Oslo - attentat : Quand l' OTAN et les EU visaient Jens Stoltenberg et le Parti Travailliste

Tant le modus operandi que les cibles et le timing laissent penser que l'attentat commis hier à Oslo ne relève pas de l'attentat terroriste [ Islamiste ] sui generis mais bien de l'attentat politique et même de l'assassinat politique - de tentative - avec pour cibles le Premier Ministre Jens Stoltenberg et le Parti Travailliste -Arbeiderpartiet . Cet attentat a été commis avec la volonté évidente de minimiser les dégats collatéraux à ces deux cibles , en particulier en choisissant une période de la semaine ou l'espace urbain autour des bâtiments gouvernementaux était quasi-désert tandis que la fusillade sur l'île d' Utøya ne pouvait que frapper des militants du Parti Travailliste ou des sympathisants puisque celle-ci est la propriété d'une assocaition de jeunes travailleurs lièe au Parti Travailliste . On est en effet bien loin de la stratégie du " terrorisme international " [ Islamiste ] qui vise à frapper de manière anonyme les foules afin que celles-ci se retournent contre leurs chefs politiques . Les moyens déployés lors de cet attentat politique , la simultanéité des attaques montrent que qu'il n' a pas pu être commis par un groupe inexpérimenté - et à fortirio par un marginal ou un loup solitaire - mais par des personnes au fait des techniques des explosifs et des actions de commandos . Ces attentats ont béneficié d'une sérieuse préparation tant sur le plan du renseignement - Jens Stoltenbeg se trouvait bien a proximité de l'explosion et son bureau a été détruit - que de la logistique .

En partant de l'hypothèse de l'attentat politique dans un état Scandinave , on pense immédiatement à celui qui a visé Olof Palme le 18 février 1986 . À la fois pragmatique et homme de conviction ,Olof Palme mena une politique internationale courageuse pour certains ,risquée pour d'autres [ notamment contre la guerre du Viet-Nam , l'apartheid et la prolifération des armes nucléaires ] . Il provoqua la rupture des relations diplomatiques entre la Suède et les États-Unis pour avoir participé personnellement, en tant que ministre, à une manifestation d'opposants à la guerre du Viêt-Nam. Durant la crise des missiles , il prit fermement position contre le déploiement des missiles Pershing américains en Europe, ce qui le rapprochait de l'URSS .

Or si l'on prend tant les prises de position en matière de politique internationale que les personnalités , Olof Palme et Jens Stoltenberg , le Parti Travailliste et le Parti Social Démocrate présentent des similarités beaucoup plus grandes qu'il n' y paraît . Bien sûr , la principale différence entre la Norvège et la Suède est que la première est un des piliers de l'OTAN tandis que la seconde ne fait pas partie de l' Alliance .Mais une politique étrangère pro-active et indépendante sur plusieurs dossiers semble avoir provoqué des irritations du côté de la diplomatie Etasunienne et Atlantiste .

Cette grille permet non pas de désigner les coupables ou les commanditaires mais permet de s'affranchir de la traditionelle " analyse " - Norvége - Islam - Afghanistan - Libye aussitôt mise en avant par les " experts " aprés l'annonce de l'attentat . J'ai donc choisi la grille Norvège - Russie - Defense anti missile - OTAN et j'ai utilisé les cablegates en provenance de l'ambassade d' Oslo .

1- Il est reproché à Jens Stoltenberg , au Parti Travailliste et à la MD Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen de s'opposer au projet de bouclier anti-missiles tout comme Olof Palme s'était opposé au déploiement des missiles Pershing .

ID	08OSLO72
SUBJECT	NORWAY STANDING ALONE AGAINST MISSILE DEFENSE
DATE	2008-02-12 09:02:001. (C) Summary: Norway remains opposed to U.S. plans for missile defenses and was the only NATO ally to publicly express skepticism over these plans during the recent Defense Ministerial in Vilnius. Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen told the media that Norway doubts the need for missile defense and believes it could lead to an arms race. Responding to Ambassador Whitneys observation that it is unusual for Norway to block consensus in NATO, Strom-Erichsen stated that the GON has not yet decided on its approach to this issue (including whether to use its veto) at the Foreign Ministerial or the NATO summit in Bucharest. In a February 11 meeting with Ambassador Whitney, MFA State Secretary Raymond Johansen said that the GON is constrained on this issue but wants to frame the issue in such a way that they can keep from having to block it in NATO. The USG should point out that GON persistant and public support for Russias line on missile defense is troubling even if Norway eventually allows U.S. and NATO goals. End Summary Alone in NATO: Public Opposition to Missile Defense --------------------------------------------- --------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Norwegian Defense Minister, Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen, was the only Defense Minister to publicly oppose the U.S. plans for missile defenses against long-range missiles during the Vilnius Defense Ministerial. Repeating oft stated doubts over the threat and claiming that this system would create an arms race, Strom-Erichsen appeared surprised that the GON was alone in this public skepticism. ¶3. (SBU) Missile defense has been a hot issue for the GON, primarily because of the Socialist Lefts (SV) presence in the governing coalition. SV succeeded in inserting a commitment to oppose missile defense plans in the coalitions government platform (the Soria Moria document). Reluctant to break this commitment (and risk splitting the coalition) and generally skeptical of U.S. policies and goals (reftel A), the GON has been vocally opposed to missile defense plans, despite strong USG efforts to present information on the threat and the system, including visits by Ambassador Nuland, General Obering, journalist tours, and extensive outreach by Ambassador Whitney and other embassy officials ¶8. (C) Ref A noted the need to counter negative trends in bilateral relations. Missile defense is a good place for us to continue to stress the potential cost of Norways policies. Even if Norway eventually accomodates U.S. and NATO priorities on missile defense, the long, public campaign parroting Russias arguments has been damaging, something increasingly noted in Norway and the U.S 2 - Il est reproché à Jens Stoltenberg de favoriser une politique de rapprochement avec la Russie qui prend trop en compte les interets Norvégiens face à ceux de l' Alliance . De la même manière on avait reproché à Olof Palme sa proximité avec l' URSS .

