Here're some articles concerning US/UK/Israeli hits, targeted assassinations, really: The first two, in French, are about a new book by Abdul Ruzibiza and concern the 6 April 1994 murder by SAM of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, carried out by the 'Commando Network' of the, then, leader of the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) 'rebels', who had extended their bloody occupation of that tiny country since October 1990 or February 1991; and the, now, sorta elected authoritarian ruler of Rwanda—and the, always, tight rat fuck buddy of Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Wes Clark, and a strategic US/UK/Israeli/Ugandan intelligence asset--General Paul Kagame; and the other, in English, from the Arab weekly Al Ahram, about the more recent--and much discussed on this blog--targeted, though very messy, wacking by car bomb, carried out as a joint criminal enterprise by the CIA, Mossad, and Lebanese Christian Phalangists (with the aid of Italian intelligence and certain Syrian stooges) of the former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.
Since the cross-hairs of Western Waste Capitalism (or Imperialism, if you prefer) have recently fallen on Syria--a more sensible target, small and butt up against the current killing floor of Iraq, for the over-extended US-led Wehrmacht than either Iran or DPRK (N Korea)--the UN/Human Rights blackmail machine has been kicked up several gears to justify an Iraq-style regime change by socio-political lobotomy and shockingly awful liquifaction of this, yet another, perennial enemy of Israel. Remember, though Israel continues its choke hold on the Golan Heights, seized form Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981, and where lie the head waters of the Jordan river, Israel's primary source of fresh water, there is still a great deal of 'strategic water' that passes through Syria and Iraq. So, if you want to look back over previous articles about who picked up the Hariri contract, you'll see that the sole beneficiary of that hit was US/UK/Israeli Imperialism.
Likewise with the murder of President Habyarimana, the Hutu leader of the Rwandan Revolution, who was taken down along with his Burundian homologue, Cyprien Ntaryamira, and the head of the Rwandan Army, as well as several of their general staff: the creation of a corridor to facilitate Western business (mining) interest's ripping and running off with strategic minerals (including Israel's favorite, Blue and White Nile water bound for Egypt, and hi-tech's life's blood, Coltan) from Sudan through Uganda to Congo, had to pass through Rwanda and Burundi, where the governments (though, in the case of Burundi, not the military) were run by 85% majoritarian Hutus, and the US, the UK and Israel invested heavily in training and materiel to make sure the 10% minoritarian Tutsis (sometimes called the 'Jews of Africa', get it?) and their old-school feudalist order, would prevail in the Great Lakes region no matter what the cost in innocent human lives--which is up to about 9 million with the RPF's ravaging of Eastern Congo, continuous since 1996.
So, finally, the much awaited (by me, at least) book by Abdul Ruzibiza, a major Tutsi player in the RPF war machine, reiterates what was written a couple years back in his 14-page report to French anti-terrorist judge Jean Louis Bruguière (though these articles speak only of the Habyarimana shoot-down): that the systematic liquidation of the Rwandan nation and its people began with the RPF invasion from Uganda in October 1990, and received a big push for a final offensive from the US/Belgian prepared and Kagame-ordered 6 April 1994 missile strike on the Rwandan president's plane--which, like 911, has never received a decent investigation from the UN, the Arusha Tribunal, or anyone else, really.
Actually, an Australian lawyer, Michael Hourigan, was commissioned to write a report by, then, chief prosecutor of the ICTR, Louise Arbour, but when this brief report concluded what everyone in-country had know all along, and what President Habyarimana was eerily prescient of when he shared with his close friend Maréchal Mobuto the intelligence he'd received from his agents in the RPF camp that foretold of his imminent doom--that Kagame had ordered the murder of Habyarimana in order to create the proper atmosphere for a final RPF offensive and the obviation of any planned elections for a transitional 'power-sharing' government--the Hourigan report was quickly smothered in its crib. ;
But like most of the important writing on Rwanda, Ruzibiza's new book is in French and won't have much of an effect on world opinion (even the French seem quite content to consider themselves 'tous genocidaires'), now so intoxicated by the UN/Human Rights propaganda distillery and its bilious spew like Hot'L Rwanda (also discussed elsewhere on this blog), which, by the way, opens here in Krakow--and perhaps across Poland, this Friday, 4 November, the day before 'Warsaw Rebuilds' opens. I'm hoping to create some discussion on Rwanda here in Soros Nitrous Oxide Land. But, again like 911, the disinformation about Rwandan Genocide of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by the Interahamwe militia--to which even Ruzibiza seems to stipulate!--is by now gosple and folks just don't want to know otherwise.
