Search Results For "thierry meyssan"

Damascus Photo: Gail Malone

Damascus Photo: Gail Malone

The adoption of a new electoral code by the Council of the Syrian people has provoked the hysteria of NATO and GCC powers.

Even before the vote, Lakhdar Brahimi presented his version of the failure of negotiations in Geneva 2 to the UN General Assembly on March 14. He ended his speech by saying : “I have more serious doubts that the presidential election and a another 7-year term for President Bashar al-Assad will bring an end to the intolerable suffering of the Syrian people, will stop the destruction of the country and restore harmony and mutual trust in the region”. [1]

What bee had the Special Representative of Ban Ki-moon and Nabil al-Araby in his bonnet ? On the one hand, he considered the election of Bashar al-Assad a fait accompli though he had not yet made a decision on his possible candidacy, on the other hand how would the Presidential election determine the outcome of the war ?

It is that, for Lakhdar Brahimi, as well as for his agents, the only important thing is to achieve a victory for NATO and the GCC in Syria. This position was explained by the remaining 11 of the 70 States initially making up the “Friends of Syria” assembled on April 3 in London. Their final release is focused on exposing the ballot as a “mockery of democracy” to “continue the dictatorship”. [2]

But how would an electoral code modeled on that of the great European nations be a “parody” ?


Barack Obama speaks well. In fact, President Obama does not write his own texts but spends his days reading speeches written on prompters for him. Meanwhile, others govern in his place.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire is based on a century of propaganda. It managed to convince us that the United States is “the land of the free” and that it engaged in wars to defend its ideals. But the current crisis over Ukraine has changed the rules of the game. Now Washington and its allies are not the only speakers. Their lies are openly challenged by the government and media of another major state, Russia. In the era of satellites and the Internet, Anglo-Saxon propaganda no longer works.

Rulers have always tried to convince their subjects of the correctness of their actions, because crowds never follow men they know to be bad. The twentieth century has seen new ways of spreading ideas unburdened by the truth. Westerners trace modern propaganda to Nazi minister Joseph Goebbels. It is a way to forget that the art of distorting the perception of things was previously developed by Anglo-Saxons.

In 1916, the United Kingdom created Wellington House in London, followed by Crewe House. Simultaneously, the United States created the Committee on Public Information (CPI). Considering the First World War was between masses and no longer between armies, these organizations tried to intoxicate their own people as well as those of their allies and those of their enemies with propaganda.


1-4347-80a3d-3-19beeBeyond the emphatic cries of the West against the accession of the Crimea to the Russian Federation, the real issue is whether this is an orphan event or whether it foreshadows a turning of Eastern Europe toward Moscow. With only enslavement to the Brussels bureaucracy to offer, Brussels fears that its current clients may be attracted by Moscow’s freedom and money.


Westerners bellow to denounce the “military annexation” of the Crimea by Russia. According to them, Moscow, returning to the “Brezhnev doctrine” threatens the sovereignty of all States which were members not only of the former Soviet Union, but also of the Warsaw Pact, and is about to invade as it did in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Is this true ? Obviously, the same Westerners are not convinced of the imminent danger. Though they equate the “annexation” of the Crimea by Vladimir Putin to that of the Sudetenland by Adolf Hitler, they do not think that we are heading towards a Third World War.

At most, they have enacted ​​theoretical sanctions against some Russian leaders
– including Crimean leaders – blocking their accounts in case they should wish to open such in Western banks, or prohibiting them from traveling there, in case they yearned to travel there. True, the Pentagon has sent 22 fighter jets to Poland and the Baltic States, but it does not intend to do more than this posturing for the moment.

Read more…


In the globalized world, every conflict is linked to the others. So what is happening now in Ukraine is reflected in other regions. For Thierry Meyssan, Washington’s rantings are not intended to make war with Moscow, but to urge Europeans to cut off their arm to the greatest US advantage. Similarly, the abandonment of the Geneva process can be a way to sidestep Saudi interests and focus on a settlement in Palestine.

Three events have upset the international scene : on the one hand, the crisis between the West and Russia over Ukraine, on the other hand, the secret war that the Gulf states have declared against each other, finally the adoption by the Council of the Syrian people of an electoral law which de facto excludes the candidacies of citizens who fled the country during the war.

The United States had planned a fourth event, a “color revolution” in Venezuela, but the opposition has failed to rally popular support. It will play this card later.

