DOKUMENTARI PRA-SEJARAH FINAS-JABATAN WARISAN NEGARA MENANG ANUGERAH ANTARABANGSA

DOKUMENTARI PRA-SEJARAH FINAS-JABATAN WARISAN NEGARA MENANG ANUGERAH ANTARABANGSA

UNBURYING THE PAST: Jika akses internet cepat, lebih baik guna format HD 720/1080 untuk paparan visual video terbaik. 'Unburying... 11:17:00 PM

UNBURYING THE PAST: Jika akses internet cepat, lebih baik guna format HD 720/1080 untuk paparan visual video terbaik.

'Unburying the Past' rangkul dua anugerah antarabangsa

KUALA LUMPUR: Filem dokumentari terbitan Perbadanan Kemajuan Filem Nasional Malaysia FINAS dengan kerjasama Jabatan Warisan Negara (JWN) “Unburying the Past” telah berjaya menerima dua anugerah di Festival Arkeologi Filem dan Video Antarabangsa di Eugene, Oregon, USA yang bermula dari 7-11 Mei 2013.

Filem arahan Harun Rahman dari Novista Sdn Bhd telah merangkul anugerah dalam kategori  “Best Public Education” dan  “Best Narration”. Filem tersebut juga telah muncul sebagai tiga filem teratas untuk anugerah Filem Terbaik daripada 79 buah filem dari 22 negara yang menyertainya.

Wakil yang menyertai Festival tersebut terdiri dari Puan Subaidah Md Top, Pengarah Produksi FINAS, Encik Rizal Mat Yasin, Pegawai Eksekutif FINAS dan Puan Lara Ariffin, Penerbit dari Novista Sdn. Bhd.

“Dokumentari  ‘Unburying the Past’ telah mendapat pujian dari pihak juri dari segi kualiti penerbitan, pengisiannya dan grafik. Dengan pengiktirafan antara tiga filem terbaik, ia membawa makna bahawa, filem penerbitan Malaysia telah mencapai taraf antarabangsa.”

“Dengan menghadiri Festival tersebut, Warisan Arkeologi Malaysia dapat diangkat ke mata dunia,” Subaidah.

Dokumentari ini telah diterbitkan atas cetusan idea dari Menteri Kementerian Penerangan, Kommunikasi dan Kebudayaan, YB Dato’ Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim dan mendapat kerjasama dari Prof Emeritus Datin Paduka Zuraina Majid, Pesuruhjaya Warisan Malaysia.

Berita mula diterbitkan pada: Mei 28, 2013 11:00 (MYT)

TUN DAIM: STRATEGI YANG SALAH & PERGADUHAN DALAMAN PARTI

TUN DAIM: STRATEGI YANG SALAH & PERGADUHAN DALAMAN PARTI

TUN DAIM: “Penasihat PM kena dipecat. Jika anda menyamakan undi untuk BN sama dengan undi untuk dia, kelemahan keputusan BN berkait denga... 9:22:00 PM

TUN DAIM: “Penasihat PM kena dipecat. Jika anda menyamakan undi untuk BN sama dengan undi untuk dia, kelemahan keputusan BN berkait dengan dia juga,” kata Daim dipetik dari transkrip temuramah dengan China Press.

Menjelang PRU13 Tun Daim menyifatkan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak dan pasukannya sebagai "Seorang Jeneral tanpa askar".

"Kali ini beliau sekali lagi mengingatkan UMNO. "Anda sedang menghadapi Pembangkang, anda tidak samasekali memerlukan musuh-musuh dalam selimut. Anda tidak memerlukan lebih tiga juta ahli sekiranya mereka tidak berusaha atau mengundi untuk kamu.

"Adalah lebih baik mempunyai keahlian yang lebih kecil tetapi komited, mencintai parti, dan menginginkan yang terbaik untuknya. Setelah sekian lama, UMNO kerap berhadapan dengan ahli-ahli yang meletakkan kepentingan sendiri keatas kepentingan parti.."

KUALA LUMPUR, 27 Mei — Barisan Nasional (BN) kalah dalam pilihan raya 5 Mei kerana kesilapan strategi digunakan oleh penasihat Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan pergaduhan dalaman parti, kata bekas menteri Umno Tun Daim Zainuddin.

Menjelang pilihan raya, pemerhati mendapati Najib telah menggunakan populariti peribadinya untuk membantu BN mendapatkan semula majoriti dua pertiga di Parlimen — mereka hilang pada 2008, yang mana Daim (gambar) mengatakan sebagai pendekatan salah.

“Betul, anda perlu tanya BN. Tetapi pada pandangan saya, ia adalah strategi salah. Seperti yang saya katakan sebelum ini, ini adalah pilihan raya Parlimen dan bukannya pilihan raya presiden.

“Penasihat PM kena dipecat. Jika anda menyamakan undi untuk BN sama dengan undi untuk dia, kelemahan keputusan BN berkait dengan dia juga,” kata Daim dipetik dari transkrip temuramah dengan China Press, yang disiarkan dalam blog wartawan veteran Datuk A Kadir Jasin.

“Saya sentiasa mengingatkan kepada mereka, angka besar menghadiri ceramah BN tidak diterjemahkan kepada undi. Jangan cuba melawan angka dia (Anwar) dengan angka lebih besar hadirin yang kamu dapat. Biar Anwar jadi penghibur (meminjam istilah Financial Times). Kita bukan penghibur, kita tak tahu macam mana nak menyanyi, menari dan buat lawak. Memilih kerajaan adalah urusan serius, jadi tinggalkan strategi pelawak ini dan jangan main permainannya.”

Daim juga menyalahkan kegagalan BN untuk menang majoriti dua pertiga mengenai salah peruntukan sumber dalam usaha untuk menguasai kerusi bandar serta kerusi majoriti Cina.

“Jika saya tahu, sudah tentu BN tahu yang kawasan majoriti Cina sudah kalah. Kenapa buang masa dan wang? Sebagai strategi, anda seharusnya tumpukan di kawasan yang BN kalah dengan tipis pada 2008. Terdapat juga persoalan pemilihan calon, contohnya Pandan, mengapa ambil mudah?”

“Mari terima hakikat tiada tempat dalam dunia ini mudah untuk dapatkan majoriti dua pertiga. Pengundi bandar di seluruh dunia adalah anti kerajaan. Kekuatan BN terletak di kawasan luar bandar. Tapi tetap banyak masa dan wang dibazirkan di kawasan bandar dimana keputusannya hampir pasti,” kata beliau kemudian.

Daim diminta untuk memberi komen tentang Pulau Pinang, dimana NGO politik Kelab Kebajikan 1Malaysia Pulau Pinang yang berbelanja banyak menyediakan makan malam percuma dan konsert dengan bintang besar beberapa minggu menjelang hari mengundi.

“Orang-orang ini adalah amatur. Mereka adalah orang gila. Mereka fikir mereka pandai dan buang duit merata. Lebih baik beri kepada kebajikan.

