Fact Not Fiction - US Aggression Against Venezuela by EVA GOLINGER

Fact Not Fiction

US Aggression Against Venezuela

by EVA GOLINGER

Recently, several different spokespersons for the Obama administration have firmly claimed the United States government is not intervening in Venezuelan affairs. Department of State spokeswoman Jen Psaki went so far as to declare, “The allegations made by the Venezuelan government that the United States is involved in coup plotting and destabilization are baseless and false.” Psaki then reiterated a bizarrely erroneous statement she had made during a daily press briefing just a day before: “The United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means”.

Anyone with minimal knowlege of Latin America and world history knows Psaki’s claim is false, and calls into question the veracity of any of her prior statements. The U.S. government has backed, encouraged and supported coup d’etats in Latin America and around the world for over a century. Some of the more notorious ones that have been openly acknowledged by former U.S. presidents and high level officials include coup d’etats against Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo in 1960, Joao Goulart of Brazil in 1964 and Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. More recently, in the twenty-first century, the U.S. government openly supported the coups against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004 and Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009. Ample evidence of CIA and other U.S. agency involvement in all of these unconstitutional overthrows of democratically-elected governments abounds. What all of the overthrown leaders had in common was their unwillingness to bow to U.S. interests.

Despite bogus U.S. government claims, after Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela by an overwhelming majority in 1998, and subsequently refused to take orders from Washington, he became a fast target of U.S. aggression. Though a U.S.-supported coup d’etat briefly overthrew Chavez in 2002, his subsequent rescue by millions of Venezuelans and loyal armed forces, and his return to power, only increased U.S. hostility towards the oil-rich nation. After Chavez’s death in 2013 from cancer, his democratically-elected successor, Nicolas Maduro, became the brunt of these attacks.

What follows is a brief summary and selection of U.S. aggression towards Venezuela that clearly shows a one-sided war. Venezuela has never threatened or taken any kind of action to harm the United States or its interests. Nonetheless, Venezuela, under both Chavez and Maduro – two presidents who have exerted Venezuela’s sovereignty and right to self-determination – has been the ongoing victim of continuous, hostile and increasingly unfriendly actions from Washington.

2002-2004

A coup d’etat against Chávez was carried out on April 11, 2002. Documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence a clear role of the U.S. government in the coup, as well as financial and political support for those Venezuelans involved.[1]

A “lockout” and economic sabotage of Venezuela’s oil industry was imposed from December 2002 to February 2003. After the defeat of the coup against Chavez, the U.S. State Department issued a special fund via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to help the opposition continue efforts to overthrow Chavez. USAID set up an Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas, subcontracting U.S. defense contractor Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) to oversee Venezuela operations and distribute millions of dollars to anti-government groups. The result was the “national strike” launched in December 2002 that brought the oil industry to the ground and devastated the economy. It lasted 64 days and caused more than $20 billion in damages. Nonetheless, the efforts failed to destabilize the Chavez government.

The “guarimbas” of 2004: On February 27, 2004, extremist anti-government groups initiated violent protests in Caracas aimed at overthrowing Chavez. They lasted 4 days and caused multiple deaths. The leaders of these protests had received training from the U.S. Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), which specializes in regime change tactics and strategies.

The Recall Referendum of 2004: Both NED and USAID channeled millions of dollars into a campaign to recall President Chavez through a national recall referendum. With the funds, the group Sumate, led by multi-millionaire Maria Corina Machado, was formed to oversee the efforts. Chavez won the referendum in a landslide 60-40 victory.

2005

After the victory of President Chavez in the recall referendum of 2004, the US toughened its position towards Venezuela and increased its public hostility and aggression against the Venezuelan government. Here are a selection of statements made about Venezuela by U.S. officials:

January 2005: “Hugo Chavez is a negative force in the region.” -Condoleezza Rice.

March 2005: “Venezuela is one of the most unstable and dangerous ‘hot spots’ in Latin America.” -Porter Goss, ex-Director of the CIA.

“Venezuela is starting a dangerous arms race that threatens regional security.” -Donald Rumsfeld, ex-Secretary of Defense.

“I am concerned about Venezuela’s influence in the area of responsibility…SOUTHCOM supports the position of the Joint Chiefs to maintain ‘military to military’ contact with the Venezuelan military…we need an inter-agency focus to deal with Venezuela.” -General Bantz Craddock, ex-Commander of SOUTHCOM.

July 2005: “Cuba and Venezuela are promoting instability in Latin America…There is no doubt that President Chavez is funding radical forces in Bolivia.” -Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, Assistant Sub-Secretary of Defense for the Western Hemisphere.

“Venezuela and Cuba are promoting radicalism in the region…Venezuela is trying to undermine the democratic governments in the region to impede CAFTA.” -Donald Rumsfeld, ex-Secretary of Defense.

August 2005: “Venezuelan territory is a safe haven for Colombian terrorists.” -Tom Casey, State Department spokesman.

September 2005: “The problem of working with President Chavez is serious and continuous, as it is in other parts of the relationship.” -John Walters, Director of the National Policy Office for Drug Control.

November 2005: “The assault on democratic institutions in Venezuela continues and the system is in serious danger.” -Thomas Shannon, Sub-secretary of State.

2006

February 2006: “President Chavez continues to use his control to repress the opposition, reduce freedom of the press and restrict democracy….it’s a threat.” -John Negroponte, ex-Director of National Intelligence.

“We have Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of money from oil. He is a person who was elected legally, just like Adolf Hitler…” – Donald Rumsfeld, ex-Secretary of Defense.

March 2006: “In Venezuela, a demagogue full of oil money is undermining democracy and trying to destabilize the region.” -George W. Bush.

U.S. officials try to link Venezuela to Terrorism:

June 2006: “Venezuela’s cooperation in the international campaign against terrorism continues to be insignificant…It’s not clear to what point the Venezuelan government offered material support to Colombian terrorists.” – Annual Report on Terrorism, Department of State.

June 2006: The U.S. government through the Commerce Department and U.S. Treasury imposes sanctions against Venezuela for its alleged role in terrorism and prohibits the sale of military equipment to the country.

July 2006: “Venezuela, under President Hugo Chavez, has tolerated terrorists in its territory…” -Subcommittee on International Terrorism, House of Representatives.

U.S. increases its Military Presence in Latin America:

March-July 2006: The US military engages in four major exercises off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea, with support from NATO, and based at the US air force base in Curaçao. A permanent military presence is established in the Dominican Republic and the bases in Curaçao and Aruba are reinforced.

The US Embassy in Caracas establishes the “American Corners” in 5 Venezuelan States (Lara, Monagas, Bolívar, Anzoátegui, Nueva Esparta), to act as centers of propaganda, subversion, espionage and infiltration.

