SOLDADO AMERICANO JUNTO A TERRORISTAS ISLAMICOS EN SYRIA

SOLDADO AMERICANO JUNTO A TERRORISTAS ISLAMICOS EN SYRIA

Hugo Adan.  Abril 8, 2013

http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/

En marzo 28 del 2013 la BBC publico el articulo “US ex-soldier 'fought in Syria with terror group” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21971790. Se trata del soldado USA Eric Harroun, 30, quien sirvió  en el ejército de EU desde el 2000 al 2003 y que al parecer luego fue transferido a los equipos clandestinos que entrenan mercenarios terroristas en Siria.  Lo que por supuesto  niega el ejército americano. “He served in the US Army from 2000-2003, and allegedly fought in Syria with the al-Nusra Front” dijo la BBC. 

Sobre Mr Harroun se aceptó oficialmente que ingreso a Syria en enero del 2013 y que fue capturado junto a otros miembros del Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front) que lucha contra las fuerzas del regimen de Assad. Se acepta oficialmente que sobre el reo Mr. Harroun -quien al parecer fue entregado por el régimen de Assad a las autoridades americanas- pesa hoy el juicio de conspirar en el uso de armas de destrucción masiva “fuera de los EU”, lo que estaría prohibido en las leyes americanas. Patético el cargo, pero cierto. Tan patético y cierto como lo ocurrido con el soldado Bradley Manning quien hoy es acusado de traición a la patria por denunciar el terrorismo de su país “fuera de los EU”. 

Hoy, 8 de abril-13, la BBC indica “Ex-US soldier who 'fought in Syria' could face execution”  en referencia a Eric Harroun, por haberse unido a un grupo terrorista ligado a al-Qaeda. "It is extremely unusual for the US to charge a person who is fighting in a manner that is aligned with US interests," said public defender Geremy Kamens.  El Lawyer Geremy Kamers indico que en los EU es extremadamente inusual  que una persona que lucha alineado con los intereses Americanos, sea amenazado con ser sentenciado a ejecución en instancias legales de este país.  En otras palabras, aquí se oculta algo y eso huele a podrido.

Según la BBC, el grupo NUSRA FRONT  lucha por los siguientes objetivos: 

NUSRA FRONT. El frente terrorista de los radicales islamicos

·         Aims to establish Islamist state in Syria: establecer un regimen islamico

·         Leader - Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Liderado por al-Julani

·         5,000 official members (approx.), supported by thousands of others

·         Apparently has members inside government and military. Ya infiltraron al regimen

·         Big guerrilla attacks on rural government targets; lower level urban attacks. Atacan civiles del campo y luego las ciudades.

·         Uses car bombings, suicide attacks, targets media facilities and personalities. Usan metodos terroristas en especial contra la prensa y personalidades del regimen

·         Policy of silence. Su politica es el silencio. [esta vez hicieron una excepcion]

Source: Quilliam Foundation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21061018

En este documento “Syria: Islamist Nusra Front gives BBC exclusive interview. By Paul Wood, BBC News”, un fundamentalista islámico confiesa que ellos robaron la harina para luego distribuir pan y ganar simpatía popular al Nusra Front en las áreas rebeldes de Alepo. "We are Syrian mujahedeen, back from various jihad fronts to restore God's rule on the Earth”. Somos mujadaines sirios que regresamos de varios frentes a restaurar el reino de dios en la tierra”. EU los armó, entrenó y convirtió en mercenarios a los mujadaines y hoy los usa para sembrar terrorismo a sueldo en diversos países donde hay interés americano (incluido Irak, Afganistan, Libya y ahora Siria). 

El fundamentalista  entrevistado ve al régimen de Assad como un régimen similar al de Libya. Esto es, como un régimen socialista y secular, al que hay que erradicar de la tierra y es lo que tienen de común con la ideología de americanos que les dan armas, entrenamiento y dinero. A los Sirios les gusta el Islam, dice el entrevistado, por eso estamos aquí. "They like Islam. People here are fed up with socialist and secular regimes. They are all looking forward to an Islamic state. It is impossible there could be anything else in Syria." 

El entrevistado llevaba mascara y dijo ser Sirio, pero el periodista vio a varios con vestido Yemení. Cuando el periodista le preguntó –a raíz del polvo blanco que encendieron en una cucharilla de té, para indicar que esa era su principal arma- si su religión les permitía matar a civiles con sus bombas y sus suicidios jihad, él indico que No, que nunca hemos matado civiles. Y por qué tienen Uds mala reputación?. Porque usamos barba, respondió. Los judíos la usan también, pero los del Oeste (en referencia a los americanos) solo a nosotros nos ven mal. Nos describen como salvajes. “The West is conspiring against us”. EU conspira contra nosotros.