And for another bit of late-breaking and certain to be globally ignored news: My friend and noted attorney (the Perry Mason of the Left), Chris Black, who is currently before the Arusha Tribunal defending another friend and the General in The General's Book on Rwanda (Chapter One of which lies somewhere on this blog), Major General Augustin Nindiliyimana,--Chris told me in an email that the defense in the Military II trial had recently submitted incontrovertible evidence that the 'Dallaire fax', the fax that announced the impending Hutu genocide of the Tutsis and that Phillip Gourevitch used for the title of his nasty little book, 'We Wish To Inform You. . . etc.', did not originate from either the Hutu government, the Interahamwe, Dallaire or his snitch, Jean Pierre machin, le balance, but was cobble together and disseminated by the dark forces of MI6, British Intelligence.
You heard about this yet? You care? --mc]
****************************************
Attentat contre l'avion d'Habyarimana
un ancien rebelle accuse Kagame
Qu'on se le dise. Le livre du Lieutenant Abdul Ruzibiza a déjà
fait mouche. N'a-t-on pas entendu hier François Ngarambe,
Secrétaire général du FPR, en première ligne pour tenter de
contredire les révélations de Ruzibiza dans un échange
intéressant sur les antennes de BBC Grands Lacs. On l'aura
bien compris, le FPR n'entend plus s'en remettre, pour sa
défense, à l'éloquence de son vieux porte-parole en la personne
de Servilien Manzi Sebasoni.
Alors que Ruzibiza semble à l'aise dans sa démarche, François
Ngarambe s'en est pris personnellement à son adversaire au
lieu de démonter son argumentation. "Il serait urgent
d'examiner l'état de santé de ce garçon" a claironné le dignitaire
du FPR en accusant Abdul Ruzibiza "d'avoir emporté dans son exil
la caisse de ses camarades"!
Manifestement excédé, le dirigeant du FPR a fustigé, sans
les nommer, certaines forces qui manipuleraient l'auteur
de "Rwanda, l'histoire secrète" parue aux Editions du Panama,
hier jeudi 27/10/2005 à Paris.
La parution du livre de Ruzibiza intervient en tout cas dans
un contexte particulièrement délicat pour Paul Kagame et
ses fidèles.
Le procès de Théoneste Bagosora à Arusha qui ne saurait faire
l'impasse sur l'attentat du 06/04/1994, l'enquête espagnole qui
inquiète les milieux militaro-politiques de Kigali, celle du Juge
français Jean Louis Bruguière toujours aussi menaçante, l'enquête
sur l'assassinat des évêques et autres ecclésiastiques à Gakurazo
en juin 1994, l'arrestation et l'emprisonnement du Père Guy
Theunis et la délicate négociation engagée entre Kigali et
Bruxelles en vue de sa libération, la naissance du RPR/ARPR-
Inkeragutabara, un mouvement dissident du FPR ainsi que
le retour pacifique au Rwanda des rebelles des FDLR sans
oublier les Forces de résistance de l'intérieur(FRI article 3).
Kagame et ses amis pourront-ils imposer encore pour longtemps
le silence sur leurs responsabilités dans la tragédie rwandaise
et régionale? Rien n'est moins sûr. D'autant moins sûr que
la réaction prompte des Nations Unies à l'assassinat de Rafic
Hariri, Premier Ministre libanais, pose la question de savoir
pourquoi garder le mutisme sur un attentat qui, non seulement,
aura coûté la vie à deux Chefs d'Etats africains et leur suite,
mais a surtout déclenché le génocide des Tutsi.
Il est cependant permis de douter de la volonté des Etats-Unis,
de la Belgique, de la France et des Nations Unies de faire
la lumière sur des événements dans lesquels ils sont loin d'être
innocents. Alors qui doit payer? Les sacrifices consentis par
les peuples du Rwanda et de la RDC n'ont suffi car les revendications
ne cessent de se multiplier.