U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield intensifies his public hostility towards the Venezuelan government, making frequent sarcastic and unfriendly comments in opposition-controlled media.

NED and USAID increase funding to anti-government groups in Venezuela.

2007

At the beginning of 2007, Venezuela is severely attacked in the international media & by U.S. government spokespersons for its decision to nationalize Cantv (the only national telephone company), the Electricity of Caracas and the Faja Orinoco oil fields.

In May 2007 the attack intensifies when the government decides not to renew the public broadcasting concession to popular opposition television station, RCTV.

A powerful international media campaign is initiated against Venezuela and President Chavez, referring to him as a dictator.

Private distributors and companies begin hoarding food and other essential consumer products in order to create shortages and panic amongst the population.

USAID, NED and the State Department via the Embassy in Caracas foment, fund and encourage the emergence of a right-wing youth movement and help to project its favorable image to the international community in order to distort the perception of President Chavez’s popularity amongst youth.

Groups such as Human Rights Watch, Inter-American Press Association and Reporters without Borders accuse Venezuela of violating human rights and freedom of expression.

September 2007: President George W. Bush classifies Venezuela as a nation “not cooperating” with the war against drug trafficking, for the third year in a row, imposing additional economic sanctions.

September 2007: Condoleezza Rice declares the U.S. is “concerned about the destructive populism” of Chavez.

2008

January 2008: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces meets with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, then Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos, U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield and the Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces Freddy Padilla de Leon and declares during a press conference that he is “concerned about the arms purchases made by Chavez” and expresses that this could “destabilize the region.”

John Walters, the U.S. Anti-Drug Czar meets with Uribe in Colombia, together with 5 U.S. congresspersons and Ambassador Brownfield, and declares Venezuela a nation “complicit with drug trafficking” that presents “a threat to the US and the region”. He also expresses his wish that the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Colombia be ratified by Congress soon.

Condoleezza Rice visits Colombia, together with Sub-Secretary of State Thomas Shannon and 10 congress members from the democratic party to push the FTA and back Colombia in its conflict with Venezuela.

President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address emphasizes the importance of the FTA with Colombia alerts to the threat of “populist” and “undemocratic” governments in the region.

February 2008: SOUTHCOM sends the Navy’s “4th fleet” to the Caribbean Sea (a group of war ships, submarines and aircraft carriers that haven’t been in those waters since the Cold War).

The Director of National Intelligence, General Mike McConnell, publishes the Annual Threat Report, which classifies Venezuela as the “principal threat against the US in the hemisphere”.

Exxon-Mobil tries to “freeze” $12 billion of Venezuelan assets in London, Holland and the Dutch Antilles.

A Report on Present Threats to National Security of the Defense Intelligence Agency classifies Venezuela as a “national security threat” to the U.S.

A Department of State report accuses Venezuela of being a country that permits “the transit of illegal drugs”, “money laundering” and being “complicit with drug trafficking.”

The U.S. Department of Treasury classifies three high level Venezuelan officials as “drug kingpins”, presenting no formal evidence. The head of Venezuela’s military intelligence, General Hugo Carvajal, the head of Venezuela’s civil intelligence force, General Henry Rangel Silva, and former Minister of Interior and Justice, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin are sanctioned by the U.S. government and placed on a terrorist list.

Rear Admiral Joseph Nimmich, Director of the US Joint Interagency Task Force, meets in Bogota with the Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces.

March 2008: The Colombian army invades Ecuadorian territory and assassinates Raul Reyes and a dozen others, including 4 Mexicans, at a FARC camp in the jungle near the border.

General Jorge Naranjo, Commander of Colombia’s National Police, declares that laptop computers rescued from the scene of the bombing that killed Reyes and others evidence that President Chavez gave more than $300 million to the FARC along with a quantity of uranium and weapons. No other evidence is produced or shown to the public. Ecuador is also accused of supporting the FARC.

Venezuela mobilizes troops to the border with Colombia.

The US Navy sends the Aircraft Carrier “Harry Truman” to the Caribbean Sea to engage in military exercises to prevent potential terrorist attacks and eventual conflicts in the region.President Bush states the U.S. will defend Colombia against the “provocations” from Venezuela.

Uribe announces he will bring a claim before the International Criminal Court against President Chavez for “sponsoring genocide and terrorism”.

March: President Bush requests his team of lawyers and advisors review the possibility of placing Venezuela on the list of “STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM” together with Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

2009

May: A document from the U.S. Air Force shows the construction of a U.S. military base in Palanquero, Colombia, to combat the “anti-American” governments in the region. The Palanquero base is part of the 7 military bases that the U.S. planned to build in Colombia under an agreement with the Colombian government for a ten-year period.

2010

February: The U.S. Director of National Intelligence declares Venezuela the “anti-American leader” in the region in its annual report on worldwide threats.

February: The State Department authorizes more than $15 million via NED and USAID to anti-government groups in Venezuela.

June: A report from the FRIDE Institute in Spain, funded by NED, evidences that international agencies channel between $40-50 million a year to anti-government groups in Venezuela.

September: Washington ratifies sanctions against Venezuela for allegedly not cooperating with counter-narcotics efforts or the war on terror.

2011-2015

President Obama authorizes a special fund of $5 million in his annual budget to support anti-government groups in Venezuela. In 2015, Obama increases this amount to $5.5 million.

NED continues to fund anti-government groups in Venezuela with about $2 million annually.

Each year, the US government includes Venezuela on a list of countries that do not cooperate with counter-narcotics efforts or the war on terror. Also in its annual human rights report, the State Department classifies Venezuela as a “violator” of human rights.

Subsequent to President Chavez’s death from cancer on March 5, 2013, new elections are held and Nicolas Maduro wins the presidency. Opposition leaders hold violent demonstrations that result in the deaths of more than a dozen people.

In February 2014, the violent protests resume, led by Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado, who openly call for the overthrow of President Maduro, and over 40 people are killed. Lopez turns himself in to authorities and faces charges for his role in the violence. The U.S. government calls for his immediate release.

In December 2014, President Obama imposed sanctions on more than 50 Venezuelan officials and their relatives, accusing them of violating human rights and engaging in corruption. No evidence has been presented to date to support these serious allegations. The Commerce Department also expanded sanctions against Venezuela, prohibiting the sale of “any products” that could be destined for “military use” due to alleged human rights violations committed by the Venezuelan Armed Forces.

January 2015: Vice President Joe Biden warns Caribbean countries that the government of President Nicolas Maduro will soon be “defeated” and therefore they should abandon their discounted oil program with Venezuela, PetroCaribe.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki condemns the alleged “criminalization of political dissent” in Venezuela.