ID	07OSLO658
SUBJECT	PM STOLTENBERG´S RUSSIA TRIP: GRADUAL GAINS IN THE
DATE	2007-06-18 11:39:001. (SBU) Prime Minister Jens STOLTENBERG,s June 7-10 visit to Russia produced progress on Norwegian priorities in the Barents region. Despite some controversial statements on missile defense and some public criticism of Russia,s human rights record, STOLTENBERG,s visit was primarily characterized by some successes for Norway,s High North priorities, including resolution of a small part of Norway,s disputed sea-border with Russia and new Russian commitments on safety and economic development of the Barents Sea region. This result will likely encourage the government to continue Norway,s enthusiastically positive approach to Russia, downplaying tensions over security matters within NATO and other negative aspects.4. (C) Perhaps the most controversy of the visit was generated by a quote on missile defense STOLTENBERG made while in Murmansk. STOLTENBERG called on the U.S. and Russia to discuss missile defense, and said it was important for both sides to reduce harsh rhetoric and to avoid a new arms race. He continued to say that Norway has all along been skeptical of missile defense plans and would not allow missile defenses in Norway. Russian suspicions of the Vardoe radar site in northern Norway and false complaints about its supposed use in U.S. missile defense plans were a staple of past meetings of Norwegian and Russian leaders and continue to be a sub theme of Russian complaints about U.S. missile defense plans at NATO. However, during this visit the radar was not directly raised by either side. And Gets Criticized ------------------ ¶5. (U) Norwegian media reaction to STOLTENBERG,s statement was critical, with editorials in Norway,s largest paper castigating STOLTENBERG for expressing his criticism of U.S. missile defense plans while in Russia, while not even mentioning Putin,s strong threats against NATO. The paper stated that the PM,s criticism of the U.S. on such a sensitive issue, without any balancing criticism of Russia, creates an impression of Norwegian servility towards Russia and shows that Norway is intimidated. The paper called for the PM to speak out against Putin,s harsh rhetoric, and make clear that Russia does not have veto power over missile defense plans in NATO countries. The editorial also stated that U.S. plans are no threat to Russia and that if the PM needs to criticize missile defense because of internal governmental reasons he should do so in another place than Russia. The Prime Minister,s office and the MFA have claimed that the PM,s comments reported in international media were taken out of context and that he intended to promote dialogue and make clear that Norway would not be used for any missile defense systems. See ref a for more the GON approach to Missile Defense. Likely Results: Confirmation of Norways Current Russia Policy --------------------------------------------- ------------- ¶6. (C) In a summary to the press before he returned to Norway, STOLTENBERG highlighted his satisfaction with reaching an agreement over the border in Varangerfjord. He also called for more frequent contacts with Russian leadership and invited President Putin to Norway. The border agreement, Statoil,s meeting with Putin and the positive developments on nuclear safety in the Barents were all key successes for Norway,s High North priorities. These successful results will likely encourage the GON,s natural inclination to avoid criticism of Russia and to stress their interest in co-operative projects in the North. This does not mean that the GON is unaware or unconcerned about the developments in Russia. We hear frequent private expressions of concern from lower-level members of the Defense Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over Russia,s new aggressiveness and Russia is a topic which will continue to generate media and public interest. However, the GON appears determined to continue its course of downplaying disagreements in order to focus on its goal of close cooperation with Russia in the Barents region and make progress in its high priority High North policy. Elite opinion, including in the MFA, also includes sympathy for the worn argument that Russian misdeeds are often reactions to mistakes by the west, and in particular the U.S. Whitney. ID 09OSLO399 SUBJECT DATE 2009-06-18 07:44:00 RUSSIA: Public Positivism and a Focus on the Bilateral --------------------------------------------- --------- ¶3. (C) The GONs official RUSSIA policy has been characterized by a consistent stress on the positive and a reluctance to publicly criticize RUSSIA actions (the Georgia war was one exception but the GON shows little public solidarity when RUSSIA pressures the Baltics, Poland or other allies). Norway has chosen to prioritize the bilateral aspects of its relations to RUSSIA, working to achieve greater cooperation in the Barents, defending its interests in a quiet manner and stressing the benefits of greater RUSSIAn integration into the European economic and political regimes. The GON works to maintain steady and positive contacts with RUSSIA as evidenced by the recent meetings of PM STOLTENBERG with President Medvedev and PM Putin, FM Stoeres meetings with FM Lavrov and other meetings between Ministers of Energy and Industry. (Reftel A and D) ¶4. (C) As a member of the wider European community, Norway has been much more passive, at times criticizing RUSSIAn actions, but primarily arguing for dialogue and inclusion. Norways focus on the bilateral relationship has resulted in cooperative and well-functioning relationships in environmental cleanup, nuclear safety, fisheries management and people-to-people exchanges. It also has led to a greater potential for cooperation in the development of energy resources in the Barents (StatoilHydros share of the Shtockman Development Company is the prime example). ¶5. (C) These achievements impact the wider relationship as the GON does not want to throw away the hard earned progress in bilateral relations (or damage the potential future cooperation on energy development or agreement on a maritime border) for events elsewhere. GON priorities were illustrated by a recent meeting between the Deputy Foreign Minister and a high-ranking USG official. When speaking about RUSSIA the Deputy Minister choose to focus on a recently concluded fishing agreement with RUSSIA, ignoring any other wider concerns.Comment ------- ¶13. (C) Norway has succeeded in creating a low tension relationship with RUSSIA with real and functioning cooperative agreements in the Barents. This is positive but it is unclear that this is a result of GON policy or simply of RUSSIAn disinterest. Some are wondering if this is worth the price of GON reluctance to show solidarity when RUSSIA pushes allies or other states. Despite GON claims that other nations should follow their lead, it appears to us that Norways relationship is unique and a model RUSSIA might favor, but not other allies. ¶14. (C) Norways underlying concerns over RUSSIA will however continue to be an important piece of the continued close U.S.-Norway bilateral relationship. Close intelligence and military connections have continued despite the end of the cold war, and Norway had maintained its RUSSIAn expertise when others scaled back. Norways desire for increased attention to the High North is a healthy impulse and one which should compliment increasing U.S. interest in the Arctic. Norway has expressed a desire to re-start the dormant U.S.-Norway High North talks and discussing ways to combine our RUSSIAn expertise may be a topic of mutual interest for this initiative. Norway strongly supports U.S. determination to increase engagement with RUSSIA and "reset" the relationship. We should ask Norway to also support the firm U.S. and NATO positions on RUSSIA when necessary, rather than relying on others to do so 3 - Cette politique indépendante , le gouvernement Norvégien l' a aussi developpé au Proche-Orient en s'opposant à la politique belliciste de l'Entité Sioniste aka " Israël " . De la même manière que les brutales attaques contre le Liban et Gazza ont contribué à la détestation du Sionisme en Norvège , les massacres de Sabra et Chatila ont provoqué la detestation de ce Sionisme dans la Suède d' Olof Palme . En 2006, une crise diplomatique a éclaté entre les deux pays suite aux propos tenus par l'ambassadrice d'Israël. En juin 2010, la Norvège a exigé une enquête internationale sur l'abordage par Israël de la flotille turque. En aout 2010, la Norvège se désengage de deux investissements israéliens jugeant ces sociétés moralement condamnables. En octobre 2010, la Norvège a interdit des exercices de submersibles israéliens, construits en Allemagne, dans ses eaux territoriales . Jonas Gahr Stoere, le ministre des Affaires étrangères norvégien, a déclaré, pour l'occasion, que la Norvège n'exportait pas de «matériel ou de services dans le domaine de la défense vers des pays où la guerre menace». En 2007 la Norvége a reconnu le Hamas Le Gouvernement Norvégien vient de se pronnoncer en faveur de l'admission de la Palestine à l' ONU . ID 09OSLO739 SUBJECT SCENESETTER FOR YOUR VISIT TO OSLO DATE 2009-11-30 15:25:00 Mid-East Peace Process ---------------------- ¶9. (S) During the Oslo Peace Process of the 1990s, NORWAY hosted Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin. Tragically, Rabin was assassinated a year later by a figure opposed to his peace overtures. Subsequently, NORWAY has played