Pero luego se corrigió y sugirió que eso es parte del juego. Cuando no acusan de terroristas, dijo el entrevistado, elevan nuestra reputación, porque el pueblo Sirio odia los Gobiernos americanos. Gracias a Dios hemos conseguido la medalla de honor de ser vistos como enemigos de EU. "When the US placed us on their list of terrorists, it did us no harm, it elevated our reputation. The Syrian people hate the American government. Thanks be to God, we consider this a medal of honour.". 

Es Ud de al-Qaeda?, le pregunto el periodista. Hablamos el mismo lenguaje, la misma terminologia, todos somos árabes, pero no somos de al-Qaeda, somos Sirios, indico el entrevistado. Y que si los americanos quieren bombardear al régimen de Assad?. No estamos ni a favor ni en contra, dijo en entrevistado. [Un Sirio este que le gusta que los americanos asesinen a su pueblo?. Simple: no es Syrio, son mercenarios pagados por EU]

Luego el entrevistado agregó: por supuesto que si los EU destruyen al régimen eso va en nuestro favor. “Of course, if they destroy the regime's military posts, that is in our favor. But we don't want US intervention because we are the people of this country and we are able to defend our own country."  Pero realmente no queremos la intervención de ellos (solo sus armas?) porque ya somos capaces de defender nuestro pais.

Cuando el periodista tuvo oportunidad de conversar con un joven de 30 años perteneciente al Nusra Front, este dijo: Los del Nusra Front somos hijos de al-Qaeda. "The Nusra Front is the son of al-Qaeda,". Estos son los jihadistas islámicos, concluyo el periodista. 

Los del oeste –indicó el reportero de BBC- estamos frente a grave dilema: estamos armando a islámicos radicales, esto es, armando terroristas. 

Hoy que el régimen de Assad  capturo un americano entre los de este grupo, a quien es de suponer lo han entrevistado y seguro van a presentar sus declaraciones ante las UN para probar la complicidad USA en la destrucción de Syria, hoy que devino clara la complicidad de EU,  la pregunta es QUIENES REALMENTE SON LOS TERRORISTAS?.  

EU: NADA QUE VER ni CON DEMOCRACIA ni CON LIBERTAD 

En otro informe de la BBC, esta vez del 8 de enero del 2013, se indicó que el ejército Nusra Front  ha reclamado para si los ataques terroristas en Siria y que están preparados para tomar la posta del regimen de Assad. They have “claimed deadly attacks against the government and that it will fight on even if President Bashar al-Assad's regime falls”. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20950132.  

Este grupo, dice un documento  interno del Jabhat al Nustra (JN) está adaptándose a los cambios internos de la guerra y viene haciendo preparativos [adquiriendo armamento pesado] para cuando caiga el régimen de Asad “is now "adapting to the changing conflict, and making preparations for a post-Assad future. This includes "the procurement of heavy weaponry".  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20950132  

Quien les suministra esas armas?. Por supuesto EU y sus democráticos aliados en Israel, Yemen, Saudis, y otros fundamentalistas. Cuanto le cuesta al pueblo americano controlar peleles como el fenecido régimen de Mubarak en Egipto?  Y si pueden controlarlos, como explican el terrorismo en la embajada USA en Libia?

La respuesta a la pregunta quien arma a los terroristas en Siria? EU jamás apoyo en forma abierta a los terroristas musulmanes que operan en Syria. Ahora que cayo uno de sus posibles  contactos  se amenaza con “ejecutarlo” o meterlo de por vida en una cárcel (cosa difícil de creer. Eso de aplicarle la pena máxima al soldado USA Eric Harroun es mas posible sea una cortina de humo para evitar que cante el gallo. “o te callas o mueres”). 

La pregunta de orden es entonces si es el soldado caído o el régimen actual y los altos jefes militares USA envueltos en terrorismo islámico a quienes se tendría que aplicar la pena máxima.  La respuesta obvia es: no va haber pena de muerte para Harroun ni juicio a los altos mandos envueltos en el terrorismo islámico en Syria. El manto de la impunidad los cubrirá como ocurrió ayer cuando EU apoyo el uso de armas químicas de Sadam Hussein contra Iran. 

En Eric Harroun sin embargo, pareciera estar la hebra de la madeja que explicaría el uso de armas químicas contra las fuerzas armadas de Assad en Syria. Lo que si quedo claro es que los fundamentalistas islámicos si tienen su propias agendas y que eso no tiene que ver nada con democracia ni libertad. Pareciera que no bastó acaso el asesinato del embajador de EU y varios más en Benghazi?. 

