Saturday, December 3, 2016
SHOCKING ADMISSION: 'Secular' Syrian Rebels Don't Actually Believe in Secular Democracy
BY PATRICK POOLE
A stunning admission last week by a French academic about the true nature of the so-called "secular" elements of the Syrian rebels exposes the lies behind the official media and foreign policy establishment narratives pushing for regime change in Syria.
As first noticed by Professor Max Abrams of Northeastern University, a study published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and authored by French professor Fabrice Balanche on the status and composition of the Syrian "rebels" admits that the vaunted "secular" rebels are anything but.
Discussing the religious composition of the rebels based on estimates provided by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Balanche says:
The ISW usefully classified the various rebel groups into four ideological categories: transnational Salafi-jihadists (i.e., al-Qaeda-linked fighters), national Salafi-jihadists, political Islamists, and secularists. The difference between national jihadists and political Islamists is more or less akin to the difference between Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood -- in simplified terms, the former seek strict application of Islamic law, while many of the latter tend to favor a state with an Islamic civil constitution but protections for religious freedom. As for the "secularists," the term is used very loosely because most of the fighters in this category are conservative Muslims who do not actually want a secular government.
The fact that Balanche admits that the ISW's estimates of so-called "secularists" are built upon the fiction that they are actually secular exposes the false narrative that ISW has long peddled in support of regime change.
This lie about large numbers of "secular" rebels that the U.S. needed to support is one that the ISW has been pushing for a while.
Rewind to September 2013, when considerable pressure was being placed upon President Obama to directly involve the U.S. in the Syrian war.
At that time the ISW's resident Syria "expert," Elizabeth O'Bagy, was opining in the Wall Street Journal about her travels to Syria and purported discovery that the Syrian "rebels" really weren't bloodthirsty jihadists, but moderates worthy of U.S. financial and military support -- in particular, heavy weapons. Her claims about the Syrian rebels, particularly the FSA, were cited and praised by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain.
That view, of course, quickly came crashing down as O'Bagy came under fire for failing to disclose that she was also a paid contractor for a Syrian rebel front. (She had also lied about her academic credentials.) Within two weeks of her op-ed appearing, she was fired from the Institute for the Study of War, though she was hired two weeks later by Senator McCain as a Senate staffer.
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/11/27/shocking-admission-secular-syrian-rebels-dont-actually-believe-in-secular-democracy/
The deafening silence on the war against Yemen
By 
Sara Yasmin Anwar
Sara Yasmin AnwarSince the start of the coalition airstrikes led by Saudi Arabia on Yemen, the media has been silent in reporting the barbarity of the war. Why? Because the corporate media are silent collaborators in crimes against humanity when the perpetrator is a wealthy ally.
While Syria is subject to intense media scrutiny and the propaganda continues unabated – the Saudis have a license to carry out their indiscriminate bombing campaign – killing, maiming, destroying homes and hospitals in the process.
What has the Arab world’s poorest country done to incur the wrath of the wealthiest oil rich countries? The Houthis, who represent a broad section of Yemen’s population, including Sunnis and Shias won’t accept the will of Abd-Rabbuh Mansour Al-Hadi, an American – Saudi backed puppet.
Hadi with the backing of the Saudis long persecuted the Houthis and worked against the interests of the Yemeni people. When the rebellion broke out he was forced to Aden.
The Houthis later rejected Hadi’s offer of a power sharing government due to his constant pandering to America and Saudi Arabia. The Houthis stand against America, Saudi Arabia and Israel, hence the military support from the three countries against the movement.
Indeed, this isn’t the first time Israel has militarily intervened in Yemen’s internal affairs. Neither is it the first time Yemenis’ have been engaged in fighting imperialist powers.
In the 1960’s after overthrowing the totalitarian Imam Ahmad – the Saudis financed a mercenary army against the republicans. Egypt’s Colonel Nasser who supported pan-Arabism and socialism supported the republicans. To counter the popular current, which went against British interests for the region, they compelled the Saudis to arm and finance remnants of the Imam’s supporters. At the behest of the British, Israel airdropped arms for the proxies 14 times.