“Kenapa BN benarkan acara bodoh seperti ini? Rakyat rasa diperbodohkan kerana mereka tahu anda fikir mereka boleh dibeli dengan wang, konsert dan makan malam. Jadi mereka datang untuk bersantai, makan free dan dihiburkan. Ini adalah pilihan raya. Ini perkara serius. Biarkan Anwar jadi penghibur.

Di Pulau Pinang, BN hanya menang 10 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) selepas Pakatan Rakyat (PR) menang besar apabila mendapat 30 kerusi DUN.

Dalam respon kepada soalan lain, beliau mengatakan BN seharusnya memberikan tumpuan untuk memperjuangkan isu yang dekat dengan hati rakyat seperti rasuah, pentadbiran baik, keselamatan, pendidikan, inflasi, miskin kota dan graduan muda.

“Kerajaan sebaliknya memfokuskan tentang memberi bantuan. Anda beri makan malam sekali, rakyat akan berterima kasih. Beri mereka lima kali mereka fikir anda mahu membeli undi,” katanya.

Daim mengatakan kekalahan BN di Selangor disebabkan oleh pergaduhan dalaman, mengatakan ini disebabkan gabungan itu memilih calon yang salah dalam pilihan raya 5 Mei.

BN menang 12 daripada 56 kerusi DUN di Selangor, kurang daripada 20 kerusi yang mereka perolehi semasa 2008, akan tetapi mempertahankan lima daripada 22 kerusi Parlimen.

Beliau juga menyalahkan keputusan Selangor kepada pengarah pilihan raya negeri Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed yang beliau katakana telah tidak menghiraukan tindak balas dari bawah dengan memberikan jaminan kepada Daim kemenangan BN di kerusi di sana.

“Saya rasa Zain adalah pilihan yang salah. Dia digugurkan dari Kabinet oleh Najib kerana jelas dia tidak memikirkan beliau berkebolehan dan kemudian lantik dia sebagai setiausaha Umno Selangor. Saya tidak faham logik Najib,” kata Daim membangkitkan Ketua Pemuda Umno Sepang Datuk Suhaimi Mohd Ghazali telah melawan Mohd Zin dan ramai pemimpin Umno bahagian dikatakan berkempen menentangnya.

“Apabila anda bertanya kepada saya dalam wawancara lepas, saya kata terdapat masalah kesilapan calon. Ketua bahagian tidak gembira. Di kalangan (ahli) Umno sabotaj di mana-mana. Saya beritahu Zain senarai kerusi DUN bermasalah. Zain kata ya terdapat masalah tetapi BN boleh menang. Semua kerusi yang berada ditangan saya, BN kalah.

“Dengan calon salah yang tidak turun ke bawah, tidak menghiraukan ketua bahagian, tidak melawat ahli dan pengundi, anda tidak boleh menang,” kata Daim.

Daim mengaitkan pandangannya dengan bagaimana BN kalah di kerusi DUN Bukit Selambau dalam Parlimen Merbok, Kedah dimana dikatakan terdapat pergaduhan dalam BN berhubung dengan pemilihan calon.

“Mereka masih lagi bergaduh tentang kerusi DUN itu walaupun sehari sebelum pengundian. Saya kata kepada mereka mereka gila. Hanya undi BN. Beritahu mereka mereka hanya tinggal separuh hari untuk berkempen dan mesti dilihat bersatu.

“Mereka kalah dengan 500 undi kerana mereka tutup pondok panas mereka menjelang 4 petang, yakin mereka sudah menang. Saya SMS anda pada tengah hari bahawa BN telah menang Merbok akan tetapi masyarakat India di sana perlu bergaduh sehingga saat akhir mengenai calon dan kita kalah. Kita adalah musuh kita paling bahaya.”

____________________

KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional (BN) used the wrong strategy in the 13th general election, said former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, and as a result was a blow to the coalition in spite of its victory.

Tun Daim made his remarks in an interview with China Press. An English translation of the interview was shared by blogger and journalist A Kadir Jasin.

In the interview, Tun Daim answered questions about the results, the cause of BN's poor showing relative to 2008, the so-called "Chinese tsunami", and whether Prime Minister Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak is a "lame duck" prime minister.

Following is the full English translation of the interview:

China Press: Tun, what was first in your mind when you first received the full election result? Did you expect it?
Tun Daim: I wasn't surprised.  At around 12noon the feedback I got was that - BN 141, DAP 38 but my own assessment was BN between 125 and 135 only.

Do you think this election was a fair one? Opposition parties and NGOs still accused BN of misuse of government facilities, and the problematic integrity of the electoral roll.

Of course it was fair. If was not fair how come in Penang and Selangor Pakatan improved on majorities and Federal BN got only 133 seats? These accusations are not new. They said all this even before the elections. I said earlier that they would be saying all these because they know they can't get to Putrajaya.

Read my interviews before this, I said they would be proclaiming to world they would win and that if they don’t it’s because they have been robbed and therefore entitled to protest, incite people, which is that they are doing now, and they want people to go to the streets. They want FRUs, water cannons and tear gas then CNN, Al Jazeera etc. will be back and they are back in the news.

Anwar and Kit Siang are inviting police to arrest them. They want to be arrested. They are totally irresponsible. If you see the recent rallies and that the majority of the participants are Chinese, what do you think will happen if one hot-headed Malay organisation wants to organise a counter rally? But Anwar and Kit Siang don't mind, if there is another interracial incident, they will blame BN.  If you are willing to sacrifice peace and stability for your ends, what kind of leadership is this?

They say they should be the rightful leaders of this country, yet they defy laws, defy the police, and they have no respect for -- and undermine -- every institution of government which they say they should helm. What kind of leadership promotes lawlessness and anarchy? What message do you send and what lessons do you teach the young and the impressionable? Leadership comes with responsibility.

There are laws in this country. Go to court. Of course, they say courts are not fair, yet these same courts have acquitted Anwar. Again when it’s convenient to them they go to the courts to sue and silence their detractors. They accept where they won and reject where they lost.  They are selective. Karpal practices and appeals before this same Court.

Be brave and honest. Accept the results. Karpal says he is happy with the results. PAS has accepted them. Azmin is critical of Anwar’s refusal to accept the results and doing these rallies, but don't read too much into his statements. It’s like an old married couple’s quarrel, one party merajuk (sulks) but in the end they are still together.

Anwar is already up to his tricks -- putting out feelers to Barisan MPs. He is waiting after the Cabinet appointments for another round of his Sept 16.

As expected in our last interview, BN managed to retain Putrajaya but couldn't regain the two-thirds majority. What are the main reasons?

Really you should ask BN. But in my opinion, it was the wrong strategy. As I’ve said before, this was a parliamentary election, not a presidential election. The PM's advisors should be sacked. If you associate a vote for BN with a vote for him, then BN's poorer results reflect on him too.  I kept reminding them that those huge numbers at BN’s ceramahs do not translate into votes. You don’t try to fight his (Anwar’s) numbers with your even bigger numbers. Let Anwar be the entertainer (borrowing from The Financial Times). We are not entertainers, we don’t know how to sing, dance and tell jokes. It’s a serious business electing a government, so let's leave this clown’s strategy alone and not play his game.