February 2015: President Obama unveils his new National Security Strategy and names Venezuela as a threat and stresses support for Venezuelan “citizens” living in a country where “democracy is at risk.”

Anti-government leaders circulate a document for a “transitional government agreement” which warns President Maduro’s government is in its “final stage” and pledges to overhaul the entire government and socialist system in place, replacing it with a neoliberal, pro-business model. The document is signed by Maria Corina Machado, jailed opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, mayor of Metropolitan Caracas.

Days later, a coup plot against President Nicolas Maduro is thwarted and 10 active Venezuelan military officers are detained. Antonio Ledezma is arrested and charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government and the U.S. State Department issues a harsh condemnation of his detention, calling on regional governments to take action against the Maduro administration.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest denies any U.S. government role in the coup attempt against Maduro, calling such allegations “ludicrous”, but further reveals, “The Treasury Department and the State Department are considering tools that may be available that could better steer the Venezuelan government in the direction that we believe they should be headed”.

Eva Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code. She can be reached through her blog.

Notes.

[1] See The Chavez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Eva Golinger. Olive Branch Press 2006.

A Questão do Terrorismo e o atentado ao Charlie Hebdo by Lejeune Mirhan *

A Questão do Terrorismo e o atentado ao Charlie Hebdo

Lejeune Mirhan *

As palavras “terrorismo” e “terrorista” vem sendo fartamente utilizadas pelos meios de comunicação de massa, particularmente depois das ações ocorridas no dia 11 de setembro de 2001. O atentado mais recente, do assassinato de 12 pessoas, entre cartunistas e funcionários do jornal francês Charlie Hebdo ocorrido no último dia 7 de janeiro, chocou o mundo. 

Pretendemos com este artigo, discorrer um pouco sobre esse conceito de “terror”, abordando a questão do terrorismo de estado e comentando o movimento de ser ou não ser Charlie, bem como os limites da liberdade de expressão. Comentaremos um tema novo, chamado de “falsa bandeira”, quando um atentado é cometido por pessoas de uma corrente de opinião, geralmente opostas às que são injustamente acusadas. Ao final, apresentaremos algumas conclusões. 

Introdução 

Pode-se classificar, grosso modo, em quatro tipos as ações que se dizem “terroristas” e diversos são os exemplos com o passar da história: o terror religioso e fundamentalista (no caso de muçulmanos, cristãos e judeus extremistas que muitas vezes fazem de seu corpo uma arma de guerra); os do tipo mercenário (aqueles que se movem por dinheiro), que são pessoas que abraçam essas concepções e até editam uma revista em plano mundial denominada Soldiers of Fortune e agiram muito em território africano nas décadas de 1960 e 1970 do século passado. Um terceiro tipo seriam os nacionalistas (como o exército Republicano Irlandês – IRA na Irlanda) e por fim os ideológicos sejam eles de esquerda ou de direita (o caso das milícias americanas das quais era membro Timothy McVeigh, na ação em Oklahoma) (1).

A palavra passa a ser mais largamente empregada na história a partir de 1793, na França de Robespierre. Até o inventor da guilhotina, um cidadão francês de sobrenome Guilhotan, teve sua cabeça ceifada por esse instrumento no período que se denominou chamar de “terror”. O caso que repercutiu muito no final do século XIX foi o assassinato do Czar da Rússia Alexandre II, em 1891, por uma organização revolucionária da qual o irmão de Wladimir Lênin participava, que se autodenominava de “Vontade do Povo”. Os livros de História Geral dão como certo que o início e o estopim da I Guerra Mundial foi o assassinato do Arquiduque Francisco Ferdinando e sua esposa, perpetrado pelo estudante Gavrilo Prinzip, integrante do grupo que se intitulava “Mão Negra”, de origem sérvia.

Durante a resistência ao nazismo e ao fascismo na Europa durante a 2ª Guerra Mundial, atos de “terror” foram adotados, mas a terminologia mais correta deveria ser sabotagem, pois os atentados organizados pela resistência eram mais contra ferrovias, estações, prédios públicos, no sentido de desgastar o governo direitista da Alemanha e da Itália. Nunca os objetivos eram civis, pessoas comuns.

O mito do terrorismo islâmico

Os impérios na história também sempre se esforçaram para criar certos mitos, difundir certas ideias e conceitos e mesmo dar certas dimensões para fatos e episódios que nem sempre correspondem à realidade. Isso sem falar na distorção de informações, que são feitas cotidianamente pela grande imprensa. São muitos os casos. Lembremos do incêndio no Reichtag – prédio do parlamento alemão – ao qual o governo de Hitler divulgou como tendo sido praticado por um comunista. Um camarada do Partido Comunista Alemão chegou a ser preso e torturado no sentido de que admitisse esse ato criminoso, que, muito mais tarde, ficou provado que tal incêndio criminoso fora feito por agentes do Partido Nazista.

Osama Bin Laden, assassinado a mando de Barak Obama em 2011, já foi considerado pela mídia ocidental como sendo um “guerreiro da liberdade”. Era assim que ele era chamado, quando lutava contra o exército soviético na guerra pela ocupação do Afeganistão pela antiga URSS a partir de 1979. Nessa época, os guerrilheiros islâmicos de Osama receberam armas, milhões de dólares e até mesmo treinamento por parte das agências de inteligência dos EUA. Ou seja, um terrorista criado e apoiado pelos EUA. 

Um debate e duas visões

A questão central que se coloca neste debate, em especial após os ocorridos em Paris no dia 7 de janeiro passado, é a seguinte: qual é a causa, a raiz de atentados desse tipo? De um lado, temos os que afirmam que o terrorismo é gerado simplesmente pela fome e a pobreza existente no mundo. De outro lado, existem os que afirmam que o terrorismo é gerado exatamente pelas ações dos países imperialistas com relação aos povos oprimidos como uma reação.

A primeira versão do debate, de que a fome e a miséria podem gerar terrorismo não encontra guarida na história. No caso da Índia, da África e em certos períodos da própria China, presenciamos grandes surtos de fome e miséria, sem que se tenha visto ações terroristas. Na verdade, por trás dessa análise, tem uma certa tentativa de fazer um mea culpa pelos países ricos de sua omissão para ajudar os mais pobres e a forma como exploram essas nações. 

Nós nos alinhamos à segunda corrente de análise sobre as causas e as raízes do chamado terrorismo. Elas se encontram na forma pelos quais os povos dos países explorados e ocupados militarmente pelas potências centrais são agredidos. Enquanto os Estados Unidos e seus aliados como a Inglaterra e a França, não desocuparem o Iraque, o Afeganistão, não desmontarem suas bases militares em todo o mundo, não revirem suas formas de tratar os árabes e os muçulmanos em todos os países, ações terroristas vão continuar e são até inevitáveis, por mais que se ampliem os esquemas de segurança. 

