#US Silently #Tortures #Americans With #CellTower #Electromagnetic #Neuroweapon

viclivingston.blogspot,ca

Author's note: A covert censorship regime run by a U.S. military contractor apparently is maliciously sabotaging the content and formatting of this article. It even removed the artwork. I have attempted to restore maliciously deleted references to "stroke, heart attack, aneurysm" and "slow- or fast-kill" death. A reference to the U.S. Secret Service also was maliciously deleted. This article is subject to "black-holing" -- making the content inaccessible -- when readers attempt to access it via a "spoofed" or counterfeited URL address -- censorship via fraud and deception. The comments are not displaying over my obviously intercepted and maliciously hacked connection. This is information fascism and it has no place in a free society. 

Read about it here: 
http://viclivingston.blogspot.com/2013/06/us-cyber-commandlockheed-martin.html

Hiding in plain sight: an awesome electromagnetic weapon
system silently torturing, impairing, subjugating, harming
thousands of American citizens each and every day.

• Homeland Security- administered fusion center agencies/commands -- chief among them, U.S. Cyber Command -- use a nationwide scalar electromagnetic radiation "directed energy" neuroweapon system to silently torture, impair, subjugate, or slow- or fast-kill extra-legally targeted Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to target them.

• A government-devised "electromagnetic ghetto."

• How a young FBI agent's "I believe you" gave victim the faith to go public.

President Obama has told the nation and the world that America does not torture.

President Obama is wrong -- and security/military/intel officials in his administration know it.

America tortures. Not just Gitmo and Bagram "war on terror" detainees, but its own citizens.

Each day, a nationwide scalar electromagnetic radiation "multifunctional" radio frequency directed energy weapon attack system employing phased array cell tower antenna transmitter/receivers and GPS satellites, under the administration of U.S. Cyber Command and military contractor Lockheed

Big Brother is Watching You

“Big Brother is Watching You”. Beyond Orwell’s Worst Nightmare

By Marjorie Cohn

“Big Brother is Watching You,” George Orwell wrote in his disturbing book 1984. But, as Mikko Hypponen points out, Orwell “was an optimist.” Orwell never could have imagined that the National Security Agency (NSA) would amass metadata on billions of our phone calls and 200 million of our text messages every day. Orwell could not have foreseen that our government would read the content of our emails, file transfers, and live chats from the social media we use.

In his recent speech on NSA reforms, President Obama cited as precedent Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty, who patrolled the streets at night, “reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.” This was a weak effort to find historical support for the NSA spying program.  After all, Paul Revere and his associates were patrolling the streets, not sorting through people’s private communications.

To get a more accurate historical perspective, Obama should have considered how our founding fathers reacted to searches conducted by the British before the revolution.  The British used “general warrants,” which authorized blanket searches without any individualized suspicion or specificity of what the colonial authorities were seeking.

At the American Continental Congress in 1774, in a petition to King George III, Congress protested against the colonial officers’ unlimited power of search and seizure. The petition charged that power had been used “to break open and enter houses, without the authority of any civil magistrate founded on legal information.”

When the founders later put the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures into the Bill of Rights, they were attempting to ensure that our country would not become a police state.

Those who maintain that government surveillance is no threat to our liberty should consider the abuse that occurred nearly 200 years later, when FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover conducted the dreaded COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program).  It was designed to “disrupt, misdirect, discredit and otherwise neutralize” political and activist groups. During the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, our government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone with unorthodox political views. Thousands of people were jailed, blacklisted, and fired as the FBI engaged in “red-baiting.”

In the 1960’s, the FBI targeted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a program called “Racial Matters.” King’s campaign to register African-American voters in the South raised the hackles of the FBI, which disingenuously claimed that King’s organization was being infiltrated by communists. But the FBI was really worried that King’s civil rights campaign “represented a clear threat to the established order of the U.S.” The FBI went after King with a vengeance, wiretapping his phones, and securing personal information which it used to try to discredit him, hoping to drive him to divorce and suicide.

Obama planned massive false flag attack on USA this fall

http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2013/11/obama-planned-massive-false-flag-attack.html

Ex-CIA Agent: Obama Planned Massive False Flag Attack On America

(William Wallace) Dr. Jim Garrow, the same one that reported the death of Andrew Breitbart and Tom Clancy, came out as an ex CIA Agent recently. The same Jim Garrow that runs Pink Pagoda Girls that rescues young girls from death and abortion in China.