If I know, then surely BN knows that the Chinese majority areas were gone. Why waste time and money? As a strategy, you should concentrate on those areas where you lost by slim majorities in 2008 and strengthen the seats you won in 2008. There was also the question of choice of candidates, and for example in Pandan, why be petty?

Many people disputed that there was a Chinese tsunami.  But there was, in the sense that Chinese voters voted en block whilst non-Chinese votes were split. But this is their right. This is democracy.

What was disturbing was the reason for the en-block votes. Pakatan preached hatred for BN, particularly UMNO. The DAP has always told the Chinese that they are victims, marginalised; that the cup they have is always half empty; that this is the time to teach the MCA and Gerakan a lesson for being under UMNO’s control, that UMNO (and by extension the Malays) is dominant, and this is a Malay-led government, and the Chinese, by voting out all the Chinese parties in BN, are saying that they have had enough of being bullied by UMNO/ Malays. If this is not racist, I don’t know what is.

Their cybertroopers were at work, 24 hours a day, sending misinformation, spin, rumours, lies, untruths etc. Where were the 'Banglas'? Where was the blackout? How many people whose ink washed off voted twice? Tun M flew away in a private jet? Lies and lies and the Chinese believe in "ubah" and "Ini kali lah".

I told you if the Chinese rejected Najib's leadership, the rural votes would swing to BN. The DAP benefited the most. PAS, I do not know how it is going to reorganise itself. PKR we know practices nepotism, just ask Azmin.

As for the Indian votes, only some Indians votes came back to BN. Koh Tsu Koon has announced his retirement. Chua Soi Leik is not seeking re-election. In the West you lose, you retire. Brown retired. Here they are not morally strong enough to quit. Anwar stays on, Kit Siang stays on, Hadi stays on. Let me remind you, Anwar said he would retire if he failed to get to Putrajaya. Anwar does not keep his word. He will never retire, until the day he is on his deathbed he will still want to be PM.

Let’s recognise that nowhere in world is it easy to get a two-thirds majority. Urban voters everywhere in the world are anti-government. BN's strength lies in the rural areas. Yet too much time and money were wasted in urban areas where the results were almost certain.

Chinese votes for the opposition reached over 90%. Why? From your observation, why were the MCA and Gerakan rejected by the Chinese? We still remember in 2004 the situation was totally different.

I have explained at length the answer above. Chinese votes for the Pakatan reached 90% because they believed in Pakatan’s propaganda. This was at last the chance to reject the Malay-led BN.  We saw on polling day many Chinese came out in droves believing that Pakatan was going to win. They were all misled. Pakatan knew that they were not going to get the numbers.

Imagine the Chinese voting for PAS, when they have seen what was happening in Kedah and Kelantan. Chinese voters were taken for a ride, told that they were going to make the difference. If Hindraf can affect the 2008 results, imagine what the Chinese with their bigger number can do.

This was the line given and they swallowed it. In 2004, the Chinese gave the then PM with his clean image a chance but that got to BN’s head and 2008 was the result. In 2013, Pakatan tapped into the Chinese and urban psyche. The Chinese are practical people and if they felt that the votes could go either way, they would not take a chance and would choose stability over change; but if they believed that they could change the Government and win, then they did what you saw in GE13. But the Chinese normally bet on a minority horse.

By analysing the results, we can see the DAP won more seats this time and seats won by PKR and PAS were also close to their numbers in 2008. Does it mean Malay votes were still split? How about Indian votes?

Malay votes were split four ways. UMNO, PAS, Keadilan and fence-sitters. Lucky for BN, this time most went to UMNO. Less than 50% of Indian voters voted BN.

Why did the 1Malaysia plans, ETP, and transformation plans not work and cause BN a bigger loss?

I don't think people rejected 1Malaysia, ETP etc. The issues were not these. In all my earlier interviews I listed the rakyat’s concerns. These were and still are: 1) corruption, 2) good governance, 3) security, 4) education, 5) inflation, 6) urban poor, 7) young graduates. The government instead focused on giving handouts. You give dinner once, people thank you. Give them five times and they think you are trying to buy their votes.

Even though you have given your warning, the so-called Chinese Tsunami was too big to be stopped. But, is it fair to blame the Chinese for BN's not-so-good victory?

I have explained the Chinese tsunami. Of course, Pakatan have to say it was not a Chinese tsunami, otherwise they will be held responsible for this racial divide. Are they denying the Chinese voted en block and Malay votes were split? No one is blaming the Chinese, but this what it is.  As I said they were misled and they voted Pakatan but again it is their right to buy into that argument and vote to kick the BN out.

How to change their minds? Or should BN given up on the Chinese by promoting the Ketuanan Melayu sprit to rely more on the support of Malays?

You can always try and you must try to change their minds. You cannot give up on nearly 30% of your fellow citizens. But you have to address issues as in my answer to Question 6.

Ketuanan Melayu was when the Malays fought against the Malayan Union. Ketuanan Melayu was in the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948.  After 1957 and later in 1963, there was a constitutional Malaysia. All races have accepted the Constitution. It is a fine and well-balanced document.  Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore too accepted this document.

The Constitution protects all citizens. We are all Malaysians. As I said, I'm born a Malay, you are born a Chinese. We don't choose to be Malay or Chinese, but you and I choose to be Malaysians. That is our choice. If I don't like to be a Malaysian, I can choose to be something else. So let us stay united and work hard and sincerely and make sure the country continues to prosper in peace.

Najib has offered a “reconciliation" plan. How serious is he? In addition, if this plan is necessary, how should Najib deal with it?

I am glad he offered reconciliation. He must be serious. You don't make statements you don't mean. You are a leader. But I read Pakatan has rejected his overtures, they talk about unity but do not practice it. Instead they offer preset conditions.  Are they sincere?  As leaders, the country must come first.

How is this so-called process of reconciliation ever going to take place when chauvinists and radicals still there to give their provoking remarks?

We, the rakyat must reject the chauvinists and the radicals. The government must take action against them. The Rakyat must show support against these people. The country must come first. Whatever you may think about the Malays, they have shown that they reject extremists. They rejected Perkasa, Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifly Nordin.

Some people say Najib is a lame duck Prime Minister. He not only has to think of how to regain the support of non-Malays but also has to guard against the wolves in his party. Will he encounter any problems when the party elections take place this year?

I have retired. I don't know what the mood is in the party. He has to explain to party members what went wrong. Is he going to be a lame duck PM? Cameron in the UK, Gilliard in Australia, Mohan Singh in India so far are okay even though in their cases they are ruling with razor-thin majorities.

UMNO has to remain united if it wants to get the support of Malays. Strengthen your rural support and the rest of the Malays will respect UMNO. If he explains to UMNO what went wrong then I think UMNO will accept and offer their support. It will take a bit of time with the Divisions and he has to make sure they continue to support him and he has to tell UMNO members that only UMNO is their saviour. I believe UMNO members will give him another chance. Those who are disloyal, you must punish them. But prove it with evidence.