 Read more…

JPEG - 33.7 kb
Since when are revolutions supported by imperialism? (here: Maidan , Kiev).

Washington, which failed in 2011 to bomb Libya and Syria simultaneously, is now engaged in a new demonstration of its strength: organizing regime change in three states at the same time, in different regions of the world: Syria (CentCom), Ukraine (EuCom) and Venezuela (SouthCom).

To do this, President Obama has mobilized almost the entire National Security Council team.

First, Advisor Susan Rice and Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. These two women are champions of “democratic” talk. They have for many years specialized in advocating interference in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of preventing genocide. But behind this generous rhetoric, they couldn’t care less about non-US lives as shown by Ms. Power during the chemical weapons crisis in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The ambassador, who was aware of the innocence of the Syrian authorities, had gone to Europe with her husband to attend a film festival dedicated to Charlie Chaplin, while her government denounced a crime against humanity, the responsibility for which was placed upon President al Assad.

Then, the three regional co-ordinators: Philip Gordon ( Middle East and North Africa ), Karen Donfried (Europe and Eurasia ) and Ricardo Zuñiga ( Latin America).
• Phil Gordon (personal friend and translator of Nicolas Sarkozy) organized the sabotage of the Geneva 2 Peace Conference as long as the Palestinian issue is not settled to the U.S. liking. During the second session of the conference, while John Kerry spoke of peace, Gordon met with the heads of Jordanian, Qatari , Saudi and Turkish intelligence services in Washington to prepare for yet another attack. The plotters have gathered an army of 13,000 men, of whom only 1,000 were given brief military training, to drive tanks and take Damascus. The problem is that the column may be destroyed by the Syrian Army before arriving in the capital. But they fail to agree on how to defend it without distributing anti-aircraft weapons that could later be used against Israel.
• Karen Donfried is the former national intelligence officer for Europe. She has long led the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. Today, she manipulates the European Union to hide Washington interventionism in Ukraine. Despite the leak of a phone conversation involving Ambassador Victoria Nuland, she succeeded in convincing Europeans that the opposition in Kiev wanted to join them and was fighting for democracy. Nonetheless, more than half of the Maidan rioters are members of the Nazi party and brandish portraits of collaborator Stepan Bandera. Read more…..

JPEG - 15.6 kbThe second round of the Geneva 2 Conference opened on a very different tone from the first one. U.S. ambassador Robert S. Ford is no longer heading the “opposition” delegation and it is unclear who is now responsible for Syria in Washington. In any case, the representatives of “opposition” arrived with a “Statement of Basic Principles” [1] designed to set Damascus up for the same trap Walid Muallem had laid for them during the first session: force him to answer his own ground. Damascus wanted to broach the fight against terrorism, but the “opposition” responded with a detailed description of the composition and mission of the Transitional Governing Body.

It was a particularly good move considering that, during the first session, Muallem had reached out to public opinion inside Syria, and sometimes in the Arab world, but never to that in the West. If he had wanted to target this audience, he should have started by focusing on international law before discussing the means to enforce it: the fight against terrorism. But first seeking to bolster the legitimacy of Damascus, he endeavored to expose the crimes perpetrated by the “opposition”-backed jihadists and the colonial ambitions of John Kerry.

Occupying the empty field, the United States dictated to the “opposition” a Statement which is based on the resolutions of the Security Council and the Geneva 1 Final Communiqué, that is to say on texts endorsed by all the states sponsoring the peace conference.

The Statement begins by detailing what the Body is supposed to be. Naturally, it will be neutral, inclusive – i.e. comprising all components of Syrian society-, peaceful – i.e. it would end the war-, and the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the country. Its function is to create an environment enabling the Syrian people to develop its own constitution and appoint its institutions.

- The first problem with this Statement is that it contravenes the practice of the armed groups. While the National Coalition expresses itself in a perfectly democratic language, the groups who are fighting on the ground have continued to brutalize minorities and try to impose a Salafist organization of society. Granted, most of these groups do not recognize the authority of the Coalition, but its legitimacy hinges on their actions.

Moreover, everyone have been aware of the hypocrisy since the beginning of the crisis: the best speakers for democracy in Syria being the absolute rulers of the Gulf dictatorships.

- The second problem with the Statement is the method to determine the Governing Body. Washington wants to impose it, as it did in many other countries. Hence it masterminded Geneva 2, as it did the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan: the great powers would negotiate among themselves and designate a Syrian Karzai. Damascus, however, continues to cite the Final Communiqué of Geneva 1, that “It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country.” Therefore, not only must the new constitution be approved by referendum, but the result of Geneva 2 may not be implemented unless it is ratified by President al-Assad. As it happens, he has committed himself to submitting it to a referendum.