A questão que se levanta no momento, depois do ataque ao Charlie Hebdo – e que não vão parar – é se a política externa americana de combate ao terrorismo vem dando certo ou não. As pessoas em todos os países se indagam se o mundo esta mais seguro depois da invasão do Iraque em março de 2003. A resposta vem sendo um contundente não, na medida que a insegurança hoje ronda qualquer cidadão em qualquer parte do mundo. Pessoas hoje em Tóquio e Roma já esperam a qualquer momento por um ataque. Isso vai colocar cada vez mais em xeque a política externa americana e seu unilateralismo. Após o fim da chamada Guerra Fria, os conflitos regionais ou “guerra por procuração” como se diz, aumentaram exponencialmente. 

Liberdade de imprensa e hipocrisia

Todos assistimos às barbaridades cometidos pelos terroristas mascarados no dia 7 de janeiro. Portando armamentos modernos, profissionais bem treinados militarmente invadiram a redação do jornal satírico Charlie Hebdo e assassinaram friamente cinco cartunistas, vários funcionários e dois policiais. Disseram “vingar” o profeta Mohammad (Maomé, no Ocidente). Falaram em voz alta para que todos ouvissem que “eram da Al Qaeda”. 

O jornal francês vinha se caracterizando, há tempos, como um incitador ao racismo e em especial à islamofobia. Na França vivem hoje mais de seis milhões de muçulmanos, boa parte filhos e netos de imigrantes da Argélia, sua colônia de 1830 até 1962. 

A questão que se coloca é a seguinte: há limites para a liberdade de imprensa e de expressão? O filósofo francês Jean Jacques Rousseau é defensor das teorias dos limites da liberdade, ou seja a minha começa onde termina a do meu próximo. De fato, só é verdadeiramente livre uma sociedade de iguais (3).

A liberdade de expressão nunca significou e nem nunca significará dizer qualquer coisa e de qualquer forma. “Não por outra razão, todo racista hoje em dia clama por liberdade de expressão, pelo seu direito de ‘expressar sua opinião’. Mas, racismo e preconceito não são opiniões. São crimes” (4).

Não nos esqueçamos, que mesmo sendo crescente o número de muçulmanos na França, a imensa e esmagadora maioria não apoia qualquer ato de terrorismo, procura viver em harmonia com os franceses. O policial Ahmet Merabet assassinado na calçada do jornal, que enfrentou até a morte os terroristas era muçulmano e seus familiares acusaram os terroristas como falsos muçulmanos, pois em nenhuma passagem do Corão há algo que incentive o terrorismo. Aliás, nem a blasfêmia é condenada. A Bíblia o faz em Levítico (24:16) (5).

Há um debate posto, que vem desde os atentados de 2001, qual seja, a chamada indignação seletiva ou indignação desigual. Seja a opinião do professor de Ciência Política da UCLA, Magid Shihade, seja a filósofa estadunidense Judith Butler. Ambos tratam desse assunto. “Assassinos treinados pelos EUA contra cidadãos inocentes no Afeganistão e Iraque são ‘acidentes colaterais’ e não têm repercussão alguma”, diz Magid (6). E Judith completa “a indignação com os três mil mortos das Torres Gêmeas em 2001 é seguida de completa indiferença com os milhares de mortos das guerras feitas pelos EUA” (7). Nunca é demais lembrar que exatamente no dia seguinte desse massacre em Paris, na Nigéria os terroristas assassinaram duas mil pessoas inocentes e ninguém se indignou. 

No domingo, 11 de janeiro, quatro dias depois do massacre ao jornal, uma Marcha contra o Terrorismo foi realizada em Paris. Convocada inicialmente pela esquerda francesa, ela foi apropriada pelo reacionário presidente francês, François Hollande, cuja popularidade estava em baixa, sendo hoje considerado o pior presidente da história da França.

A fotos publicada nos jornais, com vários chefes de estado e de governo, da Europa e fora dela, é a verdadeira imagem da hipocrisia. Em alguns dos países cujos líderes estavam na linha de frente da passeata, a palavra “liberdade” é banida do dicionário. Só para rememorar, a própria França, em julho de 2014 proibiu qualquer manifestação contra Israel, que bombardeava impiedosamente os palestinos na Faixa de Gaza, matando mais de duas mil pessoas.

Dois líderes árabes, como Abdullah da Jordânia e Al Nahyan dos Emirados não são exemplos de democratas nem seus países possuem amplas liberdades de expressão. Mas, o maior escândalo foi a presença do maior terrorista vivo hoje no mundo: Benjamin Netanyahu. Nem sequer havia sido convidado, mas apareceu, cercado de mais de cem agentes do Mossad (polícia secreta de Israel). Esse primeiro ministro de Israel, que enfrentará novas eleições em março próximo, estava mesmo é tentando tirar proveito da situação, com base na hipocrisia, para facilitar a sua reeleição. Um terrorista participando de uma marcha contra o terrorismo. 

Boa parte dos chefes de estado presentes eram financiadores de atividades militares de terroristas que combatem contra países como a Síria, Iraque, Afeganistão, Líbia entre outros. O chamado Estado Islâmico (ISIS na sigla em inglês), é totalmente apoiado pela França, UK, Turquia e EUA. 

Apenas nos EUA, entre os seus chamados “liberais”, o direito à liberdade de manifestação do pensamento é considerado um direito absoluto. Em nenhum outro país isso é assim. Há leis que regulamentam os limites dessas liberdades. A concepção por trás dos insultos publicados na forma de charges, que alguns não veem como insultos, mostra claramente que existe uma cultura – a dos EUA – que se apresenta como superior a todas as outras. Não nos esqueçamos jamais: esse mesmo Estado francês que hoje vive o seu 11/09, foi o quem armou, treinou, apoiou de todas as formas os ataques contra vários países, em especial árabes, sob os mesmos pretextos de defesa da democracia e “liberdade”. Os ataques dos fundamentalistas em cidades como Trípoli, capital da Líbia, e Allepo, a segunda cidade síria, são sempre saudados no Ocidente como heroicos (8). 

A França não só é membro da OTAN, a organização terrorista de maior poder bélico em atuação hoje no planeta, como financia, arma e treina terroristas que agem hoje na Síria e no Iraque e formam o chamado Estado Islâmico, em especial seu braço armado denominado Al Qaeda e suas filiais. Ainda que os terroristas que atacaram o jornal se proclamem membros da Al Qaeda, eles são produtos de uma rede de terrorismo criado e alimentado pelo Ocidente, para “manter uma guerra contra seus próprios cidadãos” (9).