Whose side are the Houthis on?
Once again Iran is being vilified and held responsible for the backing of the Houthis, even though there is no evidence that Iran is arming the insurgency. However, as the movement is revolutionary and doesn’t fall into the fold of western/GCC hegemony, the Houthis are considered to be the aggressors.
The airstrikes on the impoverished country include the use of banned weapons and substances. Yet, no condemnations from the media, NGOs or the international community who usually wave the flag of human rights.
Yemen, while being poor in resources, is strategically located making it a goldmine for America. The retreat of Hadi posed a serious problem to American interests who were forced to cease operations carried out by the CIA, the Pentagon and the military. In March last year the Los Angeles Times reported that when the Houthis retrieved secret documents from the Yemeni National Security Bureau highlighting the extent of CIA operations, US officials said the takeover compromised their interests.
The war on Yemen has largely gone unnoticed by Muslims too, who have failed to condemn it. This is because of the Sunni/Shia schism that is being peddled by the media and promoted by Saudi Arabia.
It’s a sad state of affairs when Muslims act in accordance with what American journalist Seymour Hersh calls the ‘redirection’ policy of Washington. In order to pit Muslims against each other, Washington has covertly armed and funded radical Sunni groups to sow sectarian discontent in the aim of rolling back Iranian influence in the region.
It’s not because Iran is the enemy of Sunnis, it’s because the country doesn’t take orders from America, has the region’s second largest oil reserves and is a friend of Palestine.
Following in the footsteps of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah the Houthis too are part of the non-sectarian axis of resistance. http://www.geopolmonitor.com/deafening-silence-war-yemen/
Saudi Arabia's terrorist rehab actually 'secret radicalisation programme,' Guantanamo prisoner claims
Saudi prisoner Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi told a Gitmo parole board: “You guys want to send me back to Saudi Arabia because you believe there is a de-radicalisation programme on the surface, true.
"You are 100 per cent right, there is a strong de-radicalisation programme, but make no mistake, underneath there is a hidden radicalisation programme."
Al-Sharbi made the comments to the Periodic Review Board, which assesses whether Guantanamo prisoners can be released, in June, according to recently declassified documents.
The Prince Mohammed Bin Naif Counselling and Care Centre in Riyadh aims to de-radicalise jihadists through a 12-step programme, which is said to help them reintegrate with society.
Activities include art therapy and sports, and detainees have access to psychologists and religious scholars who teach religion with a focus on rejecting violence, the Wall Street Journal reports.
However, al-Sharbi has claimed the centre is actually a front to train jihadists to "fight under their cloak - under the royal Saudi cloak, under the religious establishment cloak".
He added: "They want it all like whenever they choose the time, they choose the location, and as a Muslim I see that no, this is not in the cuase of Allah.
"This is in a cause of a king. This is not a true jihad."
Later, he claims: "They [Saudi Arabia] are poking their nose here and here and there and they're recruiting more jihadists.
"They'll tell you 'okay, go fight in Yemen. Go fight in Syria,' and I will have no choice."
Al-Sharbi is one of 61 terror suspects still being held in Guantanamo Bay.
During the conversation, al-Sharbi appears to be struggling with illness. He tells the board he had just come from the detainee hospital, is "really exhausted, and nauseous and lethargic," and uses what is described as a "manual breathing device".
He also claimed an unnamed member of the Saudi royal family was part of an effort to recruit him for extremist acts before the September 11 attacks.
He said a religious figure in Saudi Arabia used the term "your highness" during a telephone conversation with a man, just before urging al-Sharbi to return to the US and take part in a plot against the US that would involve learning to fly a plane.
The September 11 commission found there was no evidence to indicate the Saudi government as an institution or Saudi senior officials individually had supported the attacks, and the kingdom's government has consistently denied it had any role in the plot.