De acuerdo al reportero de la BBC Frank Gardner este grupo de fanáticos jihadistas si tiene vínculos con Al Qaeda y mucha más disciplina y rigurosa selección que los otros del Free Syrian Army. 

La misma fuente indica que los EU si sabían de la ideología de este grupo terrorista y BBC no se explicaba –hasta principios de enero- como era posible que EU los estén apoyando. Recien el 18 de marzo la CIA habría indicado que “Some militants in Syria are seen as closely linked to Al Qaeda” y que junto al Pentagono tiene planes para destruir los almacenes de armas químicas del Gbno de Syria si intenta usarlas contra los rebeldes. http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/03/18/us-treats-syrian-rebels-like-condoms-use-and-discard-cia-begins-sizing-up-islamic-extremists-in-syria-for-drone-strikes/ La pregunta de la BBC: por que EU estaría apoyando a los jihadistas musulmanes. La respuesta es simple: “el enemigo de mi enemigo, es mi amigo”. 

Esa táctica no es nueva, la usaron ayer en Latino America en apoyo a criminales dictadores de quienes se dijo alguna vez que esos “amigos” son “nuestros hijos de puta (mf)”. Ahora nos preguntamos quienes son los reales m-f, si los fantoches asesinos y dictadores sirvientes del imperio o los fantoches en los gobiernos americanos que sirven a las grandes corporaciones nacionales y multi-nacionales qu lucran con estas guerras. 

=============    

EL PIRATAJE en CHIPRE PLANEADO para AHORRISTAS DE EU y UK

THE CONFISCATION SCHEME PLANNED FOR US AND UK DEPOSITORS

Posted on March 28, 2013 by Ellen Brown

http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/it-can-happen-here-the-confiscation-scheme-planned-for-us-and-uk-depositors/

VER TAMBIEN:  http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/category/ellen-brown-articlescommentary/

http://maxkeiser.com/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/28/the-confiscation-scheme-planned-for-us-and-uk-depositors/

Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.  

New Zealand has a similar directive, discussed in my last article here, indicating that this isn’t just an emergency measure for troubled Eurozone countries. New Zealand’s Voxy reported on March 19^th:

The National Government [is] pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts . . . .

Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is Finance Minister Bill English’s favoured option dealing with a major bank failure. If a bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have their savings reduced overnight to fund the bank’s bail out.

CAN THEY DO THAT?

Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.”  The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? Most people keep a deposit account so they can have ready cash to pay the bills.

The 15-page FDIC-BOE document is called “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.”  It begins by explaining that the 2008 banking crisis has made it clear that some other way besides taxpayer bailouts is needed to maintain “financial stability.” Evidently anticipating that the next financial collapse will be on a grander scale than either the taxpayers or Congress is willing to underwrite, the authors state:

An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company [meaning the depositors] into equity [or stock]. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution.

No exception is indicated for “insured deposits” in the U.S., meaning those under $250,000, the deposits we thought were protected by FDIC insurance. This can hardly be an oversight, since it is the FDIC that is issuing the directive. The FDIC is an insurance company funded by premiums paid by private banks.  The directive is called a “resolution process,” defined elsewhere as a plan that “would be triggered in the event of the failure of an insurer . . . .” The only  mention of “insured deposits” is in connection with existing UK legislation, which the FDIC-BOE directive goes on to say is inadequate, implying that it needs to be modified or overridden.

AN IMMINENT RISK

If our IOUs are converted to bank stock, they will no longer be subject to insurance protection but will be “at risk” and vulnerable to being wiped out, just as the Lehman Brothers shareholders were in 2008.  That this dire scenario could actually materialize was underscored by Yves Smith in a March 19th post titled When You Weren’t Looking, Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives.  She writes:

In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositaries to fund derivatives exposures. And as bad as that is, the depositors, unlike their Cypriot confreres, aren’t even senior creditors. Remember Lehman? When the investment bank failed, unsecured creditors (and remember, depositors are unsecured creditors) got eight cents on the dollar. One big reason was that derivatives counterparties require collateral for any exposures, meaning they are secured creditors. The 2005 bankruptcy reforms made derivatives counterparties senior to unsecured lenders.

One might wonder why the posting of collateral by a derivative counterparty, at some percentage of full exposure, makes the creditor “secured,” while the depositor who puts up 100 cents on the dollar is “unsecured.” But moving on – Smith writes:

Lehman had only two itty bitty banking subsidiaries, and to my knowledge, was not gathering retail deposits. But as readers may recall, Bank of America moved most of its derivatives from its Merrill Lynch operation [to] its depositary in late 2011.