He revealed in a November 18th Facebook message that among the top brass being purged, actually prevented President Obama from creating a series of ”False Flag” events this fall. One of the incidents was to be nuclear, the other was make a calculated crippling of the infrastructure of our country.

On November 19th, the entire posts, reposts, and comments were totally scrubbed by social media networks.and outlets. That evening he appeared on Full Contact with Eric Rush.

You can see his scrubbed messages to Facebook here:

Three individuals have just saved 300 million lives in the past 2 weeks. They saved the 90% of the population that would be dead if Bathhouse Barry had not been stopped from using 3 nuclear devices against the American populace. 2 Army Generals and 1 Navy Admiral, whose duties included the safeguarding and oversight of the nuclear arsenal. Obama ordered that 3 nukes be transported in a major breach of protocol and safety regulations of long standing. He wanted it NOW, and these officers were made aware of what the intention was. The admiral had the one Navy nuke taken 200 miles off South Carolina and detonated deep in the ocean. The other 2 nukes disappeared thanks to the handiwork of the 2 Generals, the numbers 1 and 2 men in charge of the Army ordinance. These three men are heroes of the highest order. Look up the events of 2 Generals and 1 Admiral being dismissed in the past two weeks and you will find their names. They saved your lives and the lives of 300 million of your fellow citizens.

Mr. Obama’s intention was to set off the three nukes to devastate all computer related systems on the continent thus taking America back 200 years and guaranteeing a total breakdown in society and with in one year the death of 300 million Americans. To see how this would be possible read, “One Second After”. You can get it on Amazon.

We peered over the edge of the precipice of the death of our civilization and have lived to tell the tale. 3 heroes stood tall for America and the mad man in the white house was stopped for the first time in his life. He is unsure of what to do just now and he does not possess the keys to the nuclear submarines nor the two nukes that are now hidden. For the first time in his life someone said no, meant it, and stopped him from murder and devastation. The next few days are critical. Be afraid and go to prepper sites to find out how to save your family, if you can. – Dr. Jim Garrow, Nov. 18, 2013

In the condominium complex in Casa Grande, Arizona, where I have a unit, a visit was made yesterday by a group of 4 men in a black Suburban with lots of antenna’s on the roof. The management of our large group of condo’s was asked to open the door of my unit. The badges were a combination of many different alphabet agencies including my former one. Interesting because after I posted about EMP’s and missing nukes my phone rang late in the evening and I was requested to cease and desist. My posts have been removed. I am not however repentant, nor cowed. If anything like this happens again I have instructed people to begin the release of documents and information as per prepared plans in the hands of these people. Obama is known for overplaying his hand, and now should be known far and wide as a dangerous amateur. He may have gotten Breitbart, Hastings and Clancy, but they were just writers. I hope that he enjoys the protests today in DC. – Dr. Jim Garrow, Nov. 19, 2013

A quick search on the internet latter and you can indeed find three Military Men that dealt in Nuclear Arms dismissed in October. Major General Michael Carey and Vice Admiral Tim Giardina (fired amidst rumors of misbehavior involving alcohol and gambling) were both released, then a third one from the Pacific that never made it home. There was also a sizable earth quake off the coast of South Carolina that Russia Claims was an underwater explosion of an American Thermal Nuclear Device.

We, as a nation, are totally in these men’s debt!

 

See more at:  

http://govtslaves.info/ex-cia-agent-obama-planned-massive-false-flag-attack-america/#sthash.BUEJ0QEr.dpuf

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/11/25/ex-cia-agent-obama-planned-massive-false-flag-attack-on-america/

 

Why Are We At War in Yemen?

Ron Paul
Infowars.com

Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a “suspected militant,” but Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist “most wanted” list.

This significant escalation of US attacks on Yemen coincides with Yemeni President Hadi’s meeting with President Obama in Washington earlier this month. Hadi was installed into power with the help of the US government after a 2011 coup against its long-time ruler, President Saleh. It is in his interest to have the US behind him, as his popularity is very low in Yemen and he faces the constant threat of another coup.