In July, the review board declined to approve al-Sharbi's release from Guantanamo.
Trump-Tsai phone call and the One-China policy
Since China and the US established diplomatic ties in 1979, no US president or president-elect has made calls to any Taiwan leader. And Trump called Tsai Ing-wen “Taiwan president.” This has thrilled the Green camp in Taiwan. But the fact is Taiwan made a petty gesture before Trump is sworn in, and Trump responded to it.
Since 1979, Washington has upheld the One-China policy, which lays the foundation for the two sides’ efforts to develop relations in a full-fledged way and make bilateral trade the largest in the world. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) hopes the US changes its stance on the One-China policy, but this is unimaginable.
The One-China policy is a widely acknowledged principle in international relations and one of the fundamental rules that shape the contemporary international order. There is no motive in the US or the world that can break the principle, and no power to ensure that adopting a different policy can bring gains.
The world is clearly aware of this, including Taiwan authorities. They know the only thing that can be done to the One-China policy is some marginalized tricks to serve their short-term interests.
Trump is not familiar with foreign relations and has been known for not playing by the rules since he started running for president. Before he gets sworn in, he faces some vague space to handle things. By answering Tsai’s call he may want to test how China would react and therefore prepare him for dealing with the country and gaining some advantage after he takes office.
The Sino-US relationship was formed by the accumulation of interactions between the two societies over the past decades. It is closely connected with the two nation’s interests, which turned into a strong restraint to conflicts between the two sides. If Trump wants to overstep the One-China principle,
he will destroy Sino-US ties. That means the current pattern between Beijing and Washington as well as international order will be overturned. We believe this is not what Trump wants.
However, the DPP is fascinated by the fantasy. Over the years, the Green camp has attached too much importance to Washington’s remarks, tone and attitudes. The DPP tends to jump for joy over tiny issues. Tsai’s administration might be elated right now. But the fact is Trump's taking of the call will not provide more opportunities for independent forces in Taiwan, nor will it help the island’s economic and social development and reverse Tsai’s difficulties in office for not acknowledging the 1992 Consensus.
The Chinese mainland's strength is emerging rapidly while the US is no longer a dominant force in the Taiwan Strait. The US-Taiwan relationship is important to the island, but cross-Straits ties are crucial to Taiwan’s social well-being.
The Chinese mainland is capable of punishing Tsai’s administration for any moves that crosses the red line, and it should use its power without hesitation. It must be the one who defines the status quo. If the Taiwan government ever does anything to break the status quo, it must pay the price. Beijing should better communicate with Trump’s team and be prepared to respond to Trump’s moves after he assumes office.
We should have enough confidence during the process. Trump will take his strong personality to the White House, but he will not face China-US relations with extra powers. It is hoped that Trump will gradually understand the reality and shape his China policy based on it.
Trump’s Breezy Calls to World Leaders Leave Diplomats Aghast
By MARK LANDLER
President-elect Donald J. Trump inherited a complicated world when he won the election last month. And that was before a series of freewheeling phone calls with foreign leaders that has unnerved diplomats at home and abroad.
In the calls, he voiced admiration for one of the world’s most durable despots, the president of Kazakhstan, and said he hoped to visit a country, Pakistan, that President Obama has steered clear of during nearly eight years in office.
Mr. Trump told the British prime minister, Theresa May, “If you travel to the U.S., you should let me know,” an offhand invitation that came only after he spoke to nine other leaders. He later compounded it by saying on Twitter that Britain should name the anti-immigrant leader Nigel Farage its ambassador to Washington, a startling break with diplomatic protocol.
Mr. Trump’s unfiltered exchanges have drawn international attention since the election, most notably when he met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan with only one other American in the room, his daughter Ivanka Trump — dispensing with the usual practice of using State Department-approved talking points. On Thursday, the White House weighed in with an offer of professional help. The press secretary, Josh Earnest, urged the president-elect to make use of the State Department’s policy makers and diplomats in planning and conducting his encounters with foreign leaders.