a diminishing, often independent, and sometimes unhelpful role in the Middle East. NORWAY strongly believes it should engage everyone, including HAMAS, which it has not designated as a terrorist organization, unlike the United States and the European Union. In a break with the international Quartet, NORWAY recognized the HAMAS-Fatah Unity Government in 2007. NORWAY more helpfully serves as a highly effective Co-Chair of the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC), the main international donor group for coordinating economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and works to keep AHLC activities in concert with the political track of negotiations led by the U.S. NORWAY's relations with Israel have been strained in recent years due to its contact with HAMAS, Norwegian disapproval of Israeli actions during the fighting in Gaza last winter, and periodic, privately-led boycott campaigns against Israeli businesses and universities. The Norwegian Government fully supports your intensive efforts to restart direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Norwegian and Israeli officials told us this fall that NORWAY has now initiated steps to improve the bilateral relationship with Israel, including through scientific or other exchanges and other activities. In early November, the government publicly condemned a private effort at a university in Trondheim to boycott Israeli academics, defining the effort as contrary to academic freedom. The university's board ultimately unanimously rejected the boycott proposal a few days later on November 12. 4- Il est reproché à Jens Stoltenberg d'avoir fait une alliance avec un parti " Anti-OTAN " , la Gauche Socialiste ( SV ) . ID 07OSLO1161 SUBJECT NORWAY'S DEFENSE POLICY AT A CROSSROADS: CLARITY DATE 2007-12-18 13:17:00 What? Soldiers Actually Shoot? -------------------------------- ¶2. (SBU) Background to this debate includes a government which rhetorically affirms NATO as NORWAY,s primary security provider but which is at heart skeptical of the use of military power in all but the most benign ways, tempted by the idea of closer Nordic defense cooperation and includes an ANTI-NATO party, the Socialist Left (SV) as a member of the governing coalition. The vigorous internal governmental debate over NORWAY,s contributions to ISAF, as well as repeated public negative comments concerning NATO and U.S. missile defense plans are illustrative of the general impulse of this government (see reftels for details). Conclusion: Looking for Security and Ideological Comfort --------------------------------------- ¶15. (C) Comment: FM Stoere realizes the need for continued close security ties to NATO and the U.S. but at the same time is uncomfortable with the direction of U.S. and NATO security policy. His evolving public comments indicate the GON is not looking to replace NATO but seeks additional partners in security which are a better ideological match with the GON and can balance the U.S. heavy NATO alliance. One example is NORWAY's increased defense ties with the EU and its participation in the EU Nordic Battle Group, despite being a non-EU member. Cooperation with Sweden and Finland offers both the possibility of savings on equipment purchases and the chance to work with likeminded nations who prioritize UN involvement, favor peacekeeping over peacemaking and who are concerned about Russia. Stoere's coalition partners from SV, of course, are unabashedly ANTI-NATO and anti-defense. Implications for U.S. Policy ------------------------ ¶16. (C) The decisions made by the GON on the Defense Studies, recommendations on funding, the purchase of new aircraft and on its relations to its neighbors will have a significant impact on NORWAY,s ability and desire to meet NATO commitments and spark a reassessment of NORWAY's defense policies. We expect NORWAY's move toward Nordic cooperation and preference for UN mandated peacekeeping missions to remain, even if the current government does not win the 2009 election. This tend combined with a general antipathy to missile defense, efforts to ban cluster munitions, focus on disarmament instead of non-proliferation and reluctance to use its vast energy wealth to fund defense spending open questions regarding NORWAY's commitment to be a serious and dependable ally. Thus, despite continued close and productive military to military relations, the GON,s actions and long-term trends bear watching in NATO and bilaterally. In this atmosphere it is more vital than ever that we speak and act clearly and at senior levels when NORWAY is an outlier on key issues. Eager to act more independently but loathe to be seen as weakening trans-Atlantic ties, the GON will listen and respond when confronted. Assuming generally common interests and policies, however, would be a mistake. This is not the NORWAY many remember, and failing to make 4- rechercherchait- on un successeur à Jens Stoltenberg au sein du Parti Travailliste ? Un Carl Bildt Norvégien ? ID 08OSLO406 SUBJECT NORWAY'S DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE, ESPEN BARTH EIDE, POWER IN NORWAY'S MOD AND RISING STAR IN THE LABOR PARTY DATE 2008-07-21 09:09:00 1. (C) Summary. Ministry of Defense State Secretary, Espen Barth Eide is one of the more powerful politicians in the current GON despite his deputy minister portfolio. His ties to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, think tanks, NGOs and the UN as well as his influential current position likely will result in either a ministerial position in a future Labor government or a high ranking UN or EU position. Barth Eide is particularly interested in UN peacekeeping operations and may be interested in a future UN position. End Summary. --Power Behind the Throne-- ¶2. (C) Ideologically on the more conservative side of the Labor Party, Barth Eide is one of the most experienced and influential government figures. After the 2005 national election many observers thought that PM Jens STOLTENBERG meant to appoint Barth Eide as a State Secretary in the MFA, but after being forced to appoint a weak defense minister, STOLTENBERG moved Barth Eide to the MOD. Barth Eide is regarded as the force which steers the defense ministry and is an eloquent and knowledgeable speaker and writer on defense and security matters. He is often quoted in the press, more so than the Defense Minister, Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen. Strom-Erichsen was appointed minister without any background in defense matters and has relied on Barth Eide to be her subject matter and policy expert while she deals with political issues. Barth Eide has wide leeway in determining what areas to focus on and is self-confident in determining priorities. --Past Positions-- ¶3. (C) His current position as deputy minister (or state secretary in the Norwegian term) is the second time he has held that rank. The first was in the MFA from 2000-2001 under then Foreign Minister Thorbjorn Jagland (now President of Parliament). Interspersed between government posts, Barth Eide led the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) 2002-2005, focusing on UN issues and peacekeeping, particularly the Balkans. He also has been a long time supporter of Norwegian membership in the EU, acting as the general secretary for the European Movement from 1991-1993, prior to the failed 1994 referendum on EU membership in Norway. Barth Eide has also been involved in several UN projects, serving as a senior consultant on the UN reform process and on the UN Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change from 2003-2004. Barth Eide has been co-editor of the London Based journal International Peacekeeping and was nominated a "Global Leader of Tomorrow" by the World Economic Forum in 2003. --Interactions with the USG-- ¶4. (C) In his relations with the Embassy, Barth Eide has been difficult to characterize. Barth Eide is a skilled and subtle interagency player who is largely pro-U.S. but should not be trusted to reliably uphold U.S. interests. On several important issues Barth Eide has been helpful, such as missile defense (where he helped prevent a Norwegian veto of NATO plans), the sale of land to the USG for construction of a new embassy building (intervening on touchy real estate issues affecting the U.S. purchase of land for the new embassy) and pushing for Norwegian deployments to Afghanistan. On other issues, such as the decision process on the purchase of new fighter aircraft and the Norwegian approach on cluster munitions, he has hedged his bets. Barth Eide has avoided the gratuitous negative comments about the Bush Administration that other GON figures have made. Barth Eide also takes pains to stress NATO as the cornerstone of GON security policy and the importance of the Norwegian-U.S. relationship. He has given the Embassy good advice on how to approach the GON on several occasions. However, some very senior U.S. officials have felt that he has been hard to pin down on several issues of concern and characterized Barth Eide as "weasily". Senior Norwegian officials, with strong pro-U.S. instincts, have also told the Embassy in private that Barth Eide is not to be relied upon to promote U.S. priorities. One key test of Barth Eide's inclinations will be the MOD recommendation on which fighter plane to purchase, the Joint Strike Fighter or the Saab Gripen. http://zebrastationpolaire.over-blog.com/article-oslo-attentat-quand-l-otan-visait-jens-stoltenberg-et-le-parti-travailliste-80014338.html

