Several killed & injured in Southern Lebanon clashes

Armed clashes erupted in the Southern city of Sidon in Lebanon between supporters of the controversial Salafist Sheikh, Ahmad Al-Asir, and the Popular Nasserite Organization killing and injuring several people, including a Hezbollah official who was injured while attempting to calm the situation down.

As a result of the fatal clashes, Lebanese Prime Minister, “Muhammad Najib Miqati”, who condemned the sectarian violence was prompted to call for an urgent security meeting among South Lebanon’s Security Council and Lebanon’s Interior Minister.

The clashes first begun when the Salafist Sheikh had opposed the raising of banners related to “Martyrs’ Day”, a day which glorifies Lebanese martyrs who were killed by the Israeli war , and banners related to the shia community’s mourning of the Martyrdom of the Shia Imam, Imam Hosssein during Ashura- the 10th day of Muharram in the Islamic calendar.

Despite the resistance movement’s ordering the removal of the banners answering the call of Lebanon’s Interior Minister, “Marwan Charbel”, to contain the matter, the Salafist Sheikh led his heavily armed supporters in attempting to remove a resistance monument by force and attacked a neighborhood known to be inhabited by shia families.

Later in the afternoon, “Al-Asir’s”, supporters were reported to have attacked the widow of a former Lebanese MP and founder of the Popular Naserite Organization beating her bodyguard brutally. They were also reported to have held Lebanese officers at gunpoint in a separate occasion on the same day. In response, the Lebanese Army has cordoned off the Mosque in which Sheikh Al-Asir is known to be the Imam, declaring that it will fight back with fire against any armed attack.

Cautious calm amid heavy deployment of security forces and checkpoints at every corner are witnessed in the southern city of Sidon after the new wave of violence which has swept through the city harvesting lives. With tensions running high and widespread or illegal arms, security officials have warned that they will be striking with an iron fist against whoever puts the country’s security in jeopardy and attempts to cause strife. Continue reading

US to Russia: Give Up or Swim in Our Sea of Syrian Blood

US Attempts to Mass-Murder Its Way to Victory in Syria.
By Tony Cartalucci, LandDestroyer Report

June 6, 2012 – As revelations emerge that the violence in Syria has been premeditated by Western planners years before the Arab Spring unfolded, and as the facade of “democratic aspirations” collapse in the face of a sectarian-driven bloodbath, US officials and Western think-tank policy makers speaking with Bloomberg have stated that their final message to Russia in order to begin regime change is essentially this: the violence will continue to be purposefully escalated until regime change is accomplished – Russia can capitulate now and have a say in how a transition occurs, or capitulate later and suffer exclusion as was the case in Libya.

Bloomberg cites “US officials” who claim they are meeting with Russia to seek an “orderly transition.”

Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
Just how close the US is, or believes it is to actually overthrowing the Syrian government is a matter of varied opinion. What is not opinion is the fact that the US has openly conspired to “bleed” Syria to death to either perpetually limit its geopolitical influence throughout the Middle East, or to eventually precipitate the fall of the government. This was stated very clearly in Brookings Institution’s “Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf):”

“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” –page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:

“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have  sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.”  –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Continue reading