In Washington, President Obama praised the cooperation of President Hadi in fighting the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This was just before the US Administration announced that a huge unspecified threat was forcing the closure of nearly two dozen embassies in the area, including in Yemen. According to the Administration, the embassy closings were prompted by an NSA-intercepted conference call at which some 20 al-Qaeda leaders discussed attacking the West. Many remain skeptical about this dramatic claim, which was made just as some in Congress were urging greater scrutiny of NSA domestic spying programs.

The US has been involved in Yemen for some time, and the US presence in Yemen is much greater than we are led to believe. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:

“At the heart of the U.S.-Yemeni cooperation is a joint command center in Yemen, where officials from the two countries evaluate intelligence gathered by America and other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, say U.S. and Yemeni officials. There, they decide when and how to launch missile strikes against the highly secretive list of alleged al Qaeda operatives approved by the White House for targeted killing, these people say.”

Far from solving the problem of extremists in Yemen, however, this US presence in the country seems to be creating more extremism. According to professor Gregory Johnson of Princeton University, an expert on Yemen, the civilian “collateral damage” from US drone strikes on al-Qaeda members actually attracts more al-Qaeda recruits:

“There are strikes that kill civilians. There are strikes that kill women and children. And when you kill people in Yemen, these are people who have families. They have clans. And they have tribes. And what we’re seeing is that the United States might target a particular individual because they see him as a member of al-Qaeda. But what’s happening on the ground is that he’s being defended as a tribesman.”

The US government is clearly at war in Yemen. It is claimed they are fighting al-Qaeda, but the drone strikes are creating as many or more al-Qaeda members as they are eliminating. Resentment over civilian casualties is building up the danger of blowback, which is a legitimate threat to us that is unfortunately largely ignored. Also, the US is sending mixed signals by attacking al-Qaeda in Yemen while supporting al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria.

This cycle of intervention producing problems that require more intervention to “solve” impoverishes us and makes us more, not less, vulnerable. Can anyone claim this old approach is successful? Has it produced one bit of stability in the region? Does it have one success story? There is an alternative. It is called non-interventionism. We should try it. First step would be pulling out of Yemen.

Global War on Terror Assassinating People Prevents Them From Attacking Us

President’s Obama’s Promise: Global War on Terror to Continue, with Fresh Makeup. Assassinating People Prevents Them From Attacking Us

By William Boardman

The United States uses Predator and Reaper drones to kill people at a distance, sometimes at random, sometimes Americans or children, and after a decade of this practice, in the face of scattered popular protest, President Obama gave a speech about it on May 23 that was preceded by waves of advance media buzz that the President was going to change some of the policy in the global war on terrorism.

Who in a sane state of mind would expect any change of policy when the president gives a speech about counter-terrorism at the National Defense University?

In effect, two American administrations have followed the same pre-emptive killing policy that can be summed up simply: “Assassinating people prevents them from attacking us, whether they want to or not, and it’s not up to us to figure out what they want.”

No administration official since 2001 has put it quite that way, of course, but it is a fair summary of the country’s fear-based endless war against an abstraction, terrorism, that is made more palpable by the very actions taken to fight it.

Another way to summarize a dozen years of pre-emptive war is that the United States is within its rights to defend itself against all enemies, real and imagined.

What Do You Call It When One Man Decides Who Lives or Dies?

Since American terror policy is contradictory and semi-secret, it appears incoherent. In March 2012 on CNN, Attorney General Eris Holder expressed the administration’s point of view in a manner suitable to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.” Here, rendered in the quasi-poetic form it deserves, is Holder’s explanation of lethal drone strikes:

Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’

They are not. And the use of that loaded term is misplaced.

‘Assassinations’ are ‘unlawful killings.’

Here, for the reasons that I have given,

the US Government’s use of lethal force

in self-defense against a leader of al Qaeda

or an associated force

who presents an imminent threat of violent attack

would not be unlawful

and therefore would not violate

the executive order banning assassination….

* * *

In Holderworld, it is somehow not an assassination to commit a killing that fits the widely accepted definition of “assassination” as “the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons…. An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives….”

You Don’t Need Law When There’s No Political Challenge

As Holder well knows, as does Obama, both being lawyers, there is no clear constitutional, statutory, court precedent, or other legal grounding for assassination by drone. The only basis in law is untested legal argument, some if which remains secret. But as both men know, the assassination policy has solid grounding in both politics and psychology.