Posições progressistas do Papa Francisco

Não é de hoje que o Cardeal argentino Jorge Mário Bergóglio, chamado de Papa Francisco, vem surpreendendo o mundo com seus posicionamentos. Especificamente em algumas declarações que trataram do conceito de “terrorismo de estado”, amplamente condenado pelas esquerdas, mas quase nunca aceito pelas potências ou países que o praticam. Alguns o chamam hoje de “estadista solitário”.

Em recente encontro que manteve com o corpo diplomático creditado no Vaticano, em 12 de janeiro, dia seguinte à chamada Marcha contra o Terrorismo em Paris, Francisco declarou em audiência: “há uma tendência à rejeição ... que induz a olhar o próximo não como um irmão a acolher, mas como alguém deixado fora de nosso horizonte de vida pessoal, transformando-o antes que em um concorrente, mas em um súdito a dominar” (10).

Na sua homilia do dia 8, quando celebrou missa na Casa de Santa Marta, onde reside no Vaticano, Francisco declarou: “esse ato de crueldade nos faz pensar tanto em terrorismo isolado, quanto no terrorismo de estado”. Talvez essa tenha sido a sua declaração mais direta contra esse tipo de terrorismo que a mídia jamais menciona. 

No entanto, houve um momento no ano passado, quando Francisco faz uma condenação explícita ao terrorismo de estado, quando, em 25 de novembro, em uma conversa informal com jornalistas no avião papal ele declarou: “é verdade, existe a ameaça desses terroristas. Mas, existe também outra ameaça. É o terrorismo de estado, quando há uma escalada de violência e cada estado por sua conta acha que tem o direito de massacrar os terroristas e, com eles, caem muitos inocentes”, em uma clara e direta alusão à Israel e aos EUA.

Tais posicionamentos ajudam os que lutam hoje no mundo pela paz e contra o imperialismo. 

O crescimento da islamofobia e as falsas bandeiras

Muito já se falou da nova ordem mundial construída pelos EUA após a sua vitória contra o Iraque em janeiro de 1991 e com o fim da URSS no final desse ano quando o mundo passa a ser unipolar. No entanto, fica fácil perceber que a indústria bélica estadunidense e os neoliberais em todo o mundo precisam fazer mais guerras. Contra os povos do mundo para controlar as suas riquezas, ou para derrubar seus governantes que lhes contestam. Foi assim com Saddam Hussein, no Iraque e com Muammar Khadaffi na Líbia, que foram brutalmente assassinados. Tentaram e seguem tentando de tudo para fazer o mesmo com o presidente da Síria, Dr. Bashar Al Assad. Mas, têm sido fragorosamente derrotados até aqui.

Particularmente após os atentados às torres gêmeas de setembro de 2001 a ocupação do Iraque, em março de 2003, um inimigo começou a ser forjado: o Islã como religião e os muçulmanos em geral, que são hoje mais de 1,6 bilhões em todo o mundo em 47 países de população majoritária de seguidores dessa fé religiosa.

O fato é que “os anglo-sionistas nutriram, organizaram, financiaram, treinaram, equiparam, armaram cuidadosamente, dedicadamente, ao longo de décadas os takfiris terroristas que hoje se voltam contra eles e seus países” (11).

Neste caso, há uma clara responsabilidade por tudo que ocorreu, do próprio governo francês e de seu presidente sionista François Hollande. Em recente visita oficial à Israel, em que pese tudo que os sionistas fazem contra os palestinos, o presidente francês declarou em alto e bom som: “serei sempre amigo de Israel” (sic). 

Aqui fica sempre a pergunta que devemos nos fazer: quem ganhou com esses atentados abomináveis? Em primeiro lugar, ganha o próprio presidente francês cuja popularidade estava lá embaixo. Em segundo, todos os chefes de estado e de governo, que apoiam a aliança mundial liderada pela OTAN que lutam contra os povos de todo o mundo que clamam por sua independência e soberania nacional. Por fim, ganham os partidos de direita, os fascistas, os que defendem na Europa restrições às imigrações e ao crescimento do Islã como religião. Com a ajuda providencial e imediata da mídia, vão tentar extrair as maiores vantagens esses atentados.

Aqui vale a pena introduzir um conceito que vem sendo aos poucos publicado nas mídias alternativas. A chamada “falsa bandeira”, ou seja, faz-se um atentado para se jogar a culpa em correntes ou grupos sociais que pensam oposto ao que foi realizado. Dois exemplos me vêm à mente neste momento.

Em 2005, ocorreu em Beirute o atentado terrorista que resultou a morte de Rafik Hariri, ex-primeiro Ministro do Líbano. Imediatamente, os dedos acusadores se voltaram contra o presidente da Síria, Dr. Bashar Al Assad. Ora, este era o último que teria interesse em cometer um crime dessa natureza, até pelas consequências que isso acarretaria em seguida, completamente previsíveis. Na Argentina, um promotor de nome Alberto Nisman morreu de forma ainda não esclarecida. Imediatamente, os dedos apontam para a presidente Cristina Kishner, seu desafeto. Um crime como esse coloca boa parte da população contra seu governo, que é odiado pelos meios de comunicação e pelos EUA.

O caso mais rumoroso de “falsa bandeira” ocorreu em 2 de agosto de 1980, quando um ataque terrorista à estação de trens de Bolonha matou 85 pessoas e feriu outras 250. Imediatamente, a mídia acusou a esquerda. Tempos depois, apurou-se que os criminosos eram membros de uma célula fascista radical. Estava em curso na Europa a chamada Operação Gladio, que consistia em armar guerrilheiros para combater uma possível e hipotética invasão da URSS à Europa. Armas foram enterradas em diversas partes da Europa (12).

Conclusões finais

De nossa parte, os atentados cometidos contra o jornal Charlie Hebdo devem ser condenados com a maior veemência e merecem nosso total repúdio. Ao mesmo tempo que devemos prestar a todas as famílias das vítimas a nossa irrestrita solidariedade. Nem por isso, deve ser automático o apoio à linha editorial de um jornal que ajudou a criar na França um clima islamofóbico e racista. 

Imediatamente após os atentados, criou-se o movimento Eu Sou Charlie e outro que se dizia Eu Não Sou Charlie. Uma falsa dicotomia. Condenar os atentados não significa condenar o jornal e a liberdade de expressão. Nem tampouco apoiá-lo acriticamente. Um falso dilema, uma falsa dicotomia. Devemos ser contra quem incita o ódio e o racismo, que fomenta o terrorismo, quem o financia, que são os Estados Unidos e seus aliados árabes no Golfo, a Turquia, Israel e países clientes da Europa. Devemos pregar sempre a união do povo contra um inimigo comum.

