtually impossible to be anonymous on the Internet. You can use a virtual private network or proxy server to mask your IP address, but for many people such services are more trouble than they’re worth.

PRC’s Social Networking Privacy Fact Sheet points out that it’s difficult to keep an online identity separate from your “offline” identity. The page links to a paper by Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov that describes a technique for de-anonymizing the private data Facebook and other services claim isn’t personally identifiable when they resell it to third parties.

The difficulties of truly anonymizing personal information is discussed in the PRC’s Privacy Today: Data Anonymization page.

The importance of anonymous speech to a thriving democracy is examined in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Anonymity page, which provides links to information on legal cases and legislation related to online anonymity.



August 31, 2013

Mne2bal aw Ma Mne2bal?

by mkleit

Probably censorship in Lebanon would be one of the most controversial issues lately… Some art works are actually harmful and would be placed under the umbrella of treason and disruption of national security… but others that are simply artistic and reflect the status quo of the Lebanese society are being banned, stopped, and pulled out of the market… Dear Asma el Achhab had something to say about this:


If we go a bit back to 1998, not that it’s a hard task, but back to the year West Beyrouth was screened, and where its Lebanese director, Ziad Doueiri, made a fragmented representation of a divided city that spoke about itself through the eyes of three adolescents examining a city they’ve strolled and were forced to leave. Things went quite smoothly back then, the movie did not threaten national security, probably reinforced national unity, and was hence given a “permit”.


In 2013, things proved quite different to Doueiri. In his latest film, The Attack, he chose to direct a film that does not emphasize Lebanese sectarianism, political discourse or war, yet still it involved all those three in another country, Palestine. Now, I understand that the strife in Palestine is still present, and that the movie proved to be quite controversial, but we ended up not seeing…

View original post 478 more words

August 26, 2013

American Attack on Syria Announced by Israel

by mkleit
Super-Dvora 3“On the Way to the Attack”
Yediot Ahronot, August 26, 2013

The banner above was the main headline of Yediot Ahronot—the largest paid Hebrew newspaper—on August 26, 2013. The text reads “On the Way to the Attack” and shows images of USA’s President Obama and Syria’s President Assad.

The article it illustrated wasn’t about the ongoing violence in Syria, but one describing the details of an American-British attack on Syria.

Wagging the Dog*

On April 28, 2013, there was a 4-hour long meeting of the Israeli Cabinet,** which according to official sources was the first one of the new Netanyahu’s government to deal with the War in Syria. The decisions taken were not published; however, a significant part of the IDF Intelligence Directorate (AMAN) assessment was published, in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

Winds of WarWinds of War
Fahrenheit 451

On April 29, much of Aman’s proposed plan for an American War on Syria were published by Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper closely related to the Shin Beth. The newspaper cited Brigadier General Ytai Brun, Head of Aman-Research, the most strategic part of this organization.

Understandably, he couldn’t speak for the actions of an army belonging to a different country. Yet, even the details published are significant since they are directly related to the survival of 75,000 Americans and millions of people in the Middle East.

The main problem faced by Israel, is that the red-line endlessly cited by Western media, namely the use of chemical weapons, would not be crossed by the Syrian government. Thus, Aman has redefined the issue as “two entwined red-lines.” It claims that beyond the use of chemical weapons, there is a second line, the Syrian “lose of control of its chemical weapons depots and production sites.” AMAN proposed a massive American ground attack on Syria.

On April 28, Former Mossad Director Meir Dagan (he recently survived a liver transplant in Belarus, no other country agreed to treat him) said during the Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in New York that Bashar al-Assad didn’t sanction the use of chemical weapons. Dagan may have committed many war crimes along the years, but he is not a fool. He understands that the claim that Assad used chemical weapons “doesn’t hold water” (Hebrew idiom for a false argument, like a bag full of holes). Yet, the IDF wants an American Holy-Democracy Attack on Syria.

One decade after the Mother of All Battles, Israel is again attempting to wag the dog.*

The Grandmother of All Battles

Obama Options on Syria 

Obama Options on Syria according to Israel
Damascus is the large city inland, Beirut the largest one by the sea


Unaware of its inconsistency, Yediot Ahronot claimed on the same article that Bashar al-Assad is winning (this is true, see Syrian-Kurds Exodus = Assad’s Victory?) and a few lines later that he “had used chemical weapons out of despair.” Any trick is kosher in the attempt to wag the dog into the Grandmother of All Battles.

After thinking that its propaganda had convinced the readers, the newspaper continued by portraying President Obama’s options. It used the graphic reproduced above. Let’s review what Israel recommends Obama:

1. Air strike on the units that attacked with chemical weapons. Disadvantage: Time is needed to collect intelligence.

2. Air strike on Syrian air force and ballistic missiles units. Disadvantage: Sinking in the Syrian mud.

3. Enforcement of a non-fly area in Syria. Disadvantage: It will not neutralize Syrian artillery (many times stronger than the Israeli).