And so the President framed his counter-terrorism speech with 9/11, which is as logical and useful as it is exceptional and misleading, telling his audience falsely but with Humpty Dumpty mastery of words, “And so our nation went to war.”

That has been the delusional national consensus since 2001, even though it’s not war in any constitutional, historic, or honest sense.

But war justifies everything, at least for awhile. And that may be the meaning behind Obama’s speech, a sense that time may be running out on the “nation at war” meme, and perhaps it’s time for the clever leader to get ahead of the politics and the psychology by at least seeming to change course a little.

The President acknowledges much of the damage our self-chosen wars have done to us at home and abroad. He ticks off government surveillance, torture, secret prisons – but not renditions. He says, “And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values.”

Then he tried to sell us an inherent contradiction: “we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course,” by which he seemed to mean we stopped torturing as may people and generally tried to break fewer domestic and international laws.

But on the other hand, we should still be afraid: “our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston….” He did not clarify when Benghazi became part of “our nation.”

At a Crossroads and Choosing to go in All Four Directions?

The President rambled on in this contradictory fashion, warning the nation that, “America is at a crossroads” and quoting Madison that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare” – then assuring us that our war on terrorism would continue.”

“We must make decisions based not no fear,” the President said, suggesting that we need to understand the threat we face. Then a short while later he added, “that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”

“Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology,” Obama said, echoing the recent words of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “the war against radical Islam, or terror, or whatever description you like.” Contrary to a good many of his fellow Americans, the President went on to assert that “the United States is not at war with Islam.”

Then he used the magic language, defining the enemy as “al Qaeda and its associated forces.” Given the limitations of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon has been using the catch-all “and its associated forces” to argue the legality of doing whatever they want to whomever they want, or just not interfering with the free hand of the CIA or other clandestine forces.

Obama suggested that “we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror,’” and went on to offer no boundaries to our willingness to attack whomever we define as an enemy in any part of the world.

Assassination by Drone to Remain Presidential Prerogative

With regard to assassination by drone, the President claimed “our actions are effective…. These strikes have saved lives.” He offered no serious evidence to support either claim, neither of which appears to be provable.

Amidst much vague reassurance about how drone strikes would be fewer, and kill fewer innocents, he also made an unsupported claim that strains credulity: “For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

To dispel the haunting, the President immediately played the fear card again: “To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties….”

Earlier in the day, the Obama Administration admitted to killing four American citizens, and unnumbered others, without any legal due process. Yet in his speech he said, “For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or a shotgun — without due process.”

The President went on to discuss engaging with the Muslim American community, being troubled intimidating reporters, modifying the legal basis for continued war-making, and mitigating the horrors of Guantanamo. All these are issues he could have addressed at any time during his presidency, and he offered no pressing reason for addressing any of them now. Nor did he outline any clear new direction on any of them.

Boiled down, the President’s speech signaled that he had noticed that there were problems waging global war, that he would try to make it neater and prettier, but that it would continue – be afraid.

The one apparent exception to the contradictory verbal soft talk was a fleeting comment about three-quarters of the way through. Without offering any analysis, or even any means of doing this, he said: “We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements — because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism.”

This echoed Secretary of State John Kerry’s comment in Jordan on May 22: “In the event that we can’t find that way forward, in the event that the Assad regime is unwilling to negotiate Geneva 1 in good faith, we will also talk about our continued support and growing support for the opposition in order to permit them to continue to be able to fight for the freedom of their country.”

Now there’s something to be afraid of. 

Was the Syria Chemical Weapons Probe “Torpedoed” by the West?

By Adam Larson

Since the perplexing conflict in Syria first broke out two years ago, the Western powers’ assistance to the anti-government side has been consistent, but relatively indirect. The Americans and Europeans lay the mental, legal, diplomatic, and financial groundwork for regime change in Syria. Meanwhile, Arab/Muslim allies in Turkey and the Persian Gulf are left with the heavy lifting of directly supporting Syrian rebels, and getting weapons and supplementary fighters in place.

The involvement of the United States in particular has been extremely lackluster, at least in comparison to its aggressive stance on a similar crisis in Libya not long ago. Hopes of securing major American and allied force, preferrably a Libya-style “no-fly zone,” always leaned most on U.S. president Obama’s announcement of December 3, 2012, that any use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Assad regime – or perhaps their simple transfer – will cross a “red line.” And that, he implied, would trigger direct U.S. intervention. This was followed by vague allegations by the Syrian opposition – on December 6, 8, and 23 – of government CW attacks. [1] Nothing changed, and the allegations stopped for a while.