Its “depositary” is the arm of the bank that takes deposits; and at B of A, that means lots and lots of deposits. The deposits are now subject to being wiped out by a major derivatives loss. How bad could that be? Smith quotes Bloomberg:

. . . Bank of America’s holding company . . . held almost $75 trillion of derivatives at the end of June . . . .

That compares with JPMorgan’s deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm’s $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show.

$75 trillion and $79 trillion in derivatives! These two mega-banks alone hold more in notional derivatives each than the entire global GDP (at $70 trillion). The “notional value” of derivatives is not the same as cash at risk, but according to a cross-post on Smith’s site:

By at least one estimate, in 2010 there was a total of $12 trillion in cash tied up (at risk) in derivatives . . . .

$12 trillion is close to the US GDP.  Smith goes on:

. . . Remember the effect of the 2005 bankruptcy law revisions: derivatives counterparties are first in line, they get to grab assets first and leave everyone else to scramble for crumbs. . . . Lehman failed over a weekend after JP Morgan grabbed collateral.

But it’s even worse than that. During the savings & loan crisis, the FDIC did not have enough in deposit insurance receipts to pay for the Resolution Trust Corporation wind-down vehicle. It had to get more funding from Congress. This move paves the way for another TARP-style shakedown of taxpayers, this time to save depositors.

Perhaps, but Congress has already been burned and is liable to balk a second time. Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically prohibits public support for speculative derivatives activities. And in the Eurozone, while the European Stability Mechanism committed Eurozone countries to bail out failed banks, they are apparently having second thoughts there as well. On March 25^th, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who played a leading role in imposing the deposit confiscation plan on Cyprus, told reporters that it would be the template for any future bank bailouts, and that “the aim is for the ESM never to have to be used.”

That explains the need for the FDIC-BOE resolution. If the anticipated enabling legislation is passed, the FDIC will no longer need to protect depositor funds; it can just confiscate them.

WORSE THAN A TAX

An FDIC confiscation of deposits to recapitalize the banks is far different from a simple tax on taxpayers to pay government expenses. The government’s debt is at least arguably the people’s debt, since the government is there to provide services for the people. But when the banks get into trouble with their derivative schemes, they are not serving depositors, who are not getting a cut of the profits. Taking depositor funds is simply theft.

What should be done is to raise FDIC insurance premiums and make the banks pay to keep their depositors whole, but premiums are already high; and the FDIC, like other government regulatory agencies, is subject to regulatory capture.  Deposit insurance has failed, and so has the private banking system that has depended on it for the trust that makes banking work.

The Cyprus haircut on depositors was called a “wealth tax” and was written off by commentators as “deserved,” because much of the money in Cypriot accounts belongs to foreign oligarchs, tax dodgers and money launderers. But if that template is applied in the US, it will be a tax on the poor and middle class. Wealthy Americans don’t keep most of their money in bank accounts.  They keep it in the stock market, in real estate, in over-the-counter derivatives, in gold and silver, and so forth.

Are you safe, then, if your money is in gold and silver? Apparently not – if it’s stored in a safety deposit box in the bank.  Homeland Security has reportedly told banks that it has authority to seize the contents of safety deposit boxes without a warrant when it’s a matter of “national security,” which a major bank crisis no doubt will be.

THE SWEDISH ALTERNATIVE: NATIONALIZE THE BANKS

Another alternative was considered but rejected by President Obama in 2009: nationalize mega-banks that fail. In a February 2009 article titled “Are Uninsured Bank Depositors in Danger?“, Felix Salmon discussed a newsletter by Asia-based investment strategist Christopher Wood, in which Wood wrote:

It is . . . amazing that Obama does not understand the political appeal of the nationalization option. . . . [D]espite this latest setback nationalization of the banks is coming sooner or later because the realities of the situation will demand it. The result will be shareholders wiped out and bondholders forced to take debt-for-equity swaps, if not hopefully depositors.

On whether depositors could indeed be forced to become equity holders, Salmon commented:

It’s worth remembering that depositors are unsecured creditors of any bank; usually, indeed, they’re by far the largest class of unsecured creditors.

President Obama acknowledged that bank nationalization had worked in Sweden, and that the course pursued by the US Fed had not worked in Japan, which wound up instead in a “lost decade.”  But Obama opted for the Japanese approach because, according to Ed Harrison, “Americans will not tolerate nationalization.”

But that was four years ago. When Americans realize that the alternative is to have their ready cash transformed into “bank stock” of questionable marketability, moving failed mega-banks into the public sector may start to have more appeal.

____________

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and the author of eleven books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Her websites are webofdebt.com and ellenbrown.com. For details of the June 2013 Public Banking Institute conference in San Rafael, California, see here.

==============