Veterano de la CIA afirma que Israel atacará a Irán en el otoño

Robert Baer

MJ Rosenberg
Tomado de Al Jazeera. Traducción de Cubadebate

Un oficial veterano de la CIA que se ha pasado 21 años en el Medio Oriente predijo que Israel bombardeará a la Irán en este otoño, y será inevitable que el Ejército de los EEUU se involucre en otra guerra mayor en la zona y más allá de esa región.

Esta semana Robert Baer fue entrevistado en el programa de radio de Los Angeles, la estación KPFK, en el programa Background Briefing que conduce el periodista Ian Masters. Baer predijo allí que el Primer Ministro de Israel Benjamin Netanyahu incendiará una guerra contra Irán en el próximo futuro.

Robert Baer tiene una carrera legendaria, incluso en Iraq en los 90, donde organizó la oposición a Saddam Hussein. Fue retirado después de ser acusado de organizar el asesinato de Saddam, y al jubilarse recibió una alta condecoración por sus “meritorios” servicios.

Baer no es cualquier funcionario de la CIA. El actor George Clooney se gano un Premio Oscar por el papel inspirado en la historia de Baer,Syriana (Baer escribió el libro).

Obviamente, el agente de la CIA no menciona muchas de sus fuentes en Estados Unidos e Israel, pero las pocas que mencionan son funcionarios de la Seguridad del Estados, que han advertido que Netanyahu y el Ministro de Defensa, Ehud Barak, quieren guerra.