However, as the war entered its third year in mid-March, 2013, a slew of new allegations came flying in. This started with a March 19 attack on Khan Al-Assal, a contested western district of Aleppo, killing a reported 25-31 people. Dramatic imagery run by state news agency SANA and from a Reuters photographer showed people – including children – suffering breathing problems, some already deceased. The Syrian government and related sources were the first to report it, blaming “terrorists” as usual. In an equally predictable answer, rebels accused the Syrian military of launching the attack. [2]

Syria demanded an investigation into the event by the United Nations, and everyone else agreed. A team was assembled, but then in early April Syria blocked them, for reasons that come across as mysterious. Soon, the world was hearing unprecedent recognition that perhaps Obama’s “red line” had been crossed – not by “terrorists” but by the Assad regime – somewhere, at some times since December. The deadly nerve agent sarin is increasingly specified for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

All this has kicked off a renewed drive for intervention based on intelligence assessments of WMD dangers, evoking widely-noted memories of the bogus U.S. case for war on Syria’s ally Iraq one decade ago. Although the latest developments cast doubt on the imminence of outright military involvement – yet again – the danger persists, and the purported reasons deserve scrutiny.

It’s only been six weeks since this saga began, but they were weeks of the whirlwind sort. Considering where all the twirling has left us – horribly confused, if not on the brink of war – I offer this article towards unspinning the record to discover just what happened in that time.

Continue reading:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-the-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-torpedoed-by-the-west/5333671

CIA is the master race

By Sherwood Ross

In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky said he never expected much of President Obama, adding, ”The one thing that did surprise me is his attack on civil liberties. They go well beyond anything I would have anticipated, and they don't seem easy to explain.”

Maybe the reasons for Obama’s transformation from a Chicago law professor into a world-class totalitarian thug is that he is a creature of the Central Intelligence Agency; that both his parents were CIA payrollers; that the CIA financed his college education and gave him his first job afterwards----so that we may well have a president beholden to this international criminal organization, an agency that has left a trail of blood, turmoil, and assassinations around the globe.

According to the May 6th The New Yorker, when General James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked at an Obama Situation Room meeting why the U.S. was building a second air force in the form of a CIA drone attack fleet, Obama told him, “The CIA gets what it wants.” That Obama holds this view is reinforced by Cameron Munter, President Obama’s former ambassador to Pakistan. Munter questioned whether the drone strikes in Pakistan weren’t having a blowback effect on the Pakistani public. Writing in the magazine, Steve Coll says Munter learned under Obama: “It was what the CIA believed that really counted.”

Reporter Coll says America’s drone war is a major factor in why U.S. relations with Pakistan have “collapsed.” Today, he writes, “the U.S. has surpassed India as the most hated nation in Pakistan.” Coll adds, “Obama seems unwilling to confront the possibility that drone strikes may be creating more enemies than they’re eliminating.”

So far, the drone strikes are believed to have killed 3,000 people, not one of whom got a fair trial in the American tradition. The attacks are being made in countries where the U.S. has never officially declared war: besides Pakistan, in Somalia, Yemen, and even in the Philippines. Obama has turned the whole world into an American shooting gallery.

In his two terms in office, President Bush authorized 48 drone strikes in Pakistan. But since 2009, Obama has okayed more than 300, reporter Coll writes. What’s more, The Washington Post reports that CIA Director John Brennan believes that targeted killings will be needed to contain Al Qaeda-related terrorism for at least another decade.

It’s a CIA dream come true: the green light for a bunch of organized crackpots and anarchist-type bomb-throwers to roam the planet with their sophisticated killing machines raining Hellfire missiles down on suspects, nearly all of them foreigners. No jury trials for them. They are treated as an inferior race of people not entitled to trials while the CIA is the Master Race that can kill whomever it wants. Remind us of anyone?

Let’s connect the dots between the Boston Marathon massacre and blowback triggered by the CIA’s overseas killings. Strange, but we don’t see Finland or Brazil under attack by terrorists. Maybe it’s because they respect other nations’ sovereignty.