You have the Opposition to deal with, you don’t need 'enemies in the blanket'.  You don’t need over three million members if they did not work or vote for you. It is better to have a smaller but committed membership who love the party and want what is best for it. For far too long, UMNO has had members who placed self-interest above the party.

Please analyse the result for Selangor. Far from what we expected, BN lost more seats and more popular votes this time despite thousands of good efforts.

Selangor was a disaster. When I got feedback on the problems on the ground, I sent many messages to the leadership. I spoke to Zain (Mohd Zain Mohamed, the BN Selangor Election Director). He assured me of victory, totally ignoring the voices on the ground. His own Ketua Pemuda stood against him and so many ketua bahagians campaigned against him.

I think Zain was the wrong choice. He was dropped from the Cabinet by Najib because obviously he didn’t think much of his ability, and then you then appoint him as Selangor UMNO Secretary. I don't understand Najib’s logic. When you all asked me at the last interview, I said there were problems of wrong candidates. Ketua Bahagians were not happy.

Among UMNO (members) sabotage was everywhere. I told Zain a list of state seats that were in trouble. Zain said yes a bit of problem but BN would win. In all those seats that were on my list, BN lost. With the wrong candidates, not going to the ground, ignoring divisional chiefs, not visiting your members and voters, and sabotage, you couldn't win.

When I was in Negeri Sembilan campaigning on Friday night, I got a message that the Bukit Selambau state seat under the Merbok Parlimentary seat was in trouble.  I got back to KL at 2am and a few hours later, early on Saturday morning, I flew to Kedah. They were still quarrelling about the state candidate, even when it was one day before polling. I told them they were crazy. Just vote BN. I told them they had half a day left to campaign and go together and campaign and be seen to be united.

They lost by 500 votes because they closed their pondok panas by 4pm, confident that they had won. I SMSed you by noon that BN won Merbok but the Indians there had to quarrel even at the last minute about candidates and we lost. We were our own worst enemies.

As well as in Penang. Before 5 May, BN seemed to have some hope as the 1Malaysia welfare group had organised many free dinners around Penang and free concerts. They tried to attract the voters with money and presents. But, all efforts proved useless. Why?

These people are amateurs. They are silly people. They think they are clever and throw money around. Better give to charity. Why did BN allow stupid events like these? People were insulted because they knew you thought they could be bought with money, concerts and dinners.  So they came to relax, have free makan and  be entertained. This is an election. It’s a serious matter. Let Anwar be the entertainer.

ISRAELI ARMY VEHICLES ENTER SYRIA IN SUPPORT OF JAHBAT AL NUSRA, FSA REBELS

ISRAELI ARMY VEHICLES ENTER SYRIA IN SUPPORT OF JAHBAT AL NUSRA, FSA REBELS

Pada hari ini, tentera rejim ISRAEL sudah mula memasuki Syria untuk membantu secara terang-terang para radikal Islam. Saya ingin mengamb... 5:29:00 PM

Pada hari ini, tentera rejim ISRAEL sudah mula memasuki Syria untuk membantu secara terang-terang para radikal Islam. Saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengucapkan tahniah dan syabas keatas saudara seagama saya dari kalangan bangsa Melayu, yang telah berhempas pulas menyokong pemberontakan melawan rejim kerajaan Syria bawah Bashar Assad. Sambil kamu sibuk berpidato tentang polemik sektarian Sunni-Syi'ah, kekejaman Bashar Al Assad dan angan-angan kamu menegakkan "DEMOKRASI" palsu ala Amerika Syarikat dan sekutunya, kamu kini sudah boleh digelar sebagai penyokong tegar rejim ISRAEL untuk menawan negara Islam bernama Suriah. Sudah tentu, idealisma kamu itu menghalalkan kerjasama dalam apa bentuk sekalipun dengan rejim yang bernama "ISRAEL". - Al Faedah

ISRAELI ARMY VEHICLES ENTER SYRIA IN SUPPORT OF JAHBAT AL NUSRA, FSA REBELS

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 21, 2013

British Soldier Beheaded in Woolwich, UK

British Soldier Beheaded in Woolwich, UK

Dan kamu bertanya. Apakah relevannya semua ini dalam konteks Malaysia. Kami nyatakan dari pendapat sehinggalah ke pengikut, PRO-PEMBEB... 7:27:00 AM

Dan kamu bertanya. Apakah relevannya semua ini dalam konteks Malaysia. Kami nyatakan dari pendapat sehinggalah ke pengikut, PRO-PEMBEBASAN SYRIA, IRAQ, LIBYA, PRO SALAFI WAHHABI, PRO SYIAH, PRO COLOR REVOLUTION, SEMUA ADA DI MALAYSIA INI. SERONOKKAN? YA JANGAN LUPA.. PRO SOMALIA PUN TAK KURANG DI MALAYSIA.. GAGAK BANYAK KAT MALAYSIA JANGAN TAK TAU.. SIAPAKAH DI BELAKANG MEREKA? GO FIGURE MALAYSIA...
Sekarang dah semakin mudah untuk menjadi seorang "jihadis Islamik". Pertama, memberontak, sembelih, tembak orang. Pastikan semasa anda lakukan kesemua atau sebahagian dari itu, anda melaungkan "ALLAHU AKBAR". Maka dengan rasminya anda menjadi seorang mujahid yang pasti masuk syurga..



Woolwich, London, UK
22 Mei 2013 Dua orang suspek yang dipercayai radikal Islamis dikatakan berasal dari Somalia penggal kepala seorang askar British. Radikal Islam sekali lagi memainkan peranan mengesahkan naratif kuasa besar Zionis bahawa Islam itu radikal dan menjadi tunggak kepada terorisma dunia. Kali ini di oleh puak radikal Somalia di kota London sendiri.

Dua orang suspek dikatakan memenggal kepala seorang tentera British di depan khalayak ramai. Salah seorang suspek mempunyai masa untuk memberi "ucapan dasar" yang mengesahkan motif serangan dan justifikasi politik mereka di hadapan kamera. Namun tiada visual yang jelas yang boleh membuktikan bahawa kepala askar tersebut telah dipenggal.

Sambil itu seorang lagi suspek kelihatan sempat bersembang dengan seorang wanita British di kaki lima selepas serangan dibuat.

Persoalan yang timbul, mengapakah wanita tersebut begitu berani sekali tampil bersemuka dengan seseorang yang baru saja memenggal kepala seorang askar British? Kedua-dua suspek begitu bersantai sekali sehingga akhirnya ditembak oleh pasukan keselamatan British mengakibatkan kedua-duanya cedera parah..

Suspek dilaporkan melaungkan seruan "ALLAHU AKBAR" semasa menyerang mangsa dan bersumpah, "Demi ALLAH, kami tidak akan berhenti dari memerangi kamu.." - Al Faedah

____________________

British Soldier Beheaded in Woolwich, UK

One British soldier was reportedly beheaded and two presumed Somalis critically wounded during a shooting incident in John Wilson Street, close to the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, south east London, UK on May 22, 2013. The Somalis are believed to be the assailants who beheaded the serving British soldier. They were shot by police who confronted them.