“President Obama benefited enormously from the advice and expertise that’s been shared by those who serve at the State Department,” Mr. Earnest said. “I’m confident that as President-elect Trump takes office, those same State Department employees will stand ready to offer him advice as he conducts the business of the United States overseas.”
“Hopefully he’ll take it,” he added.
A spokesman for the State Department, John Kirby, said the department was “helping facilitate and support calls as requested.” But he declined to give details, and it was not clear to what extent Mr. Trump was availing himself of the nation’s diplomats. Mr. Trump’s conversation with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has generated the most angst, because, as Mr. Earnest put it, the relationship between Mr. Sharif’s country and the United States is “quite complicated,” with disputes over issues ranging from counterterrorism to nuclear proliferation.
In a remarkably candid readout of the phone call, the Pakistani government said Mr. Trump had told Mr. Sharif that he was “a terrific guy” who made him feel as though “I’m talking to a person I have known for long.” He described Pakistanis as “one of the most intelligent people.” When Mr. Sharif invited him to visit Pakistan, the president-elect replied that he would “love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people.”
The Trump transition office, in its more circumspect readout, said only that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sharif “had a productive conversation about how the United States and Pakistan will have a strong working relationship in the future.” It did not confirm or deny the Pakistani account of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
The breezy tone of the readout left diplomats in Washington slack-jawed, with some initially assuming it was a parody. In particular, they zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s offer to Mr. Sharif “to play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country’s problems.”
That was interpreted by some in India as an offer by the United States to mediate Pakistan’s border dispute with India in Kashmir, something that the Pakistanis have long sought and that India has long resisted.
“By taking such a cavalier attitude to these calls, he’s encouraging people not to take him seriously,” said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He’s made himself not only a bull in a china shop, but a bull in a nuclear china shop.”
Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said his government’s decision to release a rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s remarks was a breach of protocol that demonstrated how easily Pakistani leaders misread signals from their American counterparts.
“Pakistan is one country where knowing history and details matters most,” Mr. Haqqani said, “and where the U.S. cannot afford to give wrong signals, given the history of misunderstandings.” At one level, Mr. Trump’s warm sentiments were surprising, given that during the campaign, he called for temporarily barring Muslims from entering the United States to avoid importing would-be terrorists.
His conversation with Mr. Sharif also came a day after an attack at Ohio State University in which a Somali-born student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, rammed a car into a group of pedestrians and slashed several people with a knife before being shot and killed by the police. Law enforcement officials said Mr. Artan, whom the Islamic State has claimed as a “soldier,” had lived in Pakistan for seven years before coming to the United States in 2014.
Mr. Obama never visited Pakistan as president, even though he had a circle of Pakistani friends in college and spoke fondly of the country. The White House weighed a visit at various times but always decided against it, according to officials, because of security concerns or because it would be perceived as rewarding Pakistani leaders for what many American officials said was their lack of help in fighting terrorism.
“It sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the president of the United States goes to visit,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s true whether it’s some of our closest allies, or that’s also true if it’s a country like Pakistan, with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated.” Mr. Trump’s call with President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan raised similar questions. Mr. Nazarbayev has ruled his country with an iron hand since 1989, first as head of the Communist Party and later as president after Kazakhstan won its independence from the Soviet Union. In April 2015, he won a fifth term, winning 97.7 percent of the vote and raising suspicions of fraud.
The Kazakh government, in its account of Mr. Trump’s conversation, said he had lavished praise on the president for his leadership of the country over the last 25 years. “D. Trump stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country over the years of independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle,’” it said.
The statement went on to say that Mr. Trump had shown solidarity with the Kazakh government over its decision to voluntarily surrender the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviets. “There is no more important issue than the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, which must be addressed in a global context,” it quoted Mr. Trump as saying.