LA MAYORÍA DE LOS JEFES DE LA MOSAD ESTÁN PREOCUPADOS

Baer está preocupado especialmente por la advertencia sin precedentes del Jefe de la Mosad, Meir Dagan, acerca de los planes de Netanyahu. Dagan dejó la agencia de Inteligencia en septiembre de 2010. Hace dos meses predijo que Israel predijo que Israel atacaría, y que hacerlo era la cosa más estúpida que él se podría imaginar. De acuerdo con la agencia Haaretz:

Cuando le preguntaron qué pasaría después de un ataque de Israel, dijo que “seguirá una guerra con Irán. Es el tipo de cosas que sabemos cómo empieza pero no cómo termina.”

De acuerdo con Ben Caspit, del diario israelí Maariv, las declaraciones de Dagan sobre el liderazgo político israelí son significativos, no solo porque los jefes de la Mosad tradicionalmente se han mantenido callados, sino porque Dagan es muy conservador en asuntos de seguridad.

Caspit escribe que Dagan es una de las personas más militante de derechas que el suelo israelí ha visto nacer. Cuando este hombre dice que el liderazgo de Israel no tiene visión y es irresponsable es el momento de dejar de dormir tranquilo por la noche.

Dagan describe al gobierno israelí como “peligroso e irresponsable”, y dice que denunciar a Netanyahu es “su deber patriótico”.

El rechazo a Netanyahu no es raro dentro del establishment israelí. De acuerdo con Think Progress, que cita al periódico Forward, 12 de los 18 ex jefes de las dos agencias de seguridad israelí -Mosad y Shin Bet-, se oponen a Netanyahu y lo han declarado. De los otros seis, dos son ministros del gobierno de Netanyahu, y eso nos deja solo cuatro independientes que apoyan al Primer Ministro.

Mientras el Congreso de EEUU le da a Netanyahu 29 ovaciones de pie, los israelíes que saben más de Netanyahu y de la situación estratégica de Israel piensan que el Primer Ministro es un desastre peligroso.

Baer asegura que esto no es nada todavía. Tiene “casi la certeza” de que Netanyahu está “planeando un ataque contra Irán probablemente para septiembre antes del voto sobre el Estado Palestino. Quiere involucrar también a Estados Unidos en el conflicto”, explicó Baer.

La Fuerza Aérea israelí, añade Baer, atacaría a “Natanz y otras centrales nucleares para disminuir sus capacidades. Los iraníes responderían como puedan: Basra, Bagdad y hasta Afganistán, entonces Estados Unidos se involucraría en el conflicto con ataques contra blancos iraníes. Nuestras fuerzas especiales ya están estudiando blancos iraníes en Iraq y al otro lado de la frontera. Lo que enfrentamos es una escalada, no una guerra planificada. Es un escenario de pesadilla. No tenemos suficientes tropas en el Medio Oriente para enfrentar una guerra como esa.”

Baer concluye: “Creo que estamos mirando hacia un abismo.”

ARRASTRARÁN A EEUU A OTRA GUERRA

Background Briefing, le preguntó a Baer por qué el Ejército de EEUU no se ha movilizado para evitar esta guerra. Baer respondió que los militares se oponen y también el ex Secretario de Defensa Robert Gates, que utilizó su influencia para bloquear un ataque israelí durante las administraciones Bush y Obama. Pero Gates ya no está, y “hay una orden de advertencia dentro del Pentágono de prepararse para la guerra”.

El Presidente Obama tiene una elección el año que viene e Israel estará fuera de control. “¿Qué pasará cuando él vea que 100 aviones F-16 se acercan a Iraq y Netanyahu llama a la Casa Blanca para decir que está lanzando un ataque contra Irán? ¿Qué puede hacer el Presidente de los EEUU? Tiene escasa influencia sobre Bibi Netanyahu. No podemos controlarlo y él lo sabe.”

Si Israel bombardeara a Irán mañana el Congreso olvidaría sus diferencias partidarias y saldrían corriendo, no caminando, hacia la Cámara y el Senado para apoyar el ataque y pedir apoyo incondicional para el amado socio Israel. Eso es lo que el Congreso hace siempre y siempre hará mientras sean el lobby y los donantes que este dirige quienes jueguen el papel clave en la política del Medio Oriente.

¿Y quién sabe qué haría Obama? Hasta ahora no se ha distinguido por enfrentarse a Netanyahu. Pero un ataque israelí contra Irán sería diferente. Peligrarían las vidas de incontable cantidad de norteamericanos en la región y en Estados Unidos. Sepultaría cualquier posibilidad de recuperación económica, causando que suban precipitadamente los precios del petróleo, nos metería en otra nueva guerra en el Medio Oriente y amenazaría la existencia del Estado de Israel.

Este artículo lo escribió MJ Rosenberg, experto del Media Matters Action Network. El artículo fue publicado originalmente el 15 de julio de 2011 en Foreign Policy Matters.

Fuente:http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/07/17/veterano-de-la-cia-afirma-que-israel-atacara-a-iran-en-el-otono/

http://resistenciaantisionista.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/veterano-de-la-cia-afirma-que-israel-atacara-a-iran-en-el-otono/

Irán anuncia el derribo de avión espía estadounidense

Teherán, 20 jul (PL) Un avión espía no tripulado de matrícula estadounidense fue derribado por la defensa antiaérea iraní cuando volaba sobre una instalación nuclear en Qom (centro), acorde con un reporte de la televisión.

La nave volaba sobre un centro de desarrollo nuclear en la localidad de Fordo, según el reporte de la televisora de los Jóvenes Periodistas, confirmado por un legislador, Alí Aghazadeh, sin que se conozca la fecha precisa de incidente.

Otras fuentes oficiales aquí se han abstenido de pronunciarse sobre el dedrribo del avión espía, empleado con profusión por los militares norteamericanos contra el talibán afgano.

Rusia tiene acuerdos con Irán para la construcción de centrales electronucleares.

En los últimos años Teherán ha reivindicado el derribo de naves espías estadounidenses varias de las cuales fueron mostradas a expertos rusos a principios de mes.