British police are treating the incident as an act of Islamic terrorism and believe the killing was politically motivated. UK citizens must be waking up to the threat of Zionism so a need arose to direct their growing resentment to a perceived enemy with a false flag attack. Or maybe Zionists needed to test how the Brits would respond to the Martial Law after their successful run in the United States and needed to start it off somehow?

British Zio puppet Prime Minister David Cameron described the Woolwich killing as “truly shocking“. He only failed to mention who is behind the hoards of immigrants from incompatible countries flooding UK and other so far still white countries. The Jew wants the populace to see the Muslim as the bad guy and become so preoccupied with him, they would not notice just how many new ones have been imported in the meantime. For as long as the populace is focused on fighting the wrong enemy, the true enemy within the gates is free to wreak havoc and destabilize the society until the final trap becomes unavoidable. You won’t get rid of the disease by killing the symptom. You need to strike at the source or else it will keep coming back with twice the force.

Eye witnesses posted their accounts on Twitter, some saying that the soldier was ambushed, run over and hacked at by two black men armed with machetes, knives and meat cleavers. They were reportedly chanting Allahu Akbar. The story is still developing. There will likely be additions, omissions or corrections to make.

Video of one of presumed killers, a black man with bloodied hands, carrying a knife and a meat cleaver tells the person videotaping that the Brits would never be the same and suggests to remove the government.

Based on the available photos, the victim doesn’t appear to have been beheaded however there is no close up so it’s hard to estimate. Perhaps the attackers near beheaded the soldier, or maybe they directed many machete blows to his neck as if in an attempt to decapitate him so witnesses presumed he had been beheaded, but the head was not entirely severed. Too soon to tell. Either way, he’s dead.

______________________________

May 22, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

People once smirked at the idea that London would turn into Afghanistan. What was once speculation, is now reality.  

Terrorism returned to the streets of Britain today as a soldier was murdered by two suspected Islamists who attempted to behead and disembowel him as he left his barracks, in the first deadly attack since the 2005 London bombings.

The soldier was ambushed by the two men as he left the base in Woolwich, south-east London, who attacked him and then dragged his body into the middle of the road to pose for photographs while standing over him waving a machete and a gun, according to witnesses.

The men were believed to have waited outside the Woolwich barracks of the 2nd Battalion Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, which has deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, where one of its members, Sergeant Johnson Beharry, won the VC.

One witness, identified only as James, said he and his partner saw two black men attack a young man aged around 20 in a Help for Heroes T-shirt with kitchen knives like he was “a piece of meat”.

“They were hacking at this poor guy, literally,” he told LBC Radio, adding that a group of brave women tryied to shield the soldier from the two men.

The two attackers hacked the victim to death in broad daylight with large knives and afterward approached eyewitnesses, asking them to start filming with their camera phones. One of the attackers, who spoke with a southern London accent, carried a meat cleaver and his hands were deeply stained with blood as we spoke directly to the camera.

The pair chanted “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great,” during the sickening attack, according to witnesses.

“We swear by almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you.”

Just a few minutes later, armed police arrived. The two men rushed the police, according to eyewitnesses, and police opened fire, wounding both of them.

The attackers “went for the police with the machetes, knife and handgun,” one eyewitness told the BBC. “I don’t think they cared.”

One unnamed eyewitness told the BBC she saw a man being a chased by a car while walking her dog. “The car then screeched to a halt and two men got out one had some kind of sword,” she said. They swung the sword, which multiple reports have suggested was a machete, at the man’s head. Woolwich and Greenwich MP Nick Raynsford said the victim was believed to be a serving member of the military.

Another eyewitness provided another gruesome take to the local radio station LBC: “These two guys were crazy, they just were not there, they were just animals. They dragged the poor guy — he was obviously dead, there was no way a human could take what they did to him. They dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road and left his body there.”

One witness, called James, told LBC radio: “We saw clearly two knives, meat cleavers, they were big kitchen knives like you would use in a butcher’s, they were hacking at this poor guy, we thought they were trying to remove organs from him”

Eyewitnesses said the victim was hacked to death, with some suggesting his attackers tried to behead him, before charging at police when they arrived on the scene in Woolwich, south east London.

One of the men behind the attack in Woolwich, south east London, was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and saying, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you”, in footage shown on ITV News tonight.

________________________

'British solider' butchered in suspected Islamist attack

By Robin MILLARD (AFP)

LONDON — A man believed to be a British soldier was brutally murdered by suspected Islamists near a London barracks on Wednesday in an attack Prime Minister David Cameron said appeared to be terror-related.

Cameron called the attack "appalling", and said: "There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident."

Eyewitnesses described how two men attacked a man in the street in broad daylight with knives and a gun and then remained at the scene, asking passers-by to photograph and film them.

Armed police shot and wounded the two attackers after being called to the incident by bystanders.

Footage emerged showing one of the men carrying a blood-covered knife and meat cleaver and saying to the camera: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."

The man, a black man dressed in a hooded jacket and black woolly hat, made a number of political statements.

"We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," he says, speaking in a London accent.

He adds: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

Reports said the man attacked was wearing a t-shirt bearing the logo of the British military charity Help for Heroes.

One eyewitness, identified only as James, told local radio station LBC the two assailants "were hacking at this poor guy".

"We thought they were trying to remove organs or something.

"These two guys were crazy, they just were not there, they were just animals."

The government's emergency response committee, COBRA, met hours after the attack, which took place in broad daylight near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, southeast London.

Security was reinforced at all army barracks in London following the incident.

Cameron, who returned early from talks with French President Francois Hollande in Paris, called the attack "truly shocking".

Hollande said at a press conference with Cameron that the victim was a soldier, but the British prime minister gave no confirmation.

Cameron said: "We've had this sort of attack before in our country and we never buckle in the face of them.

"People across Britain, people in every community, I believe, will utterly condemn this attack."

A local member of parliament, Nick Raynsford, said he believed the dead man was a soldier.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "It has been confirmed to me that a man has been brutally murdered this afternoon in southeast London.

"Two other men were shot by armed police and they are currently receiving treatment for their injuries. This is a sickening and barbaric attack."

The Muslim Council of Britain said the killers' use of "Islamic slogans" indicated they were motivated by their faith.

A statement from the council said: "This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family."

Police were called at 2:20 pm (1320 GMT) to reports of one man being assaulted by two others.

"A number of weapons were reportedly being used in the attack, and this included reports of a firearm," said police commander Simon Letchford.

Local officers, then firearms police officers arrived on the scene where they found a man who was later pronounced dead.

"Two men, who we believe from early reports to have been carrying weapons, were shot by police. They were taken to separate London hospitals, they are receiving treatment for their injuries," Letchford said.

He said there would be a heightened police presence in the area and urged locals to remain calm.

A white and blue police evidence tent was visible in the street and police tape sealed off the scene which was being scoured by officers in forensic suits.

Eyewitness pictures showed an air ambulance landing in the road and three bodies lying on the ground with dozens of onlookers observing the scene after the police arrived.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said Queen Elizabeth II -- who is due to visit the barracks later this month -- was "concerned" by the attack and was being kept updated.

In Washington, the State Department issued a statement condemning the attack.