On MLK Day, President Obama did his level best to wrap himself in the mantle of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But where MLK denounced the KKK thugs who murdered four little girls in Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church, President Obama is using his own “KKK”(CIA) to kill suspected terrorists, taking the lives of more than 100 children to date in the process. There is no question MLK would have denounced Obama’s wars.

Is the Boston Bombing the “Moral Equivalent” of Drone Strikes?

Bill Anderson

I have been thinking this through for a while. President Obama was rightly outraged at what happened yesterday at the Boston Marathon and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice. At the same time, however, Barack Obama presides over bomb attacks on civilians, attacks that occur without warning, and attacks that not only kill alleged “militants,” but women, children, and the elderly, especially when the bombings are launched at weddings, which one would think would allegedly be a joyous celebration just as the Boston Marathon has been.

While Obama demands justice in the Boston bombing, he is silent about his own role in setting off bombs in overseas countries. If Sen. Lindsey Graham is correct and the U.S. drones have killed about 4,700 people abroad, then we are talking about something that dwarfs the horror of what happened at Boston.

I am not speaking of tit-for-tat. However, I am sure that the horror that people in Muslim countries experience at a drone strike is every bit as awful as what people experienced in Boston yesterday. I do not believe that we are free to denounce the evil at Boston and cheer on the evil our government perpetrates overseas. We must denounce both or risk being the worst hypocrites on the planet.

How Obama Chose War Over Peace in Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-obama-chose-war-over-peace-in-syria/5328927

With Syria on the brink of national genocide, outside nations have only two options: help reverse the catastrophe or plunge this torn nation deeper into the abyss. Countries can either work towards a peaceful political solution or they can continue to pour money, guns, and fighters into the country to ensure a steady gushing into the bloodbath.

President Obama will have no talk of peace. He has chosen war since the very start and he’s sticking to it. A recent New York Times article revealed that President Obama has been lying through his teeth about the level of U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict since the beginning.

The President recently said that the U.S. government continues to give only “non-lethal” military aid to the rebels, but The New York Times revealed that the CIA has been actively funneling and distributing massive shipments of weapons to the rebels over the borders of Jordan and Turkey.

This “arms pipeline” of illegal gun trafficking has been overseen by the U.S. government since January 2012. It has literally been the lifeblood of the Syrian “rebels,” and thus the cause of the immense bloodshed in Syria.

The New York Times reports:

“The C.I.A. role in facilitating the [weapons] shipments… gave the United States a degree of influence over the process [of weapon distribution]…American officials have confirmed that senior White House officials were regularly briefed on the [weapons] shipments.”

The article also explains that a “conservative estimate” of the weapons shipment to date is “3,500 tons.”

So while Obama has repeatedly lied about “non-lethal” military aid, he has been personally involved in overseeing a multi-country flood of weapons into Syria, many of which are given to terrorist organizations. The only effective fighting force for the Syrian rebels has been the terrorist grouping the Al Nusra Front, and now we know exactly where they got their guns.

If not for this U.S.-sponsored flood of guns, the Syrian rebels — many of them from Saudi Arabia and other countries — would have been militarily defeated long ago. Tens of thousands of lives would thus have been spared and a million refugees could have remained in their homes in Syria. The large scale ethnic-religious cleansing initiated by the rebels would have been preventable.

But Obama is so intent on war that he will not even discuss peace with the Syrian government. He has repeatedly stated that there are “preconditions” for peace negotiations, the most important one being the downfall of the Syrian government, i.e., regime change. If a toppling of a nation’s government is Obama’s precondition for peace, then Obama is by definition choosing war.

Never mind that Syria is a sovereign nation that should not have to worry about a foreign country making demands as to who is in power. Obama doesn’t seem to think this relevant. In fact, his administration has been very busy determining who the “legitimate” government of Syria is, by hand picking the “National Coalition of Syrian Revolution,” the prime minister of which is a U.S. citizen.

One of the preconditions for being on Obama’s National Coalition of Syrian Revolution is that there be no peace negotiations with the Syrian government. Of course most Syrians want to immediately end the conflict in Syria, since it threatens an Iraq-like destruction of the country.

The most popular leader of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution, Moaz al-Khatib, recently quit in protest because he was prohibited from pursuing peace negotiations by the U.S.-appointed opposition Prime Minister, Ghassan Hitto, a U.S. citizen who had lived in the U.S. for the previous 30 years.