Moreover, this remark reflects on the legitimacy of the “opposition” delegation. As noted by Sergey Lavrov in his opening statement at the conference, its current composition flies in the face of the Geneva I communiqué, which stipulates that “the peace talks should be open to all parties in Syria committed to a political settlement so that they will take an active part in the process and play their role.” However, the “opposition”delegation boils down only to the National Coalition, notwithstanding the fact that it has been repudiated by a majority of its members.

- The third hitch is that the Statement affords Washington the possibility to organize a Serbian-style regime change, by orchestrating a “color revolution”. The Kosovo war ended in a cease-fire followed by elections in Serbia. Through a crafty psychological campaign, the CIA got a pro-American candidate elected. Then it had Slobodan Milošević arrested and tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity. Since at the end of two years, the Court found no evidence to support the charges, Milošević was murdered in his cell. Ultimately, the Serbs fought for nothing because today they have lost Kosovo and are governed by those who bombed their country to smithereens.

The Statement thus contains an astonishing contradiction: it calls for the deployment of the United Nations throughout the country from outset of the transition, but it excludes them from the process. Instead, it affirms that its supervision will be entrusted to “independent organizations of international civil society.” In Central and Eastern Europe, these organizations were called Freedom House, Open Society Foundation and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . The first is historically linked to both the United States and Israel , and the second is headed by business magnate and speculator George Soros, and serves the interests of both the United States and Israel, while the third is not an association, but a joint US-British-Australian body, created at the initiative of President Ronald Reagan to extend the work of the CIA after the scandals of the 70s. These organizations hand out billions of dollars everywhere they can to corrupt elites and to buy States.

In July 2011, Washington had sent an official Canadian delegation to Libya to propose a solution identical to the one applied in Serbia: a cease-fire followed by a transition period during which the “independent organizations of the international civil society” could deploy inside the country. Faced with Muammar el-Gaddafi’s refusal, NATO decided to enter by force. Read more…..

On the eve of the Geneva 2 Conference, what remains of the international anti-Syria coalition is blowing apart, while those states that followed Russia or the United States when they withdrew are positioning themselves for the reconstruction phase.

The first issue concerns the representativity of the “Syrian opposition” delegation. Until now, it was a question of knowing whether it emanated from the Istanbul-based National Coalition and/or the internal and external nationalist opposition, which stood against foreign interference. Now, it must also be determined whether the National Coalition represents the interests of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey.

On the ground, the three sponsors of the war have parted ways and are engaged in a merciless battle, and no longer interested in overthrowing the government they had come to fight. While there is still talk about the Free Syrian Army, it has vanished from the scene. Therefore, what remains are the Islamic Front (recently established by Prince Bandar bin Sultan), the Al-Nusra Front (close to Qatar) and the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant (IEIL, “Daesh” in Arabic) which, as the Turkish courts and police have recently proven, is illegally funded by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

At first, the IEIL (that is to say, Turkey; that is to say, NATO) attacked and looted the headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Its leaders then fled to Qatar and Europe, but Prince Bandar bin Sultan retrieved certain elements and created the Islamic Front by hitching on new mercenaries. Then the IEIL was instructed to move the bulk of its forces to Iraq where it took Ramadi and Fallujah. Since nature abhors a vacuum, all other forces, beginning with the Syrian Arab Army, have filled the freed space.

According to the Atlanticist and Gulf press, the “rebels” are supposed to have allied themselves with the “loyalists” against the “jihadists” in the advent of a “second Syrian revolution.” This romantic view has the advantage of turning the page of the “first revolution” without enquiring about its outcome. The truth is that there never was a first revolution and that there will not be one now.

Nor do Western media seem to be interested in finding out why Al-Qaeda, NATO’s timeless tool, has been ordered this time to leave the Syrian battlefield for Iraq. This presents three advantages for Washington: first, it will lead to the triumph of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the temporary stabilization of Iraq; then, it will decimate the number of jihadists who will suffer heavy losses at the hands of a fresh, over-equipped army and, finally, it eliminates one of the players who could not decently turn up at Geneva-2.