El incidente sigue al anuncio de un portavoz oficial iraní sobre la puesta en marcha de nuevas centrífugas para enriquecimiento de uranio destinado a alimentar los generadores atómicos que la República Islámica requiere para su programa de desarrollo nuclear con fines pacíficos.

Potencias occidentales encabezadas por Estados Unidos afirman que la República Islámica trata de fabricar armas nucleares, pero las autoridades iraníes refutan esas versiones y afirman que ese propósito es contrario a los postulados musulmanes.

Los iraníes insisten en ejercer su derecho a poseer la tecnología nuclear con fines pacíficos, en particular la instalación de centrales eléctricas necesarias para sus planes económicos y la producción de isótopos radiactivos con propósitos científicos con tecnología diseñada por científicos nativos.

Fuente:http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=308094&Itemid=1

SEGÚN DOCUMENTOS DESCLASIFICADOS, LA CIA SE FINANCIABA DEL NARCOTRÁFICO MUNDIAL

La agencia norteamericana de inteligencia (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) acudía al narcotráfico para llenar sus arcas y realizar sus operaciones clandestinas, según apuntan unos documentos con sello federal estadounidense que fueron desclasificados.

La historia de las relaciones entre la Agencia Central de Inteligencia estadounidense y el narcotráfico comenzó en los años 70 y tuvo su punto culminante en los 90. Más de 8.000 documentos del Gobierno federal desclasificados por el Acta de Información Pública revelan los detalles de estos controvertidos vínculos. Informes de la década de los 80 muestran que para contrarrestar la presencia militar soviética en Afganistán, EE. UU. gastó más de 2.000 millones de dólares en el financiamiento de la resistencia afgana a través de los cárteles de drogas. Los mismos documentos indican que la CIA también estuvo involucrada con narcotraficantes latinoamericanos.

"En el escenario estadounidense, el dinero de la droga provenía desde el Cono Sur y se convertía en dinero legítimo en Wall Street. En el escenario latinoamericano, este mismo dinero, una vez blanqueado, volvía a la región en forma de fondos para el paramilitarismo", explica el exagente federal Michael Ruppert.

Adicionalmente, la desestabilización de los gobiernos y revoluciones en América Latina no eran los únicos objetivos de la inteligencia estadounidense: también eran víctimas de la CIA los movimientos sociales dentro de EE. UU. La agencia buscaba desacreditar a los líderes que luchaban por los derechos civiles con el fin de prevenir transformaciones en el contexto ideológico, la integración racial, la justicia y otros ámbitos.

"El Gobierno quería que nosotros actuáramos como mercenarios en contra de nuestras comunidades. Nos utilizaron como matones para intimidar a los radicales o a todos los que se oponían al Gobierno federal", recuerda el imán Abdul Alim Musa.

En su momento, los presidentes Ronald Reagan y George Bush padre promovieron la doctrina de la 'Lucha contra las Drogas', pero según los expertos este criterio ha causado más problemas que soluciones.

Según opina Bruce Bagley, experto en asuntos latinoamericanos de la Universidad de Miami, la mayor parte de la lucha contra las drogas es parte de una estrategia fallida; en lugar de disminuir el narcotráfico, este aumentó. En países como Colombia y México la violencia entre los cárteles causa miles de muertes cada año; y en EE. UU. el número de adictos a las drogas aumentó. Además, el lavado de dinero ha dejado una huella de corrupción y fondos de dudosa procedencia por todas partes.

Por otra parte, los investigadores del tema señalan que hoy en día las sofisticadas operaciones financieras para ocultar las divisas fruto del lavado de dinero son un fenómeno constante. Estos procedimientos se valen de herramientas tecnológicas como internet para enviar fondos de una cuenta a otra sin controles estrictos, asegurando de esta forma la impunidad.

La Comisión de Juristas para la publicación de informes sobre el narcotráfico estima que anualmente en EE. UU. se lavan más de 100.000 millones de dólares procedentes de las drogas. La documentación también sugiere que una buena parte de la élite económica, tanto en Latinoamérica como en Estados Unidos, continúa beneficiándose del negocio de las drogas.

http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/ee_uu/issue_22299.html
________________________

Conexiones entre el NARCOTRÁFICO Y EL TERRORISMO:

EE UU asegura que el 11-M se financió con el tráfico de drogas

"El 11-M se financió con dinero de la droga"


La directora de la DEA afirma que el 11-M se financió con dinero de las drogas
El Mundo

Roberto Saviano, autor del libro 'Gomorra': El 11-M se financió con dinero de la droga

El embajador israelí se despide acusando a los españoles de antisemitas

Los pueblos semitas

Distribución racial de los hablantes de lenguas semitas (en naranja).

Este embajador es un poco ignorante para pertenecer a la tribu de "los elegidos".

Presume del "25 aniversario del establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre España e Israel"
PERO NO DICE QUE DICHAS RELACIONES DIPLOMATICAS FUERON FRUTO DEL CHANTAJE A ESPAÑA.

La inteligencia israelí engañó a Ordoñez con LA FALSA INFORMACIÓN DE ETA. Chantajearon a España.

....Coral de la Moreria!!. Mucho chau chau, bla, bla. TODO MENTIRA.

Los españoles NO SON antisemitas, lo que no les gusta son los chantajistas SIONISTAS.
_______________________________________

NOTICIA DE PRENSA:

El embajador israelí se despide acusando a los españoles de antisemitas

El embajador de Israel en España, Raphael Schutz, ha regresado a su país poniendo fin a cuatro años en el cargo durante los que ha vivido "en carne propia parte del odio y del antisemitismo que existen en la sociedad española".

Schutz confiesa esta impresión en un artículo publicado en la página web de la Embajada de Israel en Madrid con motivo de su despedida. El ya exembajador confiesa haber pasado "épocas poco agradables" durante su estancia en España, adonde llegó en julio de 2007.

Cita la operación del Ejército israelí contra la Franja de Gaza en enero de 2009, que causó unos 1.300 muertos, en su mayoría palestinos, y el asalto a la "Flotilla de la Libertad" a finales de mayo del pasado año, en el que murieron nueve activistas turcos.

Además de estos dos episodios, que provocaron las críticas del Gobierno español y las protestas de colectivos sociales, Schutz lamenta la aversión contra Israel que, según él, ha padecido en sus años en España.

"También el hecho de haber vivido en carne propia parte del odio y del antisemitismo que existen en la sociedad española es algo que me llevo conmigo", asegura. Schutz añade que "a pesar de todo esto", ha teniendo "muchos momentos muy positivos, muy cálidos y muy emocionantes" tanto en el plano personal como profesional.

Recuerda con satisfacción haber sido embajador en la celebración este año del 25 aniversario del establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre España e Israel.

En el marco de esta efeméride, los Príncipes de Asturias visitaron Israel el pasado mes de abril, después de que el presidente israelí, Simon Peres, viajara a Madrid en febrero.

Su sustituto será Alón Bar, quien está previsto que se incorpore el 1 de agosto A juicio de Schutz, el "potencial" de las relaciones entre ambos países pone de relieve que "sólo están haciendo que despegar", después de los 500 años de distanciamiento que hubo tras la expulsión de los judíos de España.

Schutz voló ayer, viernes, rumbo a Tel Aviv después de haberse despedido en los últimos días del Rey, del Príncipe y de la ministra de Asuntos Exteriores, Trinidad Jiménez, han informado a Efe fuentes de la embajada israelí en Madrid

Su sustituto será Alón Bar, quien está previsto que se incorpore el 1 de agosto. Bar, quien ya estuvo en la embajada en Madrid como número dos en la década de los noventa, fue uno de los asesores de la exjefa de la diplomacia israelí Tzipi Livni entre 2006 y 2009 como director general del departamento de Asuntos Estratégicos.

Fue cesado el pasado año de este último puesto por el actual titular de Exteriores, Avigdor Lieberman, asumiendo la dirección general de Relaciones Culturales de la cancillería.

http://www.publico.es/internacional/387353/el-embajador-israeli-se-despide-acusando-a-los-espanoles-de-antisemitas

Irán frustra conspiraciones de EEUU y sus aliados

El ministro iraní de Inteligencia, Heidar Moslehi, ha asegurado este viernes que su país se mantendrá preparado para contrarrestar todos los complots de los servicios de inteligencia enemigos, en concreto los de Estados Unidos y del régimen de Tel Aviv.
Moslehi ha destacado que las actividades del ministerio de Inteligencia de Irán no se limitan a ciertos asuntos de seguridad, como la lucha contra el terrorismo, y ha agregado que uno de los deberes de su ministerio es contrarrestar todas las conspiraciones culturales, económicas y sociales de las potencias occidentales.

“Detectar y desbaratar todas las maniobras y conspiraciones de las potencias extranjeras en los ámbitos culturales, económicos y sociales, forman parte de la labor del ministerio de Inteligencia de la República Islámica de Irán”, ha agregado Moslehi, en un discurso ofrecido antes del inicio del rezo colectivo de este viernes de Teherán, informa la agencia de noticias Fars.

El titular de Inteligencia, solicitando a la nación y a las autoridades iraníes a mantener su unidad, ha acusado a Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y al régimen de Israel de intentar sembrar la discordia entre el pueblo y las autoridades, y hasta entre los mismos funcionarios.

De acuerdo con Moslehi, su entidad goza de las mejores tecnologías para frustrar las conspiraciones de los enemigos en la llamada “guerra blanda”.

“Puedo asegurarles que en la actualidad, el ministerio de Inteligencia cuenta con las mejores tecnologías de fabricación nacional y está bien equipado para hacer frente a los aparatos sofisticados de los servicios (de inteligencia) extranjeros, en concreto de Estados Unidos, de Reino Unido y del régimen de Israel”, ha subrayado.

Así mismo, ha recordado que su ministerio observa atentamente todas las actividades de espionaje de los enemigos de la Revolución Islámica de Irán fuera de las fronteras.

Moslehi, aludiendo a los levantamientos populares y revoluciones de Oriente Medio y África del Norte, ha denunciado a Estados Unidos y a sus aliados occidentales por intentar desviar las revoluciones de la zona en beneficio de sus propios intereses y ha concluido que, “los pueblos de la región deben permanecer vigilantes”.

Fuente:
http://www.hispantv.com/detail.aspx?id=160882
http://resistenciaantisionista.wordpress.com/

Irán aumenta su poder disuasivo

El Ejército iraní llevará a cabo una serie de ejercicios militares durante el año en curso del calendario iraní (que termina el 20 de marzo de 2012).
“Mejorar la capacidad de combate con el fin de contrarrestar los ataques enemigos constituye uno de los programas más serios de la Fuerza Terrestre”, ha precisado este domingo el comandante de la Fuerza Terrestre del Ejército de la República Islámica de Irán, el general de brigada Ahmad Reza Purdastan.

El alto mando iraní, ha agregado que la Fuerza Terrestre del Ejército iraní ha planeado 3 a 4 maniobras militares, cuyas fechas serán anunciadas próximamente, informa la agencia de noticias ISNA.

Anualmente, Irán efectúa varios ejercicios militares y ensayos balísticas con el fin de valorar y mejorar la preparación de sus fuerzas ante posibles invasiones foráneas.

El pasado 27 de junio, el país persa emprendió un programa de diez días de ejercicios militares denominados “Gran Profeta 6″.

Durante los ejercicios, Irán, entre otros, dio a conocer depósitos subterráneos de misiles y lanzó varios proyectiles balísticos de corto, mediano y largo alcance de tipo Fateh-110, Zelzal (temblor), Shahab (meteorito)-1, Shahab-2, y Shahab-3.

http://www.hispantv.com/detail.aspx?id=160583

Video: El Verdadero Estado Nuclear

Sitio web de David Duke: www.davidduke.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrEuroheritage

7 Reasons To Nuke The USA

By Yamin Zakaria

02/23/07 "ICH" -- -- According to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which the US has adopted since 9/11, it too can be subjected to a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as it poses a threat to other peaceful nations of the world. The US has a sordid track record for using such weapons against civilians and it has constantly maintained a large stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, and continuously develops them. There are additional reasons to nuke the US, however I have decided to highlight only seven, which I have listed below.

This is partly for brevity and I hope it might have some resonance with the Zionist-Christian Fundamentalists, especially the nutty ones, as number 7 has significance in the Bible. Also, they are constantly yearning for the Armageddon, and nuking USA may only speed up the process, so for a change I might have these Christian-Zionists on my side! The Halleluiah brigade would probably jump up, waving their arms in the air whilst claiming to be speaking in tongues, proclaim that the good Lord says: bring it on, nuke the US for their sins! Perhaps, I would also have the communists and their variants to concur with me, as nuking the leading capitalist nation by non-state actors would seem like initiating a 21st century explosive revolution by the powerless proletariats against the capitalist class!

Before anyone screams mass murder, they ought to consider that their judgments will rest on the identity of the victims and the perpetrators. If it is the ‘terrorists’ (non state-actors, freedom fighters, Iraqi resistance etc) nuking the US, it will be depicted as terrorism and mass murder; conversely if the US uses such weapons, it will be defensive measures in the guise of a pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential threats incurring lots of collateral damages. Like the collateral damages inflicted on a massive scale when the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither were military targets and by this time Japan was already on its knees with no Air Force and its Navy almost annihilated. Perhaps one day some objective historian might call that an act of terrorism! Let me now list the 7 reasons to Nuke the USA.

1) The US was established on the blood of 70 million Native Americans. Their lands were stolen. Since the US leadership considers it right of the Jews to occupy Palestine as they lived here over 2000 years ago, then the Native Americans can also argue back only 500 years and have their lands returned to them. So a valid ground to repatriate the European colonizers, if they refuse they can be herded into camps, subjected to a trail of tears. Alternatively they can be nuked out of existence for resisting, as well as retribution for the brutal killing of their ancestors.

2) Consider the crimes against the Africans, their enslavement, oppression and lynching for centuries, which led to millions perishing. An irony of the declaration of independence by the Founding Fathers of the US, who stated that all men were created equal, whilst Afro-Americans were subjected to such brutality which continued for many decades. They have the right seek retribution (including nuclear strike) against the descendents of the criminals who have not paid them any compensation.

3) During the Spanish-American war at the turn of century, Philippines was colonized, and at least a 250,000 Filipinos were killed, then the country was turned into a brothel for the US soldiers, and it continues to be used in that manner. We don’t find Billy Graham and his ilk lecturing about the sin here. Nor do we find the voices for women’s rights; I suppose if they covered up instead of spreading their legs to the US soldiers then it would be cause for alarm! The Filipinos have the right of retribution for the carnage and rape.

4) The killing of the innocent Vietnamese populations and supporting monsters like the Pol Pot led to millions of Cambodians being killed. They too have the right of retribution and a nuclear strike would serve as deterrence for future attacks by the US.

5) The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians through arming the Zionists, and the genocide against the Iraqis from 1991 onwards are good reasons to nuke the US and halt the massacre and oppression. A bully always think twice when it gets a punched by one of its victim. The only reason why the US has not used nukes against the Islamic world because it fears nuclear reprisal, as Muslims do not believe in turning the other cheek, for that matter neither do the Christians!

6) Using the various financial institutions, and bribing corrupt regimes, the US has exploited the economic resources for its own benefit, bringing misery to millions around the world. Nuking the US would halt these forms of oppression, and a new economic order is likely to prevail after it is crippled permanently by nuking it.

7) At present everyone is speculating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the US or through its proxy Israel. A pre-emptive strike would make the US and the Zionists think twice, as the American and Israeli masses might appreciate what it means to use such weapons. I doubt they would have the appetite for more. For the Iraqis and the oppressed around the world they are already dying, their situation is unlikely to get any worse than it is.

Using the principles of free speech I have expressed the case for nuking the US and I am sure others would add to the above list. My opponents would try and gag me under the pretext of promoting terrorism, of course that is because I am advocating that Americans are terrorized in order to restrain the beast amongst them. Giving them a taste of their own medicine would make the US masses actually realize what foreign policy, collateral damages etc really means! In contrast, the numerous times calls have been made to nuke Iran, Mecca, North Korea etc goes unnoticed, of course that would not be promoting terrorism but upholding free speech. Is this not double standard? Of course not as it depends on whose standards you are using as a yardstick!

Although I have made the case for nuking the US but I would oppose the use of such weapons, a nuclear war would lead to everyone losing out. Mass murder on such a scale would bring misery to all sides. Hence, I would favor a genuine nuclear-free world and not a nuclear-free Iran only! Likewise a nuclear-free Middle East and not a nuclear Israel with nuclear-free Arabs. The only justification for using such weapons would be one of last resort of self-defense, which the Iranians, Iraqis and Palestinians and others might resort to given the constant US and Israeli aggression against them.

Now consider this scenario, a Caliphate is established in the Middle East that has unified the Islamic world, it’s armed with nuclear weapons. No doubt it would be competing with the US in the international arena. Who is more like to use such weapons? Foreign policy of the Caliphate is Jihad, which is the spread of Islam, using nukes to annihilate entire section of population, would defeat that central objective of spreading the message of Islam. Nukes and Jihad does not go hand in hand unless it is entirely for defensive purpose.

Where as the US as a Capitalist nation is a far better candidate as it: has a track record for using such weapons; it seeks to maximize its interests at any cost, so annihilating other races fits with its philosophy and morals, and it has a strong record for committing genocide on a massive scale in order to exploit natural resources and enforce hegemony.

They scream peace, but what they mean is war; they shout freedom but what they mean is enslavement; they shout democracy but what they mean is democracy for its multinationals. The Holy Quran describes such people whose words contradict their deeds: “And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. (2:11-12)”

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org) - Mumbai, India

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17163.htm