Nosso ódio e o centro de nossa ação política deve ser contra o imperialismo, contra os Estados Unidos e seus aliados neoliberais. Devemos pregar contra toda e qualquer intervenção militar em qualquer país, seja sob qual argumento for, “levar democracia”, direitos humanos etc. Devemos defender o fim de toda e qualquer lei racista, que discrimine pessoas seja pela cor da sua pele, seja pela sua confissão religiosa.

A defesa de um estado laico neste momento, democrático deve ser a nossa bandeira. Não devemos dividir as pessoas, mas unir o povo na luta comum contra o maior inimigo da humanidade, o capitalismo e o rentismo, sob o comando dos EUA. 

Devemos propugnar pelo desenvolvimento econômico e social. Devemos respeitar todas as religiões e defender a liberdade de culto e de consciência. Queremos a solidariedade entre os povos e nações e a soberania e independência nacional. 

Sabemos bem que a luta pela paz, por um mundo justo e com igualdade, tem hoje um caráter claramente anti-imperialista. 

Bibliografia Consultada

(1) ARBEX JR, José, Terrorismo: um legado da história, 9 de outubro de 2001, 3 páginas, que circulou na Internet em língua espanhola, sem maiores referências.

(2) Aos que queiram conferir essa passagem bíblica, podem fazê-lo em Juízes capítulo 16, versículo de 23 a 31, página 323 da Bíblia de tradução de Almeida, Editora Vida, 1981.

(3) Editorial da Revista Carta Capital, edição 833 de 21/1/2015, pág. 14-18, escrito por Mino Carta;

(4) Vladimir Safatle, Carta Capital, edição citada, pág. 27;

(5) Wálter Fanganiello Maierovitch, Carta Capital, edição citada, pág. 19;

(6) Gianni Carta, em “Morre por mim, França”, Carta Capital, edição citada, pág. 20-23;

(7) Said Bouamama, em https://bouamamas.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/lattentat-contre-charlie-hebdo-loccultation-politique-et-mediatique-des-causes-des-consequences-et-des-enjeux/ de 25/01/2015;

(8) Blog Moon of Alabama de 7 de janeiro de 2015 http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-the-chickens-come-home-to-roost.html#comments;

(9) Artigo de Tony Cartalucci, publicado em http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/france-armed-terrorists-that-struck.html do dia 12 de janeiro de 2015;

(10) Artigo de Cláudio Bernabucci, intitulado A palavra do estadista solitário, Carta Capital, edição citada, pág. 24-26;

(11) Artigo publicado em 8 de janeiro de 2015 em http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.br/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html; 

(12) Artigo de Wayne Madson, obtido em http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/01/11/curtain-rises-another-act-continual-global-war-terror-play.html publicado no dia 21 de janeiro de 2015.

* Sociólogo, professor de Sociologia e de Ciência Política da Unimep (1986 a 2006). Foi sociólogo da Fundação Unesp (1995 a 2005). É colunista do Portal Vermelho onde escreve desde 2002 sobre a temática Oriente Médio. Colabora com a Revista Sociologia da Editora Escala. Possui oito livros publicados. Atualmente é diretor do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de SP. 

Obama Declares Venezuela a Threat to National Security

• 

  President Barack Obama and Venezuelan head of state Nicolas Maduro. | Photo: Reuters

• Previous
• Next

Published 9 March 2015 (3 hours 57 minutes ago)

1

+

U.S. President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order against Venezuela Monday aimed at interfering in the country’s sovereignty by declaring a national emergency based on arguments claiming that the South American nation is a threat to national security because of alleged human rights violations and widespread corruption.

“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in Venezuela, including the Government of Venezuela's erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to anti-government protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant public corruption, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat,” the order reads. ​

​Immediately after, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry announced the government of President Nicolas Maduro would “soon” respond to Obama's executive action against the Latin American country.

"We will soon make Venezuela's response to the extent and reach of these statements,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez said in a news conference.

Also read: US Aggression Against Venezuela Fact Not Fiction

​Obama also ordered sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials, sayingthat they all would be banned from traveling to the United States and any and all assets and properties belonging to them would be frozen.

The officials affected by Obama’s sanctions are Antonio Jose Benavides Torres, Commander of the Strategic Region for the Integral Defense (REDI) of the Central Region of Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB); Gustavo Enrique Gonzalez Lopez, Director General of Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) and President of Venezuela’s Strategic Center of Security and Protection of the Homeland (CESPPA).

Also, Justo Jose Noguera Pietri, President of the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG), a state-owned entity, and Katherine Nayarith Haringhton Padron, a national level prosecutor of the 20th District Office of Venezuela’s Public Ministry, as well as Manuel Eduardo Perez Urdaneta, Director of Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Police; Manuel Gregorio Bernal Martinez, Chief of the 31st Armored Brigade of Caracas of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Army; Bernal Martínez, who was the head of SEBIN on February 12, 2014, and against Miguel Alcides Vivas Landino, Inspector General of the FANB.

​"We now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. 

"We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent," Earnest added.

The Future Gaddafi Foresaw Libya, ISIS and the Unaffordable Luxury of Hindsight

The Future Gaddafi Foresaw
Libya, ISIS and the Unaffordable Luxury of Hindsight

By Ahmad Barqawi

March 09, 2015 "ICH" - "Counterpunch"

- Who are you?” the late Muammar Gaddafi once rhetorically asked in a famous speech of his towards the end of his reign; (rightly) questioning the legitimacy of those seeking to over-throw his government at the time, calling them extremists, foreign agents, rats and drug-addicts. He was laughed at, unfairly caricatured, ridiculed and incessantly demonized; a distasteful parody video poking fun at the late Libyan leader even went viral on social media; evidently the maker of the video, an Israeli, thought the Libyan colloquial Arabic word “Zenga” (which means an Alleyway) sounded funny enough that he extracted it from one of Gaddafi’s speeches, looped it on top of a hip-hop backing track and voila… he got himself a hit video which was widely (and shamefully) circulated with a “revolutionary” zeal in the Arab world. We shared, we laughed, he died.

But the bloody joke is on all of us; Gaddafi knew what he was talking about; right from the get-go, he accused the so-called Libyan rebels of being influenced by Al-Qaeda ideology and Ben Laden’s school of thought; no one had taken his word for it of course, not even a little bit. I mean why should we have? After all, wasn’t he a vile, sex-centric dictator hell-bent on massacring half of the Libyan population while subjecting the other half to manic raping sprees with the aid of his trusted army of Viagra-gobbling, sub-Saharan mercenaries? At least that’s what we got from the visual cancer that is Al Jazeera channel and its even more acrid Saudi counterpart Al-Arabiya in their heavily skewed coverage of NATO’s vicious conquest of Libya. Plus Gaddafi did dress funny; why would anyone trust a haggard, weird-looking despot dressed in colorful rags when you have well-groomed Zionists like Bernard Henry Levy, John McCain and Hillary Clinton at your side, smiling and flashing the victory sign in group photo-ops, right?

Gaddafi called them drug-addicted, Islamic fundamentalists; we know them as ISIS… it doesn’t seem much of a joke now, does it? And ISIS is what had been in store for us all along; the “revolutionary” lynching and sodomization of Muammar Gaddafi amid manic chants of “Allahu Akbar”, lauded by many at the time as some sort of a warped triumph of the good of popular will (read: NATO-sponsored mob rule) over the evil of dictatorship (sovereign state), was nothing but a gory precursor for the future of the country and the region; mass lynching of entire populations in Libya, Syria and Iraq and the breakup of key Arab states into feuding mini-statelets. The gruesome video of Colonel Gaddafi’s murder, which puts to shame the majority of ISIS videos in terms of unhinged brutality and gore, did not invoke the merest of condemnations back then, on the contrary; everyone seemed perfectly fine with the grotesque end of the Libyan “tyrant”… except that it was only the beginning of a new and unprecedented reign of terror courtesy of NATO’s foot-soldiers and GCC-backed Islamic insurgents.

The rapid proliferation of trigger-happy terrorist groups and Jihadi factions drenched in petrodollars in Libya was not some sort of an intelligence failure on the part of western governments or a mere by-product of the power vacuum left by a slain Gaddafi; it was a deliberate, calculated policy sought after and implemented by NATO and its allies in the Gulf under the cringe-inducing moniker “Friends of Libya” (currently known as the International Coalition against ISIS) to turn the north-African country into the world’s largest ungovernable dumpster of weapons, al-Qaida militants and illegal oil trading.

So it is safe to say that UNSC resolution 1973, which practically gave free rein for NATO to bomb Libya into smithereens, has finally borne fruit… and it’s rotten to its nucleus, you can call the latest gruesome murder of 21 Egyptian fishermen and workers by the Libyan branch of the Islamic State exhibit “A”, not to mention of course the myriad of daily killings, bombings and mini-civil wars that are now dotting the entire country which, ever since the West engineered its coup-d’etat against the Gaddafi government, have become synonymous with the bleak landscape of lawlessness and death that is “Libya” today. And the gift of NATO liberation is sure to keep on giving for years of instability and chaos to come.

In an interview with the western media misinformation collective that is the BBC, ABC and the Sunday Times in February 2011; the late Muammar Gaddafi told his condescending interviewers; “have you seen the Al Qaeda operatives? Have you heard all these Jihadi broadcasts? It is Al Qaeda that is controlling the cities of Al Baida and Darnah, former Guantanamo inmates and extremists unleashed by America to terrorize the Libyan people…”. Darnah is now the main stronghold for ISIS in Libya.

In a bizarre coincidence (or some sort of cosmic irony); the date on which ISIS chose to release its video of the beheading of Egyptian captives, thereby officially declaring its presence in the war-torn country with three oil fields under its control, (appropriately) marked the 4th anniversary of the start of the so-called Libyan revolution on February 15^th, 2011; a more apt “tribute” to commemorate the Western instigated regime-change debacle in Libya could not have been made.

But even long before ISIS became the buzzword, the acrid nature of a “revolutionary” Libya showed in full, sickening splendor almost instantly right after the old regime fell, everything the late Gaddafi was falsely accused of doing was literally perfected to a chilling degree by the so-called rebels; massacres, indiscriminate shelling of residential areas, car-bombings, mass arrests, torture, theft of oil and national resources… the whole lot. In 2013; two British pro-Palestine activists, on their way to Gaza with an aid convoy, got to experience first-hand the rotten fruits of the Libyan chapter of the so-called Arab Spring when they were abducted by a motely crew of Libyan revolutionaries-turned-warlords in the city of Benghazi and gang raped in front of their father.

Proponents of Humanitarian Interventions must be patting themselves on the back these days; now that Libya has completed its democratic makeover from a country with the highest standard of living in Africa under Gaddafi’s rule into a textbook definition of a failed state; a godless wasteland of religious fanaticism, internal bloodletting and wholesale head-chopping, in fact Libya became so “democratic” that there are now two parliaments and two (warring) governments; each with its own (criminal) army and supported with money and caches of weapons from competing foreign powers, not to mention the myriad of secessionist movements and militias which the illegal coup against Gaddafi has spawned all over the country while free health care, education and electricity, which the Libyans took for granted under Gaddafi’s regime, are all now but relics of the past; that’s the “Odyssey Dawn” the Libyans were promised; a sanitized version of Iraq sans the public outrage, neatly re-packaged in a “responsibility to protect” caveat and delivered via aerial bombing campaigns where even the West’s overzealous Gulf Co-conspirators Club (GCC), driven by nothing beyond petty personal vendettas against Gaddafi, got to test the lethality of its rusted, American-made military aircrafts alongside NATO on the people of Tripoli and Sirte.

This is what Gaddafi had predicted right from the get-go and then some; the ephemeral euphoria of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions was just too potent and too exhilarating for us to read the fine print; was it a conspiracy or a true revolutionary spirit gone awry? It doesn’t really matter now that ISIS has become the true legacy of Tahrir Square; “they will turn Libya into another Afghanistan, another Somalia, another Iraq… your women won’t be allowed out, they will transform Libya into an Islamic Emirate and America will bomb the country under the pretext of fighting terrorism”, the late Libyan leader had said in a televised speech on February 22^nd, 2011, and more prophetic words were never spoken.

America’s “clean war” Libyan prototype proved to be such a success that it was replicated with a wanton abandon in Syria; Paul Bremer’s “Blackwater” death squads of old, which reigned terror all over Iraq, are back… with an Islamic twist; bearded, clad in black and explosives from head to toe and mounting convoys of Toyota Land Cruiser trucks with an ever-expanding, seemingly borderless Islamic Caliphate (that somehow leaves the Zionist regime unencumbered in its occupation of Palestine) set in their sights.

Everyday the Arab World is awakened to a new-videotaped atrocity; steeped in gore and maniacal terror courtesy of ISIS (or IS or ISIL), and countless of other “youtubeless”, albeit more heinous crimes courtesy of America’s very own ever-grinding, one-sided drone warfare; the entire region seesaws between machete beheadings and hellfire missile incinerations. Death from above… as well as below; the War on Terror rears its ugly head once again; to bring in line those nasty terrorists that the West itself funded and sponsored in the name of democracy to destabilize “unsavory” regimes; an unrelenting Groundhog Day that starts with the Responsibility to Protect and ends with the War on Terror, with thousands of innocent lives, typically chalked up to collateral damage, crushed in the process.