4. Taking control of chemical weapons depots. Disadvantage: It demands a ground attack and the Americans oppose.

Then the Israeli article, which looks written by the military intelligence, goes on describing the desired attack. Also in this case, it published a very graphical depiction of the event. Here it is:

American-British Attack Desired by Israel 

American-British Attack Desired by Israel


It marks the main chemical warehouses in Syria, and the American-British forces Israel wants to use in order to destroy them. Cyprus (the British Colonial Empire still owns two air-force bases on the island) and Jordan would provide the military bases needed for air-strikes to be conducted by American F-16 and British Tornado fighters. Tomahawk missiles would be launched by American and British war ships while British Trafalgar class nuclear submarines will fill an undisclosed task.

Most veterans will recognize this as a schematic Order of Battle.

Bashar al-Assad Reacts

These are strange times. An Order of Battle is made public by one side of the conflict before the battle while the other side reacts publicly on the same day. How would Sun Tzu have reacted on this ridicule?

Russian Izvestia published an impressive interview with Bashar al-Assad. Let me just quote a few remarkable sentences:

“From the beginning of the crisis, the USA, the UK, and France have tried to get militarily involved. They tried to change the positions of China and Russia in the UN Security Council, but they failed. They failed to convince the world that this is an intelligent step. They can open a war, but they know neither how long will it be nor to which areas will it expand. They understand that they have no control on that. What is going on in Syria is not a popular revolution, but terror. Western leaders cannot tell their people: ‘We enter Syria to support terror.'”

“Failure awaits America as it has happened in all its wars from Vietnam onwards.” He is mistaken. The USA utterly defeated Grenada.

“Why Israel opens fire against our forces every time we defeat the terrorists next to the border?”

The claims on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government were defined by Assad as “an insult to the intelligence. It is nonsense. First, they put you on trial and only after they collect evidence…. On Wednesday, we were blamed, and only two days later the USA announced it would start to collect evidence.” This is not the first time that the American Government displays a misunderstanding of the term “evidence” (Iran Shows Captured Drone; USA Claims “No Evidence”).

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov has also publicly denied the existence of proofs that Syria had used chemical weapons. The Western mercenaries are the most likely users.

Certain things could not be said openly by Bashar al-Assad; luckily, this diplomatic limitation has been solved eons ago. Halef al-Maftah, a senior member of Assad’s party who until recently was the assistant of the ministry responsible for PR, gave on the same day an interview to American Radio Sawa in Arabic. He explained the mysterious hints in the Assad interview:

“Damascus considers that Israel is behind the violence and thus it will be under fire. We have strategic weapons, and we can react. Basically, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel. If the USA or Israel will commit the error of attacking us using the chemical issue as justification, the entire area will experience unending fire.”



* “Wag the Dog” is a 1997 film starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman, which describes a situation in which the “tail wags the dog.” An unnamed President of the United States is caught in flagrante with a young girl scout less than two weeks before the elections and a hired political gun (De Niro) is brought in to take the public attention away from the scandal. He decides to construct a fake war with Albania, hoping the media will concentrate on this instead.
He contacts a Hollywood producer (Hoffman), who helps construct a theme song, build up interest and fake some footage of an orphan in Albania. In the end, with the President re-elected, the producer is about to call the media to “set them straight,” when the President’s aide has him killed to save his political boss.
The movie illustrated certain interpretations of events within the US. However, for those who were in Israel prior to the Second Gulf War, it reminds a different situation. The hysteria in the Israeli newspapers regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction began much before the war or similar publications in the American media. Those weapons turned out to be Weapons of Mass Distraction used by Israel and others. Nothing was found in Iraq.
Wag the Dog | Staging a WarWag the Dog | Staging a War
Wag the Dog

Yet, after the Israeli public was convinced that the weapons existed, the second stage of the campaign began. Analysts working for the main Israeli newspapers claimed Israel should adopt the same tactic used by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir during the Mother of All Battles, namely the First Gulf War. It should let the US destroy the perceived enemy.
The reality was that Israel could not attack. In sharp contrast to what most media publishes, Israel is unable to conduct an ongoing military operation against Iraq. Simply, after the first air-strike, all the forces surrounding Israel would join efforts in averting the strikes. Israel has only one advantage; the possibility of surprising Iran with an air strike. Even that is questionable; only missiles can nowadays reach faraway targets fast enough to keep the surprise factor. After the initial strike, the game changes dramatically.
Following these publications, pressure was put on the Jewish community and organizations in the US to help protect Israel against Iraq. Subsequently, the US attacked Iraq in 2003, without even declaring war.
The tail had wagged the dog.

** A long time ago, Israeli Prime Ministers discovered that their governments are dysfunctional. They are large and plagued with coalitional interests. The temptations to publish secret deliberations by ministers who know that they cannot be fired are significant. Thus, they created the “Cabinet” a small and informal body of ministers who meet regularly to take decisions delicate issues. Ministers wishing to keep their place in this exclusive body are forced to remain silent.

+ See Israel Intelligence Directorate Sends America to War

%d bloggers like this: