A “Peace Plan” for Syria – Splitting Syria in Two – The Yinon Plan – Gunrunning Libyan Stockpiles of MANPADS Into Syria – “Approximately 20,000 MANPADs” – Clinton’s MANPADs Teams – Slush Fund to Move MANPADS – Pentagon Rebrands ISIS to ‘Daesh’ – Alternative Media Kicks Establishment’s Ass
Source: Voltaire Network
The incredible US “peace plan” for Syria
by Thierry Meyssan
The Syrian people have won two successive wars in four years. Yet the country does not yet know peace. Not only are Washington “liberal hawks” doing everything in their power to prolong the crisis, but they have devised a plan to prepare a third war. Thierry Meyssan reveals here how they intend to use to their advantage the peace conference planned to be held in Moscow in late January 2015.
Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 29 December 2014
When, in 2001, President George W. Bush decided to place Syria on his list of targets to destroy, he had three objectives:
– Breaking the “Axis of Resistance” and encouraging Israeli expansion;
– Laying hands on the huge gas reserves;
– Reshaping the “Broader Middle East”.
The war plans failed in 2005 and 2006, eventually taking the form of the “Arab Spring” in 2011: a 4th generation type of warfare which was to carry the Muslim Brotherhood to power. However, after a year of media manipulation, the Syrian people came out of their torpor and supported their army. France withdrew from the game after the liberation of Baba Amr, while the United States and Russia shared the region at the Geneva 1 Conference (June 2012). But to everyone’s surprise, Israel managed to upset the negotiating table by leaning on the new French president, Francois Hollande, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus. A second war, of a Nicaraguan type this time (that is to say, fuelled by the continual arrival of new mercenaries) again bloodied the region. Anyway, this second war also failed, without leading to lasting peace. On the contrary, John Kerry changed the format of the Geneva 2 conference two days before and tried to turn it into a pro-Saudi forum. In this disorder came the third war, that of Daesh: suddenly a small group of a few hundred jihadists turned into a vast army of over 200,000 well-equipped men and launched an attack on the Sunni part of Iraq and the Syrian Desert.
Several months ago, I explained that the Daesh project corresponds with the new US map of the division of the Middle East, published by Robin Wright in The New York Times in 2013 . In continuation of the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the US plan aimed to further drastically reduce Syria. Also, when the US – after having waited for Daesh to complete the ethnic cleansing in Iraq for which they had been created – began bombing the jihadists, the question arose as to whether the liberated areas of Daesh would or would not be returned to Baghdad and to Damascus.
As the United States has refused to coordinate its military action against Daesh with Syria, and in view of the fact that Russia is preparing a peace conference, “liberal hawks” in Washington have set new goals.
Since the Syrian people did not believe in the “revolution” as staged by al-Jazeera and company, and since they refused to support the Contras against the Republic, it is not possible to “change the regime” in the short term. It is clear that the new constitution, though imperfect, is both republican and democratic; and that President Bashar al-Assad was elected by 63% of the electorate (88% of the vote!). Thus, the United States must adapt its rhetoric to reality.
The “peace” plan of the “liberal hawks” consists therefore in achieving the original goals by dividing Syria in two: an area governed by Damascus, and another by “moderate rebels” (read: the Pentagon). The Republic is to have the capital and the Mediterranean coast; the Pentagon: the Syrian desert and gas reserves (that is to say, the Daesh zone liberated by the bomber raids of General John Allen). According to their own records, “liberal hawks” would leave only 30% of the territory to the Syrian People!
The principle is simple: at present, the Republic controls all major cities except Rakka and a small part of Aleppo; but no one can claim to control a vast desert, neither the government nor the jihadists. So the Pentagon suggests that what is not clearly governed by Damascus rightfully belongs to its mercenaries!
This is not all. Since the Syrians have elected Bashar Assad, he will be allowed to stay in power, but not his private consultants. Indeed, everyone knows that the Syrian state has managed to resist foreign aggression because it includes a secret part, difficult to identify and therefore to eliminate. This opacity was intended by the founder of modern Syria, President Hafez al-Assad, in order to resist Israel. The constitutional reform of 2012 did not make it disappear, but made the elected president responsible to the nation. Although it is regrettable that, in the past, some people have abused this opacity for their own private profit, to part with it now would be to abandon independence in the end.
Of course, some will say, “liberal hawks” cannot hope to achieve this plan as a whole. But accomplishing just one hundredth of it would make a new war inevitable.
That is why Syria must ask as a prerequisite for any new peace conference that the country’s territorial integrity will not be up for discussion.
Translation: Roger Lagassé
Source: Al-Watan (Syria)
 “Imagining a Remapped Middle East“, Robin Wright, The New York Times Sunday Review, 28 septembre 2013.
The Yinon Plan: A Continuation of British Strategy in the Middle East – Strategic Plan to Ensure Israeli Regional Superiority by Balkanizing Surrounding Arab States – A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – Sectarian Schemes Unleashed by External Actors – Demonizing Opponents Through Crooked PR Campaigns
This article appeared
Select Committee asks why were we in Benghazi? Docs confirm MANPADS and gunrunning into Syria
Last month during the Benghazi Select Committee’s second hearing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Gregory Starr, the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, “What was so important about Benghazi that we didn’t follow our own standards? We did not follow the wavier process. We created a term [special mission compound or special mission facility] that is not used in any of our  facilities … What was so important that we do all that to be in Benghazi?”
“Why were we there in the first place?”
“We” were in Benghazi because of MANPADs— Man Portable Air Defense Systems also known as shoulder-fired-anti-aircraft missiles—and because weapons “collected” in Libya were being moved into Syria—that’s arms trafficking. That’s why.
The evidence is all there. You just have to look. And Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) Benghazi Select Committee has to act.
WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questions Greg Starr about U.S. diplomatic facility safety
First, as I originally reported in Benghazi Exclusive: State Department Denies Libya Weapon Buy back Program Exists, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew J. Shapiro’s speech, given at the Stimson Center, seven months before the Benghazi attacks, on February 2, 2012.
The MANPADs program started in Benghazi.
I had gotten Shapiro’s remarks from the State Department after an inquiry.
The MANPADs program was such an important priority it began outside of Libya, before Libya’s leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi was ousted from Tripoli and killed.
It started when then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department deployed a MANPADs Task Force team to visit Libya’s neighboring countries in the region to “brief” them on the potential proliferation dangers, “offer assistance with border security” and provide “advice on potential steps to improve aviation security.”
Recall how President Barack Obama, despite not receiving Congressional authorization, as the New York Times reported, ordered “military forces to join attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces” in March 2011.
According to Shapiro, that April non-government organizations (NGOs) specializing in conventional weapons destruction and stockpile security had already received “$3 million in funding” from Clinton’s State Department to “get them on the ground.”
State Department inquires for the names of the NGO’s remain unanswered. Shortly thereafter MANPADs teams went into Libya.
From Shapiro’s remarks:
“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in [Libya’s Transitional National Council] the TNC’s favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADs Task Force to Benghazi. Mark Adams … is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya … Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADs across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”
MANPADs can take down an aircraft. They can be as small as “four feet long,” weighing “less than 30 pounds.” Although MANPADs were designed to target aircraft, they were among the weapons that were “taken by militias and anti-Gaddafi forces” and used “in direct combat against Gaddafi loyalists” during the uprising.
Under the Gaddafi regime, “Libya had accumulated the largest stockpile of MANPADs of any non-MANPADs producing country in the world, “with estimates of stockpiles of “approximately 20,000 MANPADs.”
Shapiro also acknowledged how some weapons may have “leaked” out of Libya.
Benghazi was the Libyan rebels’ headquarters. Thousands of non-Libyan “foreign fighters” had flocked there to join in Gaddafi’s overthrow— just like they flocked to Syria in the ongoing battle to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Shapiro’s remarks specify, the MANPADs Task Force, led by Clinton’s State Department, was an “interagency effort.” The other agencies included the Defense Chief Leon Panetta’s Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s DHS. Technical specialists were embedded in the TNC—Libya’s intern government-led teams in what became the Libyan Mine Action Centre (LMAC).
Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petreaus’ CIA was also in Libya. Shapiro most likely intentionally omitted the CIA’s role in this interagency MANPADs effort because it is classified.
As the New York Times reported back in 2011, “[An American] official… spoke on the condition of anonymity because the [MANPADs] program, if approved, would be classified.”
The classified MANPADs program was approved.
Meanwhile the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) grew and gained strength and territory. The migration, persecution and slaughter of Christians and other minorities increased at a horrific rate. The death toll continues to mount today.
CIA Global Response Staff
While few media outlets and the Benghazi Select Committee (so far), have failed to acknowledge that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were CIA Global Response Staff (GRS), and former Navy SEALs. They need to if they want the public to know the truth about the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks where Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Doherty, Woods, and information specialist Sean Smith were killed.
GRS is a secretive government program that was created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, as the Washington Post reported here, and I reported here. In addition, as the firsthand account in the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi made clear:
“The GRS consisted of full-time CIA security staffers … GRS officers served as bodyguards for spies, diplomats, and other American personnel in the field. The more dangerous a posting, the more likely GRS operators were nearby in the shadows, protecting America’s envoys and covert intelligence gathers. Few if any postings were more dangerous than Benghazi, Libya… [Jack] reached out his right hand and returned a powerful handshake offered by one of his fellow former SEAL and GRS colleague Tyrone Woods whose call sign was “Rone.”
Because aspects of the MANPADs program are considered classified but can be re-classified, this may explain why the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report on Benghazi released on November 21, said:
“Committee Members and staff asked all witnesses what they observed at the Benghazi Annex and whether they had any information to support allegations about weapons being collected and transported to Syria. Each witness reported seeing only standard CIA security weapons at the base… No witness testified that non-CIA weapons were brought to the Annex. Security personnel and officers testified that they had complete access to the Annex and would have observed any weapons, such as MANPADs, stored at the facility.”
The HPSCI Committee isolated the weapons and MANPADs questions to the CIA Annex in Benghazi. Why weren’t the witnesses asked about other locations, buildings, warehouses in Benghazi or in other parts of Libya?
The HPSCI’s limited purview did not include the State Department. Thus far, there is no evidence that MANPADs and weapons that were collected under the interagency MANPADs program were stored at the State Department’s Temporary Mission Facility or at the Embassy in Tripoli either. This scenario would not be likely for security reasons.
CIA operators, like Clinton’s MANPADs teams, were spread throughout Libya, just like other agency personnel and MANPADs teams from other nations including in Mistra and Tripoli.
Considering the MANPADs program was taxpayer funded, don’t Americans have a right to know more? It was back in November of 2011, as Shapiro stated, when Secretary Clinton provided $40 million to secure the weapons including MANPADs in Libya. As Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) documented, that number soared to over $400 million.
So where did the weapons go? How many have been collected? How many were deemed inoperable and destroyed?
According to Shapiro, they were working with the “Libyans in their efforts to conduct a thorough inventory of all weapons storage areas in Libya to create a full picture of both old, unstable, obsolete, or at-risk, as well as up-to-date weapons and munitions.” Shapiro said, “This is not just about MANPADs, but about all weapons.” That’s right. That’s why we should be able to find out much more.
The CIA was complicit in a criminal act? HPSCI admits gunrunning from Libya to Syria occurred
While some media outlets contend that Benghazi is a witch hunt and a conspiracy theory, as Sharyl Attiksson reported in 26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report in The Daily Signal, they ignored or missed the confirmation of the arms trafficking from Libya to Syria.
As the HPSCI Benghazi report states:
“According to testimony from CIA Deputy Director Morell and confirmed by other witnesses, the CIA’s mission in Benghazi was to collect foreign intelligence. From the Annex in Benghazi, the CIA was collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria. The Benghazi Annex was not itself collecting weapons. The Committee has not seen any credible information to dispute these facts (emphasis mine, p.16).”
The Committee is not going to find any “credible information to dispute these facts,” because they are looking in one direction—at the CIA Annex. What’s more, they are not asking all the right questions.
Which foreign entities were “facilitating” weapons “passage” from Libya into Syria? Let’s not get stuck on semantics here. Which foreign entities were involved in arms trafficking from Libya to Syria?
Arms trafficking, also known as gunrunning is illegal under international law. It is an actionable criminal offense.
Was the HPSCI Benghazi report referring to allies like the Saudis and Qatar, who, like the Obama-Clinton regime, were determined to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and were supporting the opposition or referring to foreign entities, like Iran and Russia, who backed al-Assad? How about NATO? United Kingdom? France? The United Nations Disarmament, Demobilisation and Re-integration (DDR) program in Libya? Let’s be clear.
While “collecting foreign intelligence,” did the CIA stop, or just watch, look the other way, and do nothing regarding these foreign entities’ arms trafficking?
Did the CIA pass along any actionable intelligence to anyone who did something?
Was Attorney General Eric Holder informed of this illegal activity? What about the International Court of Justice in The Hague? So far, to my knowledge, there have been no gunrunning indictments anywhere. Either way there appears to be actionable complicity and culpability within at minimum the CIA… and State Department.
As Shapiro’s remarks confirmed, Clinton’s State Department knew about weapons “leaking” out of Libya.
Who gave the orders to the CIA and the State Department to do something or to do nothing except to “gather intelligence” about the arms smuggling? If these agencies were not involved in transferring weapons into Syria, why were they complicit by watching other foreign entities do it, thereby allowing the gunrunning to happen?
That being said, be careful not to paint a broad stroke against the entire CIA or State Department. There are good and bad people everywhere. Sensitive missions involving MANPADs and weapons trafficking would be highly compartmentalized. Operators and agents’ knowledge-base would be restricted to their “lane.” Agents and operators do not always know (or never know) what other personnel are doing out in the field in their respective lanes. Also, there are different levels of security classifications to consider: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret—”sensitive compartmentalized information” (SCI) and “single scope background investigation” (SSBI). Each level comes with different access and knowledge.
Therefore, only a few people at the top know the MANPADs and arms trafficking big picture. What is actionable, if the Benghazi Select Committee does their job and justice is served, are the people who gave the CIA and other agencies orders to support the weapons transfer from Libya to Syria—or to look the other way and allow it to continue.
Did jihadists groups like ISIS, obtain weapons during this gunrunning activity because of complicity or were ISIS and other “rebels” deliberately given weapons to overthrow President al-Assad? Syria was the next stop in President Obama’s Middle East adventures until it was derailed by the American people.
MANPADs programs have been used in other conflicts including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA FOIA Request Denied
This arms trafficking activity explains why my CIA FOIA request regarding Ambassador Stevens and Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin and “any and all members of the Turkish government …” was denied as reported in CIA FOIA Request Denied before Hillary’s Benghazi Testimony.
“With respect to Item 1, in accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request…”
This type of denial is called the Glomar Response.
Akin was the last known person to have met with Ambassador Stevens before he was killed.
Weapons were smuggled from Libya through Turkey into Syria.
As this Shoebat Exclusive reported, HPSCI Chairman Mike Rogers confirmed that Ambassador Stevens had met with his Intelligence committee days prior to his death. Rogers omitted that critical piece of evidence from the HPSCI report. This revelation appears to add credence to what I had reported here. Was Ambassador Stevens wearing his State Department hat or his CIA hat at the time when he was killed?
Watch: Fox News Megyn Kelly interview with Mike Rogers confirming that Ambassador Stevens met with the House Intel committee before his death.
This would also explain why, as I FOIA reported here and here, while Marines were deployable, they were not deployed to Benghazi to help Americans in peril or protect the integrity of the crime scene.
United Kingdom’s Libya MANPADs Role: 16,000 pages and counting
To add some context to the vastness of the interagency MANPADs program that involved other countries, Libya’s TNC and the United Nations, below is a letter I received from the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence regarding my MANPADs FOIA request.
In the UK, there are over 16,000 documents spanning three major government departments on the MANPADs program. The redactions are mine.
“However, I have to advise you that we will not be able to answer your request without exceeding the appropriate limit as set out in Section 12 of the FOI act. This is because to retrieve and extract information in scope of your request would involve searching, reading and extracting a minimum of 16,000 documents across at least three major departmental organisations resulting in at least 403 working days of effort.”
The UK pulled out of Libya before the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, in part, because of safety concerns. As the BBC reported, in June 2012, two British bodyguards have been injured in an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya, days after the U.S. mission was targeted. The Red Cross and United Nations had also been attacked. Only America remained.
It is little surprise that instead of answering Rep. Jordan’s questions regarding why “we” were in Benghazi, the Benghazi’s Select Committee’s star witness, Starr, who also testified in the first hearing, and was not serving in Clinton’s State Department during the Benghazi terrorist attacks, referred Rep. Jordan to the ARB—Clinton’s State Department Advisory Review Board report.
The State Department’s gravely flawed ARB did not bother to interview Secretary Clinton or Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, the last person Ambassador Christopher Stevens met with before he was killed—a person who would be concerned with and affected by the arms trafficking occurring in his country into Syria.
As I reported in Travesty: David Petraeus apologizes for Sex, should apologize for COIN and Benghazi, Petraeus’ sex scandal got him easily off and out of the spotlight.
Indeed. Benghazi was about arms trafficking and MANPADs. Who knew what, when?
This article appeared
Pentagon rebrands ISIS to ‘Daesh’ after alternative media kicks establishment’s ass in information war
Pentagon “slush fund” reaching up to $10 million daily
By Shepard Ambellas
WASHINGTON D.C. (INTELLIHUB.COM) — The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, now formerly known as ISIS, is nothing more than an excuse for a “slush fund” created by the C.I.A. and Pentagon to finance their private armies, war machines and weapons producing factories around the globe, as pointed out by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California.
“It’s a gimmick to avoid the budget cuts that are punishing other critical areas of the budget like education and health. Fundamentally, it is a black box of unchecked federal spending that needs to be eliminated. All DOD programs should be funded from the base-budget which is more than sufficient.”, Lee said in a statement to CBS.
Now ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call it, will now go by the name “Daesh”, according to the Pentagon and other U.S. allies such as France. Signifying the hard exposure of the group by independent news agencies like Intellihub and others, which have forced the powers-that-be to keep shifting the paradigm, creating an illusion of an enemy, a boogieman if you will, that is simply funded by U.S. interests to keep the gears of war turning. All the while lining the globalists pockets with monies looted from the corporation of the United States, i.e. American taxpayers.
The cycle of fear, propaganda, continues
To make matters worse the new name sounds similar to the Arabic words ‘daes’ meaning “to crush under ones foot” and also ‘dahes’ meaning “one who sows discord”, further adding an ominous touch to the Pentagon and C.I.A.’s propaganda campaign against innocent citizenry of the world.
And don’t forget what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said when requesting another $47 billion budget for the State Department in 2011. “We are in an information war. And we are loosing that war. I’ll be very blunt with my assessment.”, Clinton maintained, begging for funding to counter truths exposed by the alternative media in recent years.
The bottom line is, the alternative media has kicked ass against fraudulent mechanisms instilled onto the populace of the world by greedy oligarchs in charge.
Keep in mind the current battle against ISIS or “Daesh” is costing taxpayers up to $10 million dollars per day and will likely exceed $8.6 billion in 2014 alone.
In recent months the “Defense Department has been able to lean on its OCO budget, which is exempt from sequester cuts.”, further pushing the envelope of illegality and trickery, as pointed out by CBS.
Although Thursday was the first time that a U.S. military commander used the term “Daesh” in a Pentagon briefing, some like myself believe the term will now be more commonly used as the general public has become more aware that ISIS and or ISIL is Pentagon/C.I.A. funded.
In point of fact, about a year ago, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was seen taking photos with members of ISIS, and was also quoted calling them freedom fighters in the media.
“It was a very moving experience to meet these fighters who have been struggling now for over two years. And they’re very aware of the battlefield situation and they’re very disturbed about the dramatic influx of Hezbollah fighters, more Iranians, and of course, stepped-up activities of Bashar Assad”, McCain told CNN reporters.
Plain and simple the Pentagon and C.I.A. are training and financing both sides and have now been exposed.
So remember when you go to the polls, which are nothing more than a consensus, for the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election in 2016, keep in mind that whether you vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, they are both two wings of the same bird. Two peas of the same pod. And that the outcome, whichever evil is chosen, is truly up to the electoral college anyways as Americans simply have no say-so in the matter.
In fact a more viable candidate would be an independent or even someone to the likes of Donald Trump who actually possess a true business background.
France says the name ‘ISIS’ is offensive, will call it ‘Daesh’ instead — The Week
French govt to use Arabic ‘Daesh’ for Islamic State group — France24.com
Pentagon “slush fund” pays for ISIS airstrikes, irking some in Congress — CBS
Pentagon calls ISIS ‘Daesh’ for first time — The Hill
The Pentagon has a new name for ISIS — CNN
About the author:
Shepard Ambellas is the founder, editor-in-chief of Intellihub News and the maker of SHADE the Motion Picture. You can also find him on Twitter and Facebook. Shepard also appears on the Travel Channel series America Declassified. You can also listen to him on Coast To Coast AM with hosts, both, George Noory on “Chemtrails” and John B. Wells on the “Alternative Media Special“. Shepard Ambellas has also been featured on the Drudge Report, the largest news website in the entire world, for his provocative coverage of the Bilderberg Group.
For media inquires, interviews, questions or suggestions for this author, email: email@example.com.
Read more articles by this author here.