This is exactly what Gaddafi foresaw; a Libya mired in utter chaos, civil conflict and western diktats; a breeding ground for Jihadi fundamentalism and extremists… too bad we just laughed his warnings off to an Israeli-made parody tune.

Ahmad Barqawi, freelance columnist and writer.

ISIL's Chechen leadership pushing pan-Turania by Wayne Madsen

ISIL's Chechen leadership pushing pan-Turania

by Wayne Madsen
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Chechen military leadership has its own agenda apart from that of the takfiri jihadists who have joined ISIL's ranks to wage holy war on anyone who does not submit to the group's self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Under John Brennan, the Central Intelligence Agency has made common cause with ISIL's "Chechen Legion," as it is known, to provide not only military muscle for ISIL against the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad but also to assist the mercenary battalions of Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky against the Russian-speaking separatist governments of Lugansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. 

The links between ISIL's Chechen Legion and Kolomoisky's Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion are clear. The leader of the Dudayev Battalion, Adam Osmayev, was arrested by Ukrainian special forces in Odessa in February 2012 for trying to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Osmayev traveled to Ukraine from the United Arab Emirates and through Turkey on a bogus passport supplied by the CIA. Osmayev, who graduated from an elite English boarding school in the Cotswolds, was part of the Islamic Emirate of the Caucasus army led by Chechen terrorist Doku Umarov, who is wanted by Russia for a series of deadly terrorist attacks in the country. Osmayev, who was jailed by the Ukrainian government for the attempted assassination of Putin, was released by the fascist-Zionist putschist regime in a deal said to be worked out between the Ukrainian SBU security service and the CIA. The quid pro quo was that Osmayev would rally Chechen exiles from Britain, Denmark, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to fight against the Russian in eastern Ukraine and Assad in Syria.

The CIA's stations in Copenhagen, London, and Istanbul have been active in maintaining close liaison with the Chechen exile communities and their recruiting arms for battle in Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq.

Osmayev is now the number one suspect in hiring the contract assassins who killed Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow. The operation, which was known to Osmayev's CIA handlers, was to embarrass Putin and put further political pressure on him in the hopes that "regime change" would follow in Russia. With the evidence linking Nemtsov's assassination to Osmayev, Kiev, and the CIA, the plan has badly backfired on Langley. Even some congressional Republicans, including Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, are now questioning whether it is wise for the Pentagon to arm a Ukrainian army rife with mercenaries and terrorist elements like Osmayev's Chechen Legion and Dudayev Battalion.

 
Osmayev after his capture in Odessa in 2012 [left]. Osmayev's laptop contained footage of Putin's motorcade in Moscow [right].Osmayev has stated that he wants to be the president of a future independent Chechnya. Herein lies the main reason why Osmayev and his Chechen Legion are receiving support from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The Turks see the Chechen Legion as the vanguard for a future pan-Turanian empire encompassing not only Turkey but also Chechnya, Azerbaijan, the rest of the Caucasus, and stretching all the way to Chinese Turkestan. The Saudis and Qataris see the Chechens as a destabilization army that can help lead jihadist forces to overthrow the secular governments of the former Soviet republics of central Asia and open these countries up to Islamic regimes. In either case, Brennan has ordered the CIA to cooperate with the Chechen Legion and the Dudayev Battalion, whether they are found on the battlefields of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine or leading jihadist recruits in Syria and Iraq.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and other neo-conservatives inside the Obama administration tacitly support Saudi and Turkish assistance to ISIL to prevent Iran's armed forces from assisting the Iraqi Shi'a-dominated government from seizing Iraqi territory currently held by Iraq. The Iraqi government has discovered British aircraft delivering weapons to ISIL guerrillas in the country, the U.S. airdropping weapons to ISIL in Anbar province and Iraqi Kurdistan, and Israeli Defense Force commandos providing weapons to ISIL in western Iraq. Turkey and Israel have also directly provided ISIL weapons in Syria. Iran's armed forces, along with Iraqi forces, are currently battling ISIL for control of Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. Although the Obama administration claims it is supporting Baghdad against ISIL, the CIA is providing weapons and assistance to the group through the Chechen Legionnaires.

Recently, a leader of the Chechen militant cell in Istanbul, Kaim Saduev, died after eating some wild garlic sent from Chechnya. The TurkishHumanitarian Relief Foundation (İHH), the same group that sponsored theMavi Marmara aid flotilla to Gaza that was attacked by Israeli forces, claims that the Russian security service carried out the hit on Saduev just as it claimed that the Russians assassinated Medet Unlu, the honorary counsel in Ankara of the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria," the self-proclaimed Chechen independent state, in May 2012. There is also evidence that the CIA has facilitated the recruitment in Istanbul of Uzbeks, Ingush, and Tatars for the Chechen Legion. At any rate, Istanbul has not only become a chief recruitment center for the Chechen Legion but it has also served as a way station for jihadist recruits on their way to join ISIL, Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, Khorasan Group, and "Free Syrian Army" ranks in Syria and Iraq.

The Chechen Legion is also active in fomenting dissent in Russia's Dagestan republic, which neighbors Chechnya. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, accused of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombing along with his brother Dzokhar Tsarnaev (named after the first Chechen Republic president, Dzhokhar Dudayev for whom the Dudayev Battalion is also named), served as a liaison between CIA fronts like the Caucasus Fund of Georgia and Dagestan radical imam Abu Dudzhan, killed in a fight with Russian security in 2012. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in a shootout with Boston police after the marathon bombing and his brother is currently on trial for the attack.

Chinese intelligence is also aware that Chechen Legionnaires have been meeting with exiled Uighurs from Chinese Turkestan in Istanbul and Ankara. The Chinese have worked with the Russians to identify the Chechen support networks for the Uighurs and the CIA's fingerprints on the operations.


A 1941 Turkish map of pan-Turania. The current Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is supporting the Chechen Legion that currently directs ISIL's military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Although neo-Nazis from Sweden, Poland, and Germany have volunteered to fight for the Kiev regime as part of Kolomoisky's Azov Battalion, Spanish volunteers who have joined the Russian-speaking rebels in Donbass have been arrested by the Spanish authorities. The Spanish volunteers for the Donbass have made common cause with the Donbass separatists because the Chechen Legionnaires and their Turkish pan-Turanian interlocutors have targeted Spain's Andalusia province as a future part of a restored pan-Turkic state which will include lands formerly held by Muslim conquerors, including southern Spain. Greek volunteers have joined the Donbass forces for the same reason: the Chechens spearhead a force that intends to subjugate a large portion of Greece under a pan-Turkic Muslim state.

ISIL and Kiev are twin products of Brennan's CIA and, once again, Langley has shown its ability to work against the interests of the American people in far-flung parts of the world.