"We stand with our UK allies in the face of such senseless violence. Our thoughts and condolence are with the family of the victim and the British people," State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said.

How to fail the Color Revolution

How to fail the Color Revolution

The grassroots takeover technique « Color revolution » fails in Iran by Thierry Meyssan Tehran’s «green revolution» is t... 10:38:00 AM

The grassroots takeover technique

« Color revolution » fails in Iran

by Thierry Meyssan

Tehran’s «green revolution» is the latest version of the «color revolutions» which have allowed the United States to impose subservient governments in several countries without needing to use force. Thierry Meyssan, who advised two governments facing this type of crisis, analyses this method and the reasons for its failure in Iran.

Voltaire Network | Beirut (Lebanon) | 27 June 2009

« Color revolutions » are to revolutions what Canada Dry is to beer. They look like the real thing, but they lack the flavor. They are regime changes which appear to be revolutions because they mobilize huge segments of the population but are more akin to takeovers, because they do not aim at changing social structures. Instead they aspire to replace an elite with another, in order to carry out pro-American economic and foreign policies. The « green revolution » in Tehran is the latest example of this trend.

Origin of the concept

This concept appeared in the 90s, but its roots lie in the American public debate of the 70s-80s. After a string of revelations about CIA instigated coups around the world, as well as the dramatic disclosures of the Church and Rockefeller Senate Committees [1], admiral Stansfield Turner was given the task by President Carter to clean up the agency and to stop supporting « local dictatorships ». Furious, the American Social Democrats (SD/USA) left the Democratic party and sided with Ronald Regan. They were brilliant Trotskyist intellectuals [2], often linked to Commentary magazine.

After Regan was elected, he charged them with pursuing the American interference policy, this time using different methods. This is how the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created in 1982 [3] and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) in 1984. Both of these institutions are organically intertwined: NED administrators sit on the USIP board of directors and vice versa.

Legally the NED is a not-for-profit organization under US law, financed by an annual grant voted by Congress as part of the State Department budget. In order to operate, this organization is co-financed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is part of the State Department. This legal structure is used jointly as a cover by the American CIA, the British MI6 and the Australian ASIS (and occasionally by Canadian and New Zealand secret services).

The NED presents itself as an agency promoting democracy. It intervenes either directly or using one of its four tentacles: one designed to subvert unions, the second responsible for corrupting management organizations, the third for left-wing parties and the fourth for right-wing parties. It also intervenes through friendly foundations, such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (UK), the International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Canada), the Fondation Jean-Jaurès and the Fondation Robert-Schuman (France), the International Liberal Center (Sweden), the Alfred Mozer Foundation (Netherlands), the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Friedrich Naunmann Stiftung, the Hans Seidal Stiftung and the Heinrich Boell Stiftung (Germany). The NED thus claims to have corrupted over 6000 organizations throughout the world over roughly 30 years. All of this, of course, under the disguise of training and assistance programs.

As for the USIP, it is an American national institution. It is financed annually by Congress as part of the Defense Department budget. Contrary to the NED which serves as a cover for the three allied states, the USIP is exclusively American. Under the guise of political science research, it can pay salaries to foreign politicians.

As soon as it commanded resources, the USIP financed a new and discrete structure, the Albert Einstein Institution [4]. This small association for the promotion of nonviolent action was initially charged with designing a form of civil defense for the populations of Western Europe in case of an invasion by the Warsaw Pact. It quickly became autonomous and designed a model following which a state, whatever its nature, can lose its authority and collapse.

First attempts

The first attempted « color revolution » failed in 1989. The goal was to overthrow Deng Xiaoping by using one of his close collaborators, the Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Zhao Ziyang, in order to open Chinese markets to American investors and to bring China into the US orbit. Young supporters of Zhao invaded Tiananmen square [5]. They were presented in the Western media as unpoliticized students fighting for freedom against the party’s Conservative wing, when in fact this was infighting within the Deng entourage between pro-American and nationalist factions. After having ignored provocations for a long time Deng decided to use force. Depending on sources, the repression ended with 300 to 1000 dead. 20 years later, the Western version of this failed coup has not changed. Western media which recently covered the anniversary of that event presented it as a « popular uprising » and expressed surprise that people in Beijing do not remember the event. This is because there was nothing « popular » about this struggle for power within the Party. This was not a concern for people.

The first successful « color revolution » succeeded in 1990. As the Soviet Union was disintegrating, state secretary James Baker went to Bulgaria to participate in the electoral campaign of the pro-American party, heavily financed by the NED [6]. However, despite pressure from the UK, the Bulgarians – afraid of the social consequences induced by the transformation from soviet union to market economy – made the unforgivable mistake to elect in Parliament a post communist majority. While European community observers testified to the legality of the voting process, the pro-American opposition screamed that electoral fraud had occurred and took to the streets. They set up camp in the center of Sofia and threw the country into chaos for the following six months, until pro-American Zhelyu Zhelev was elected president by the parliament.

« Democracy » : selling your country to foreign interests behind the people’s back

Since then, Washington has kept instigating regime changes everywhere in the world, using street unrest rather than military juntas. It is important here to understand what is at stake. Behind the soothing rhetoric of « the promotion of democracy », Washington’s actions aim to impose regimes that are opening their markets to the US without conditions and which are aligning themselves to their foreign policy. However, while these goals are known by the leaders of the « color revolutions », they are never discussed and accepted by the mobilized demonstrators. In the event when these takeovers succeed, citizens soon rebel against the new policies imposed on them, even if it is too late to turn back. Besides, how can opposition groups who sold their country to foreign interests behind their populations’ backs be considered « democratic »?

In 2005, the Kyrgyz opposition contested the legislative elections and brought to Bishkek demonstrators from the south of the country. They toppled President Askar Akayev. This was the « Tulip Revolution ». The national assembly elected Kurmanbek Bakiyev as president. Unable to control his supporters who were looting the capital, he announced having chased the dictator and pretended that he intended to create a national union government. He pulled General Felix Kulov (former Bishkek Mayor) out of prison and named him prime minister. After the situation was back under control, Bakiyev got rid of Kulov and sold the country’s few resources to US companies with no invitation to tender but with significant backhanders. He set up a US military base in Manas. The population’s standard of living had never been lower. Felix Kulov offered to get the country back on its feet by federating it to Russia as it used to be. He was quickly sent back to jail.

A blessing in disguise?

It is sometimes objected that for states which were subjected to repressive regimes, even if these « color revolutions » only bring the appearance of democracy, they nonetheless constitute an improvement for their populations. Experience shows however that this is far from certain. The new regimes can turn out to be far more repressive than the old ones.