Mr. Trump’s statement said that Mr. Nazarbayev had congratulated him on his victory, and that Mr. Trump had reciprocated by congratulating him on the 25th anniversary of his country. Beyond that, it said only that the two leaders had “addressed the importance of strengthening regional partnerships.”
President Obama: Health care act is law, and the U.S. can’t go backward
President Barack Obama is urging the public to help save his health care law, which is in serious danger of being repealed under President-elect Donald Trump.
In a Facebook Live appearance, Obama says the Affordable Care Act has improved millions of lives over the six years it’s been the “law of the land.” He says the country can’t go “backward.”
Obama is also encouraging viewers to tell Republicans in Congress “we want to build on the progress we’ve made, not abandon it.”
Congressional Republicans have tried for years to repeal the law. The chances of success increased with Trump’s election. He’s called the law a disaster.
Obama is also urging people who want to have health insurance on Jan. 1 to sign up at www.healthcare.gov by the Dec. 15 deadline.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/12/02/president-obama-health-care-act-is-law-and-the-u-s-cant-go-backward
President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor
By PATRICIA COHENDEC
Departing occupants of the White House rarely hand off an improving economy to a successor from the opposing party.
When Barack Obama was waiting in the wings after the 2008 presidential election, for example, the economy was in a severe downward spiral: Employers reported cutting 533,000 jobs that November, the biggest monthly loss in a generation. But according to the government’s report on Friday, Donald J. Trump can expect to inherit an economy that has added private sector jobs for 80 months, put another 178,000 people on payrolls last month and pushed the unemployment rate down to 4.6 percent today from 4.9 percent the previous month. Wage growth, though slower, is still running ahead of inflation, and consumers are expressing the highest levels of confidence in nearly a decade.
The Federal Reserve is confident enough about the economy’s underlying strength that it is now set to raise the benchmark interest rate when it meets later this month.
The jobless rate for November, the lowest since August 2007, “is a testimony to how strong employment growth has been,” said Jim O’Sullivan, chief United States economist at High Frequency Economics. Jason Furman, now chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, remembers the transition eight years ago, when he was crammed into his office with a circle of key officials as the latest jobs numbers from the Labor Department landed.
“It was an utterly terrifying time, the likes of which none of us had ever seen in our lifetimes,” Mr. Furman recalled. Fearing that “the economy was following the same trajectory that it did at the beginning of the Great Depression,” everyone was focused on how to “rapidly slow the bleeding and figure out how to get the economy growing again.”
By contrast, Mr. Furman said, “the economy today is healthy and it’s improving.”
For all the improvements, tens of millions of Americans understandably feel that the recovery has passed them by. Those without skills are relegated to low-paying positions without steady schedules, security and benefits. Breadwinners who once held well-compensated manufacturing jobs are angry about being forced to settle for lower-wage service jobs — or no jobs at all.
Profound anxiety, particularly among the white working class, about the ability to reach or comfortably remain in the middle class is one of the factors that helped propel Mr. Trump to the White House.
Pockets of weakness also surfaced in the latest jobs report, which showed that more people dropped out of the labor force last month than joined it. Manufacturing jobs declined further, and there are still plenty of part-time workers who would rather be full time. And while the official jobless rate for high school graduates fell to 4.9 percent, it is more than twice the rate for college graduates.
“There is a bifurcation of the work force,” Jonas Prising, chairman and chief executive of the ManpowerGroup, one of the largest recruiters in the United States. People who are able to take advantage of advances in technology, globalization and other shifts that favor those with the right skills for the nation’s advanced services are thriving.
The Labor Picture in November
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
SHARE OF
POPULATION
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
NOV.
5.0
%
Employed
59.7
%
Unch.
+
0.3
pts.
Labor force
(workers and
unemployed)
62.8
–
–
0.1
pts.
+
0.2
4.8
4.6
‘HIDDEN’
UNEMPLOYMENT
4.6%
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
4.4
In millions
NOV.