Likewise, NATO provided intelligence to the Lebanese Army on the Abdullah Azzam Brigades leader, Majed al-Majed. Arrested when being transferred in an ambulance from the hospital to his headquarters, he was officially to die ten days later from his injuries. He was most likely taken out by the Saudis, jittery about what he could have revealed.

If everything had gone according to plan, only the Al-Nusra Front would have been left on the ground, which would have permanently reduced the pretensions of the National Coalition. However, the doggedness of Saudi Arabia has given rise to the Islamic Front, which is bent on influencing Geneva-2. If Israel has not featured in the breakdown of the anti-Syrian coalition, it is because—in keeping with its strategy for the last ten years—Tel Aviv hides behind its allies, in this case France and Saudi Arabia. The Netanyahu administration comes out of the woods only to support the Contras with air cover or to provide them with a fallback position on the Golan Heights, which it is illegally occupying. Unfortunately for her though, Israel didn’t have the chance to intervene in recent weeks, the main fighting taking place in northern Syria.

In the meantime, the delegations of those States, that had the wisdom to withdraw from the conflict or who supported Syria, are hoping to be thanked at Geneva-2. About twenty of them are expecting to land reconstruction contracts funded by intergovernmental organizations.

As of now, it is already clear that Saudi Arabia and France will be the big losers at Geneva-2: they will have to lay out more than they get in return. But it doesn’t seem to faze President François Hollande since he has fulfilled his mission in the service of Israel and considers the consequences for his own country as secondary. For his part, King Abdullah is trying to obtain a consolation prize in Lebanon. The Lebanese majority could well accept the appointment of a minority government whose sole function would be to endorse Saudi Arabia’s donation of 3 billion dollars worth of French weaponry. Then the government would be overthrown by Parliament and the country would slip back into its current stagnation.

The Syrian government delegation is approaching the conference with optimism. The armed opposition forces are in disarray from the evaporation of the FSA and the massive departure of the IEIL. Damascus seems more concerned with coming up with knickknacks it can offer its interlocutors to help them disguise their defeat and celebrate a consensual victory in the interest of all.

Thus, it plans to create temporary departments in charge of managing relations with former enemies now turned into generous donors, and to entrust them to their former employees become good citizens again. The National Coalition will therefore have acquired a skill thanks to its past betrayal.

Al-Watan (Syria)

via Voltaire Network

November 29, 2011, a delegation from the Free Syrian Army allied itself with a delegation from the Syrian National Council. In theory, the opposition now had a military wing and a political wing. In reality, the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council are two fictions created by NATO. Both are exclusively composed of mercenaries and have little reality of their own in the field.

The organizers of the Geneva peace conference urgently seek a representative for the armed Syrian opposition. According to Westerners, the conflict opposes an abominable dictatorship to its own people. However, armed groups that destroy Syria – from the Islamic Front to Al-Qaeda – officially call for foreign fighters, even if the former claims to be composed primarily of Syrians. Inviting them would amount to admitting that there has never been a revolution in Syria, only foreign aggression.

Indeed, the Free Syrian Army, which a few weeks ago we were told included 40,000 men, has disappeared. After its headquarters was attacked by mercenaries and arsenals were looted, its historic leader, General Salim Idriss, fled through Turkey and found refuge in Qatar.

At the time of its formation, July 29, 2011, the FSA had set a single objective: the overthrow of President Bashar al -Assad. The FSA has never specified whether it fought for a secular regime or an Islamic regime. It never adopted any political position with regards to Justice, Education, Culture, Economics, Labour, Environment, etc. . It never ​​ drafted the slightest policy program.

It was, we were told, formed of soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army who had defected. There were indeed defections during the second half of 2011, but their total number never exceeded 4 %, which is negligible on a country-wide scale.

No : The FSA did not need a political program because it had a flag, that of French colonisation. In force during the French mandate over Syria and maintained during the first years of supposed independence, it symbolized the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Syria was largely amputated and divided into ethnic and confessional states. Three stars symbolized a Druze state, an Alawite State and a Christian state. All Syrians know this fatal flag, be it only by its presence in the office of the Syrian collaborator of the French occupation in a famous soap opera.

Its first leader, Colonel Riad al-Assad, has disappeared to the dustbin of history. He was selected for his name, which is written differently in Arabic but is pronounced identically in European languages ​​with that of President Bashar al-Assad. The only difference between the two men, from a point of view of the Gulf monarchies, was that the first was Sunni and the second, Alawite.

In reality, the Free Syrian Army is a Franco-British creation as were the “Benghazi revolutionaries” in Libya (who had “chosen” the flag of King Idris I, collaborator of the English occupants).