The Guardian reports:

“Immediately after his nomination as interim [Prime Minister], Ghassan Hitto [U.S. citizen], had distanced himself from Al-Khatib’s willingness to negotiate with elements of the Assad regime in a bid to bring an end to the civil war.

By appointing Hitto as the leader of the opposition, Obama has splintered the already-splintered opposition while making “no peace negotiations” the official policy of the U.S.-backed opposition, the so-called “legitimate” government of Syria.

Obama also recently pressured the Arab League — composed of regimes loyal to the United States — to install as a member the hand-picked National Coalition of Syrian Revolution as the official government of Syria. The appointment didn’t give as much credibility to the opposition as much as it degraded the Arab League’s legitimacy.

The rebel’s seat in the Arab league implies, again, that the U.S. and its allies are fully intent on “regime change,” no matter how many people die, no matter the existing political alternatives. They will not reverse course.

The Russian government called the Arab League membership decision “… an open encouragement of the [rebel] forces which, unfortunately, continue to bet on a military solution in Syria, not looking at multiplying day by day the pain and suffering of the Syrians…. Moscow is convinced that only a political settlement and not encouraging destructive military scenarios, can stop the bloodshed and bring peace and security to all Syrians in their country.”

Obama has rejected both Russian and Syrian calls for peace negotiations in recent months, as he has greatly increased the frequency of the weapons trafficking plan. Reuters reportson the Obama Administration’s reaction to peace proposals from Russia and Syria:

“…[Syria's Foreign Minister's] offer of [peace] talks drew a dismissive response from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was starting a nine-nation tour of European and Arab capitals in London [to help organize support for the Syrian rebels].”

Obama rejects peace because he cannot dictate its outcomes. When it comes to war the more powerful party decides what the peace looks like, and Obama’s rebels are — after two years — still in a poor position to bargain a favorable peace to the United States, no matter how many tons of guns the U.S. has dumped into Syria. This is because the Syrian government still enjoys a large social base of support, something you’ll seldom read about in the U.S. media.

Another sign of war lust from the Obama administration came after the Syrian government accused the rebels of a chemical weapons attack. The U.S. government initially dismissed the accusation, until the rebels later accused the Syrian government of the attack.

But even Syria’s rebels have admitted that the chemical weapons attack took place in a government controlled territory, and that 16 Syrian government solders died in the attack along with 10 civilians plus a hundred more injured. But the rebels make the absurd claim that the government accidentally bombed themselves with the chemical weapons.

No matter who is responsible, the Obama administration plans to hold the Syrian Government responsible for crossing the “red line” of a chemical weapons attack (Obama’s version of Bush’s infamous “weapons of mass destruction”). The red line refers to a direct military invasion, versus the prolonged blood-letting that has been U.S. policy so far.

Obama’s envoy for the United Nations, Susan Rice, issued a statement about the chemical weapons attack that, according to The New York Times, “… repeated previous American warnings that there would be “consequences” if the Assad government used or failed to secure chemical weapons.”

So, if the Syrian rebels get hold of chemical weapons and use them on the Syrian government — as seems to be the case — the Syrian government should be held responsible, according to the Obama Administration, “for not securing chemical weapons.”

There is zero room for truth with logic like this. But the perverse logic serves to protect Obama’s prized rebels, who’ve committed a slew of atrocities against the Syrian population, and who gain key political and media protection from the U.S.

Ultimately, the entire Syrian war was born amid the big lie that the battle began — and continues — as a popular armed struggle. But the real revolutionaries in Syria like the National Coordination Committee, have long ago declared that they want a peaceful end to this conflict.

Obama’s Bush-like determination to overthrow the Syrian government has led him down the same path as his predecessor, though Obama is fighting a “smarter” war, i.e., he’s employing more deceptive means to achieve the same ends, at the exact same cost of incredible human suffering.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

Notes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/opinion/syrias-crumbling-pluralism.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/24/moaz-al-khatib-resignation-syrian-opposition

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/716995BF2773B52544257B3B00400371

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/us-syria-crisis-dialogue-idUSBRE91O0BD20130225

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/world/middleeast/un-to-investigate-chemical-weapons-accusations-in-syria.html

http://presstv.com/detail/2012/11/30/275318/national-coordination-committee-of-syria-visits-moscow/