In 2003, Washington, London and Paris [7] organized the « Rose Revolution » in Georgia [8]. According to a classic scheme, the opposition blew the whistle about electoral fraud during legislative elections and took to the streets. The demonstrators forced president Eduard Shevardnadze to flee and they seized power. His successor, Mikheil Saakashvili, opened the country to US economic interests and broke off from his Russian neighbor. The economic aid that Washington promised to replace Russian aid never came. The already weakened economy collapsed. In order to continue to please his backers, Saakashvili needed to impose a dictatorship [9]. He shut down the media and filled up the prisons, which did not prevent Western media from continuing to describe him as a « democrat ». Continuing on his collision course, Saakashvili decided to bolster his popularity by engaging in a military adventure. With the help of the Bush administration and of Israel to which he rented air bases, he ordered the bombing of the population of South Ossetia, killing 1600 people, most of whom also held Russian citizenship. Moscow stroke back. American and Israeli advisers fled [10]. Georgia was left devastated.

Enough!

The main mechanism of the « color revolutions » consists in focusing popular anger on the desired target. This is an aspect of the psychology of the masses which destroys everything in its path and against which no reasonable argument can be opposed. The scapegoat is accused of all the evils plaguing the country for at least one generation. The more he resists, the angrier the mob gets. After he gives in or slips away, the normal division between his opponents and his supporters reappears.

In 2005, in the hours following the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, a rumor spread in Lebanon according to which he was killed by « the Syrians ». The Syrian army, which had been maintaining order since the end of the civil war according to the Taëf agreement, was now booed. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was personally accused by the US authorities, which was as good as proof for the public opinion. To those who noted that Rafik Hariri, despite stormy episodes, had always been useful to Syria and that’s his death deprived Damas of a central collaborator, it was answered that the « Syrian regime » is so fundamentally evil that it cannot help but killing even its friends. The Lebanese people were calling for the G.I.s to come and get rid of the Syrians. But to everyone’s surprise, Bashar al-Assad, considering that the costly deployment of his army was not welcome in Lebanon any longer, decided to pull it back. Legislative elections were organized in which the « anti-Syrian » coalition triumphed. This was the « Cedar Revolution ». After the situation calmed down everyone realized that even if Syrian generals had looted the country in the past, the departure of the Syrian army did not change anything to the country’s economic situation. 

Furthermore, the country was now in danger: it was not able to defend itself from the expansionism of the Israeli neighbor. The main « anti-Syrian » leader, general Michel Aoun, thought better of it and joined the opposition. Furious, Washington multiplied assassination plans to get rid of him. Michel Aoun formed an alliance with Hezbollah on a patriotic platform. It was about time: Israel attacked.

In every case, Washington prepared the « democratic » government in advance, which confirms that these are takeovers in disguise. The names composing the new team are kept secret for as long as possible. This is why the pointing out of the scapegoat is always done without suggesting a political alternative.

In Serbia, young pro-US « revolutionaries » chose a logo that belonged to the Communist popular imagination (the raised fist) to hide their subordination to the United States. They used « he is done! » as a slogan, which federated the anger against the personality of Slobodan Milosevic, who was held responsible for the bombing of the country even though it was done by NATO. This model was replicated numerous times, for example by the Pora! group in Ukraine, or by Zubr in Bielorussia.

The deceiving appearance of nonviolence

The PR staff members of the State Department maintain the non-violent image of the « color revolutions ». They all put forward the theories of Gene Sharp, who founded the Albert Einstein Institution. Yet nonviolence is a combat method used to persuade authorities to a political change. In order for a minority to seize power and to exercise it, it must always use violence at some point. All « color revolutions » did.

Otpor movement,
Gene Sharp, founder
of the Albert Einstein
Institution (center) and
his assistant colonel
Robert Helvey, most
senior member of the
training academy for
embassy military attachés.

In 2000, Slobodan Milosevic called for anticipated elections despite still having a year to run as president. After the first round, neither he nor his principal opponent, Vojislav Koštunica, had secured a majority of the votes. Without waiting for the second round, the opposition claimed voting fraud and took to the streets. Thousands of demonstrators walked on the capital, including the miners from Kolubara. Their daily salaries were paid indirectly by the NED, without them realizing that they were paid by the United States. The pressure from the demonstration was insufficient so the miners started attacking buildings with bulldozers that they had brought, hence the name « bulldozer revolution ».

In cases when the tension is just dragging on, and when counterdemonstrations are being organized, the only solution for Washington is to throw the country into chaos. Inciting agents are then placed in both camps to fire on the crowd. Each party can then observe that the others are shooting while they are peacefully advancing. The confrontation spreads.

In 2002, Caracas’ upper-class took to the streets to protest the social policies of President Hugo Chavez [11]. Using clever manipulation, private TV stations created the impression of a human tidal wave. There were 50,000 people according to observers and 1 million according to the press and the State Department. Then there was the Llaguno Bridge incident. TV stations clearly showed armed pro-Chavez supporters firing on the crowd. In a press conference, the National Guard general and vice minister of domestic security confirmed that the « Chavez militias » fired and killed 19 people. He resigned and called for the dictator to be overthrown. The president was quickly arrested by military rebels. However millions of people descended in the capital’s streets and constitutional order was restored.

A subsequent journalistic investigation went over the details of the massacre of the Llaguno Bridge. It brought to light a deceptive picture manipulation, where chronological order was modified as proved by the protagonists’ watch dials. In reality, the pro-Chavez supporters were under attack and after having fallen back, they were trying to escape by using their weapons. The inciting agents were local policemen trained by a US agency [12].

In 2006, the NED reorganized the opposition to Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. It funded the creation of the Orange party of Raila Odinga. He received the support of Senator Barack Obama, who was accompanied by destabilization experts (Mark Lippert, current chief of staff for the national security adviser, and general Jonathan S. Gration, current US special envoy to Sudan). During a meeting with Odinga, the Illinois Senator invented a vague family relationship with the pro-US candidate. However Odinga was defeated during the 2007 legislative elections. Supported by Senator John McCain as president of the IRI (the NED’s Republican pseudopod), he disputed the validity of the vote and called for his supporters to take to the streets. This is when anonymous text messages were sent en masse to ethnic Luo voters. « Dear Kenyans, the Kikuyu have stolen the future of our children… we must treat them in the only way that they understand… with violence ». The country, despite being one of the most stable in Africa, suddenly erupted in violence.

After days of rioting, president Kibaki was forced to accept the mediation of Madeleine Albright as president of the NDI (the NED’s Democrat pseudopod). A prime minister position was created and offered to Odinga. Since the hate text messages had not been sent from the Kenyan installations, one can wonder which foreign power was behind them.

Mobilizing the international public opinion

During the last few years, Washington had the opportunity to instigate « color revolutions » with the understanding that they would fail to seize power but that they would help manipulate public opinion and international institutions.

In 2007, many Burmans were up in arms because of the domestic fuel price increase. Demonstrations spread as Buddhist monks took a leading role in the protest. This was the « Saffron Revolution » [13]. Washington could not care less about the Rangoon regime; however they were interested in orchestrating the people of Burma in order to exercise pressure on China which holds strategic interests in Burma (pipelines and military bases for electronic intelligence gathering). It was therefore crucial to distort people’s perception of reality. Pictures and films shot on mobile phones started to appear on YouTube. They were anonymous, impossible to verify and without context. It was precisely their lack of reliability that gave them authority, and allowed the White House to fit them with their interpretation of the situation.