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
Working part
time, but want
full-time work
5.7
–
–
3.7
%
–
6.8
%
UNEMPLOYMENT
DEMOGRAPHICS
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
NOV.
People who
currently want
a job§
5.5
†
–
1.6
%
+
3.7
pts.
White
4.2
%
–
–
0.1
pts.
–
0.2
Black
8.1
–
0.5
–
1.3
Hispanic
5.7
Unch.
–
0.7
UNEMPLOYMENT BY
EDUCATION LEVEL
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
†
†
†
Asian
3.0
–
0.3
–
0.9
NOV.
Teenagers (16-19)
15.2
–
0.4
–
0.4
Less than
High school
7.9
%
+
0.6
pts.
+
1.1
pts.
DURATION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT
High school
4.9
–
0.6
–
0.5
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
Some college
3.9
+
0.1
–
0.5
In weeks
NOV.
Bachelor’s or higher
2.3
–
0.3
–
0.2
Average
26.3
–
3.3
%
–
5.7
%
Median
10.1
–
1.0
–
5.6
TYPE OF WORK
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
In millions
NOV.
Nonfarm payroll,
12-month change
EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm
145.1
+
0.1
%
+
2.1
%
+2
%
Goods
0.1
19.6
+
+
0.1
Services
125.5
+
0.1
+
1.8
Agriculture
2.4
+
5.0
+
0.6
+1
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS
Rank-and-file
workers
1-MONTH
CHANGE
1-YEAR
CHANGE
NOV.
0
O
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
N
$890.62
–
0.1
%
%
+
2.2
%
The deal that Mr. Trump made with the heating and cooling company Carrier this week to keep 1,000 manufacturing jobs from moving to Mexico from Indiana is emblematic of the kind of actions he said he would take as president to help blue-collar workers.
But there are limits to the power of persuasion. Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan and a former economic adviser to Mr. Obama, said that manufacturing, while still a driving force in the economy, employed fewer and fewer people. More than 80 percent of jobs are now in the service industry, Ms. Stevenson said, and Mr. Trump should be thinking more about how to match workers with those jobs.
“The economy is in a great place, and his biggest challenge is continuing that,” she said.
Some economists worry that the Federal Reserve is too focused on fears of future inflation and that it should hold off on any increase in rates until conditions have improved further. “There’s no reason to pre-emptively slow the economy down, given that we’re starting from less than full employment,” said Elise Gould, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “Right now, the priority should be keeping the economy on track and moving it forward.”
Such pleas are unlikely to win the day. At last month’s meeting of the Federal Reserve, members concluded that the case for an increase in the benchmark rate had been “strengthened,” and that they would be ready to move “so long as incoming data provided some further evidence of continued progress.”
Many employers are having a harder time finding and retaining workers.
“Recruiting is a tough issue right now in skilled and semiskilled industries,” said Robert A. Funk, chairman and chief executive of Express Employment Professionals, a staffing agency based in Oklahoma City. He mentioned a particular need for workers in accounting, information technology, call centers, warehousing and office and professional services.
Mr. Funk said employers often complained about being unable to find employees with a strong work ethic who met the minimum requirements. “Drug screening is a real challenge in many parts of the country,” he said. “Only 30 percent can pass a drug screen in the state of Washington,” where marijuana is legal.
At the same time, employers have been reluctant to raise wages to a level that might lure back sidelined workers. The result has been that the country has 5.5 million job openings, a near-record level, but still relatively anemic labor force participation rates.
“The challenge out there now is finding workers and keeping the workers you have,” said Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group. Those shortages, whatever the cause, are likely to push wages higher next year, he said.
“People are feeling good not only about their current income but their future income,” Mr. Rick said.
Whatever the economy’s current failings, Mark J. Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, said it was nonetheless better than the ones most incoming presidents have faced in the last half-century. “Trump can be thankful that his predecessor is handing him a fairly strong situation,” Mr. Rozell said, “especially when compared to many past party transfers of power.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)