An armed tool of NATO, intended to take the presidential palace when the Atlantic Alliance had bombed the country, the FSA has been tossed by successive plans and the successive failures of the West and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Presented a second time as the armed wing of a political council in exile, the former did not recognize the latter’s authority and obeyed only its Franco-British employers. It was in effect the armed wing of their secret services of which the Syrian National Coalition was the political front. Ultimately, the FSA could accumulate success only with the direct assistance of NATO, namely the Turkish Army that housed it in its own bases.

Created in the framework of a 4th generation war, the FSA has failed to adapt to the Second Syrian War, the Nicaraguan type. The first war (from the NATO meeting in Cairo in February, 2011 to the Geneva Conference in June, 2012) was a media staging to delegitimize power so that it would fall like a ripe fruit into the hands of NATO. Military actions were perpetrated by different factions, receiving their orders directly from the Alliance. It seved above all to give credence to media lies giving the illusion of a widespread revolt. According to the theories of William Lind and Martin Van Creveld, the FSA was a label to refer to all these groups, but which did not have its own hierarchical structure. Instead, the Second War (from the meeting of the “Friends of Syria” in Paris in July, 2012 to the Geneva 2 Conference in January, 2014) is a war of attrition to “bleed” the country until its surrender. To fulfill its role, the FSA would have had to turn into a real army, with a hierarchy and discipline, which it has never been able to do.

Feeling its end was near, since the Turkish- Iranian rapprochement, the FSA had announced its possible participation in Geneva 2 by demanding unrealistic conditions. But it was already too late. Mercenaries paid by Saudi Arabia set this NATO fiction straight. Everyone can now see the naked truth: there has never been a revolution in Syria.

Mandela and Israel. By Thierry Meyssan

 —  December 14, 2013 — 1 Comment

April 11, 1975, in Jerusalem in the Prime Minister’s residence. From left to right: Eschel Rhoodie (South African director of Propaganda), Yitzhak Rabin (Israeli Prime Minister), Henrik van den Bergh (Director of the South African secret service) and Shimon Peres ( Israeli Defense Minister).

Westerners are mourning the death of Nelson Mandela with more sadness than that manifested by Africans. This mourning is a way to settle colonial ideology and crimes that were committed in its name. But it is incomprehensible that this torrent of tributes overlook the persistence of a racist state historically founded, as South Africa, according to the worldview of Cecil Rhodes, the theorist of “German imperialism.” Mandela’s example has yet to be followed.

The work of Nelson Mandela is celebrated around the world on the occasion of his death. But what good is his example if we accept that there persists in a state – Israel – the racial ideology that he defeated in South Africa?

Zionism is not a fruit of Judaism, which has long fiercely opposed it. It is an imperialist project born of British Puritan ideology. In the seventeenth century, Lord Cromwell overthrew the English monarchy and proclaimed the Republic. He established an egalitarian society and intended, as much as possible, to expand the power of his country. For this, he hoped to forge an alliance with the Jewish Diaspora which would become the vanguard of British imperialism. He therefore authorized the return of Jews to England, from which they had been driven four hundred years earlier, and announced that he would create a Jewish state, Israel. However, he died without having succeeded in convincing the Jews to join the project. Read more…..

President Sheikh Hassan Rohani announces to his people the agreement reached in Geneva.

The signing of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme on Nov. 24 in Geneva, was, with the exception of Israel, unanimously hailed as the end of a misunderstanding. All signatories have tried to persuade us that this agreement would have been arrived at much earlier had it not been for the excessive manners of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Thus, Iran’s international trade would have been wrecked and the world nearly plunged into World War inadvertently.

The reality is obviously very different: Westerners have conceded nothing but Iran has abdicated all. Even if the signed text is only transitory, Iran has given up the construction of the Arak plant, its 20% enriched uranium and its enrichment technique [1] .

In 2005, the election of President Ahmadinejad was to reinvigorate the Khomeini Revolution. Unlike his two predecessors, presidents Rafsanjani (1989-1997) and Khatami (1997-2005), Ahmadinejad was not simply in favor of a policy of national independence. He was anti-imperialist, in line with the revolutionary thinker, Ali Shariati. In a few years, he made Iran a major scientific and industrial country. He developed nuclear research to develop a type of plant that can be replicated in the Third World and grant humanity its energy independence without coal, oil or gas. Read more…..