More recently, a 2008 student demonstration brought Greece to a grinding halt following the murder of a 15 year old young man by a policeman. Hoodlums were soon seen rioting. They had been recruited in neighboring Kosovo and brought in by bus. The city centers were devastated. Washington was trying to scare foreign investors away in order to secure a monopoly on the investments in the gas terminals that were being built. The weak Karamanlis government was portrayed as being iron fisted. Facebook and Twitter were used to mobilize the Greek Diaspora. Demonstrations spread to Istanbul, Nicosia, Dublin, London, Amsterdam, The Hague, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, etc.

The Green Revolution

The operation conducted in 2009 in Iran belongs to the long list of pseudo revolutions. First, a 400 million dollar budget was voted in 2007 by Congress to orchestrate a « regime change » in Iran. This was in addition to the ad hoc budgets of the NED, the USAID, the CIA & Co. How this money is being used is unclear, but the three main recipients are the following: the Rafsanjani family, the Pahlavi family and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.

The Bush Administration decided to instigate a « color revolution » in Iran after confirming a decision by the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to conduct a military attack of that country. This choice was then approved by the Obama Administration. The plans for a « color revolution » which had been drawn up by the American Enterprise Institute in 2002 with Israel were then reopened. I had published an article at that time regarding this plan [14]. In it, one can identify the current protagonists: that plan has not changed much since then. A Lebanese chapter was added which predicted an uprising in Beirut in case of a victory of the patriotic coalition (Hezbollah, Aoun), but it was later cancelled.

The script included huge support for the candidate chosen by Ayatollah Rafsanjani, the disputing of the presidential election results, widespread bombings, the toppling of president Ahmadinejad and of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, setting up a transition government headed by Mousavi, restoring the Monarchy and creating a government headed by Sohrab Sobhani.

According to the 2002 plans, the operation was overseen by Morris Amitay et Michael Ledeen. It mobilized in Iran the Irangate network. Here is a necessary quick historical background: the Irangate (Iran–Contra affair) was an illegal arms deal. The White House wished to supply weapons to the rebels in Nicaragua (to fight against Sandinistas) and to Iranians (in order to drag the Iran-Iraq war for as long as possible), but was prevented from doing so by Congress. Israelis then offered to act as subcontractors for both operations. Ledeen, who has both US and Israeli citizenships, served as a link in Washington, while Mahmoud Rafsanjani (the brother of the Ayatollah) was his counterpart in Tehran. This took place over a background of widespread corruption. When the scandal broke out in the United States, an independent inquiry committee was headed by Senator Tower and General Brent Scowcroft (Robert Gates’ mentor) to investigate.

Michael Ledeen is an old fox involved in many secret operations. He could be found in Rome during the assassination of Aldo Moro. He also appears to have been linked to the fake Bulgarian connection after the assassination attempt on John Paul II, or more recently to the fake claims of Nigerian uranium supply to Saddam Hussein. He currently works for the American Enterprise Institute [15] (with Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) and for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies [16].

Morris Amitay is a former director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He is today the vice president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the director of a consulting company for the weapon industry.

On April 27, Morris et Ledeen held a seminar on Iran with Senator Joseph Lieberman at the American Enterprise Institute, regarding the Iranian elections. On May 15, a new seminar was held. The public part of the event consisted of a round table discussion headed by Senator John Bolton about the « haggling » over Iran: would Moscow agree to end its support of Tehran in exchange for Washington renouncing its missile shield project in Central Europe? French expert Bernard Hourcade took part in the debates. At the same time, the Institute launched a website, intended for the press, about the coming crisis: IranTracker.org. The website includes a section on the Lebanese elections.

In Iran, the responsibility for overthrowing old rival Ayatollah Khamenei rested on Ayatollah Rafsanjani. Born in a family of farmers, Hashemi Rafsanjani built his fortune on real estate speculation during the time of the Shah. He became the main pistachio dealer in Iran, and increased his wealth during the Irangate. His assets are estimated to several billion dollars. After he became the wealthiest man in Iran, he became successively president of the parliament, president of the Republic, and now chairman of the Assembly of Experts (an arbitration body for the parliament and the Guardian Council of the Constitution). He defends the interests of Tehran’s merchant class. During the electoral campaign, Rafsanjani required Mir-Hossein Mousavi, his former adversary who became his protégé, to promise he would privatize the oil sector.

With no connection to Rafsanjani, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran have been used by Washington [17]. This organization, protected by the Pentagon, is considered a terrorist organization by the State Department and has been considered as such by the European Union. Indeed, it is responsible for dreadful operations in the 80s, including a huge bombing which killed Ayatollah Beheshti, four department heads, six department head assistants and one fourth of the parliamentary group of the Islamic Republic party. The People’s Mujahedin of Iran is headed by Massoud Rajavi, who first married the daughter of former President Abol-hassan Banisadr and then the cruel Maryam.

Its headquarters are located outside of Paris and its military bases in Iraq, first under the orders of Saddam Hussein, are now under the Defense Department. The People’s Mujahedin provided the logistics for the bombing attacks which took place during the electoral campaign [18]. They were responsible for instigating clashes – which they probably did – between Pro Ahmadinejad supporters and their opponents.

Should chaos have followed, the Supreme Leader could have been overthrown. A transition government, headed by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, would have privatized the oil sector and brought back the Monarchy. The son of the former Shah, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, would have ascended to the throne and would have nominated Sohrab Sobhani as prime minister. With this in mind, Reza Pahlavi published in February a number of interviews with French journalist Michel Taubmann, the director of Arte’s information office in Paris, and who presides the Cercle de l’Observatoire, the club for French neo conservatives. It is useful to remember that Washington had made similar plans for the restoration of the Monarchy in Afghanistan. Mohammed Zahir Shah was supposed to ascend to the throne again and Hamid Karzai would have become prime minister. Unfortunately, at age 88, the pretender had become senile. Karzai thus became president. Both Sobhani and Karzai hold United States citizenships. Both were involved in the Caspian sea’s oil sector.

As far as propaganda was concerned, the initial plan had been given to Benador Associates, a public relations firm. But it evolved with the influence of Goli Ameri, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. This American Iranian woman is John Bolton’s former colleague. As a new media specialist, she implemented infrastructure and Internet training programs for Rafsanjani’s friends. She also developed radio and television programs in Farsi for the State Department propaganda, in conjunction with the BBC.

Iran’s destabilization failed because the main drive behind the « color revolutions » was not appropriately initiated. Mir-Hossein Mousavi did not manage to make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the focus of popular anger. The Iranian people did not fall into the trap; they did not hold the outgoing president responsible for the United States’ economic sanctions against the country. Therefore the protests were limited to the northern suburbs of Tehran. The authorities refrained from creating counter demonstrations, and let the plotters expose themselves.

However, it must be noted that the propaganda was successful with the Western media. International public opinions really believed that two million Iranians took to the streets, when the real figure was ten times lower. The fact that foreign correspondents were under house arrest facilitated these exaggerations because they were exempt from having to provide evidence for their allegations.

Having given up war, and having failed at overthrowing the regime, what is Barack Obama’s remaining option?

Thierry Meyssan