Faut-il, dès lors, s'attendre au lâchage de Paul Kagame par ses protecteurs
avant tout préoccupés d'éviter toute implication judiciaire dans l'attentat
du 06/04/94? Plaise au ciel que le Rwanda et les Grands Lacs soient
préservés d'une nouvelle tragédie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Attentat contre l'avion d'Habyarimana: un ancien rebelle accuse Kagame
AFP 27.10.05 | 09h51
Un ancien officier rwandais, le lieutenant Abdul Ruzibiza,
affirme dans un livre sorti jeudi en France que le général
Paul Kagame, alors chef des rebelles tutsi et actuel président
du Rwanda, a commandité l'attentat contre l'avion du président
hutu Juvénal Habyarimana en 1994. Cet attentat, le 6 avril 1994,
fut le déclencheur du génocide de 800.000 Tutsis et Hutus
modérés commis par les extrémistes hutus.
A l'époque, Kagame était le chef du mouvement rebelle tutsi
du Front patriotique rwandais (FPR). L'auteur du livre, "Rwanda,
l'histoire secrète", également tutsi, affirme avoir appartenu au
"network commando", un réseau d'information et d'action mis
en place par les rebelles pour renverser le pouvoir hutu depuis
leur offensive de 1990.
"J'ai voulu témoigner sur les vraies responsabilités du génocide
des Tutsis: celle des Interahamwe (milices hutues), qui avaient
planifié les massacres des Tutsis, mais aussi celle de Kagame,
qui a voulu prendre rapidement le pouvoir, alors qu'une autre
tactique militaire, certes plus lente, nous aurait permis de prendre
Kigali en épargnant beaucoup de vies", a expliqué à l'AFP l'auteur,
de passage à Paris pour la sortie de son livre (éditions Panama),
préfacé par deux universitaires spécialistes du Rwanda, Claudine
Vidal et André Guichaoua.
Selon le lieutenant, dont toute la famille a été tuée pendant
le génocide et qui est réfugié politique en Norvège, Kagame
prend en 1994 la décision extrême d'abattre l'avion du président
Habyarimana, "car il craint que la communauté internationale
n'impose aux deux camps un désarmement, un gouvernement
de transition, et des élections qu'il a peu de chance de gagner",
en raison du déséquilibre numérique entre Tutsis (10 pc de la
population) et Hutus.
Evoquant une ultime réunion des rebelles sur l'attentat,
le lieutenant affirme: "le général Paul Kagame dirigeait
la réunion, c'est lui qui a donné l'ordre d'abattrel'avion".
Puis il poursuit: "l'avion a été abattu par deux tireurs.
Le premier, le caporal Eric Hakizimana, a touché l'avion
sur l'aile droite sans pouvoir le descendre. Le deuxième
tireur, le sous-lieutenant Frank Nziza, a lancé le second
missile 3 à 5 secondes après, et a abattu définitivement
l'avion". L'attentat contre l'avion, piloté par des Français,
de Juvénal Habyarimana fait l'objet d'une enquête judiciaire
en France.
Après le génocide, une autre hypothèse a été avancée: celle
d'extrémistes hutus qui auraient abattu (ou fait abattre) l'avion,
car le président Habyarimana aurait lâché trop de lest à la rébellion
et à l'opposition.
L'auteur accuse également Kagame d'avoir fait massacrer des civils
hutus dès les premiers jours du génocide des Tutsis, et d'avoir continué
jusque dans l'est de la République démocratique du Congo, en 1997,
avec la longue traque de réfugiés hutus auxquels s'étaient mêlés des
ex-Interahamwe. Ces accusations du lieutenant avaient déjà été publiées
par la presse française en mars 2004, à la veille du 10ème anniversaire
du génocide. Elles avaient été rejetées par Kagame et avaient provoqué
une crise entre Paris et Kigali.
***********************************************************
Detlev Mehlis' initial report on the assassination of Rafik Al-Hariri raises new political scenarios in the Middle East. Al-Ahram Weekly provides special in-depth coverage and expert analysis (see opposite page) on the various political and legal issues stemming from the investigation's findings
Out of our hands
Writing from Damascus, Sami Moubayed reports on Syria's condemnation of the Mehlis report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Syrians demonstrated in Damascus and Aleppo on Monday against the release and contents of Detlev Mehlis's report on the United Nations investigations into the assassination of Lebanese former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri. The demonstrators carried various signs and called out different slogans, condemning the report as being authored in the United States and claiming that it was unprofessional.
But, in fact, most demonstrators did not know why they were protesting and had never read the report. They just knew that it targeted their country and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Indeed, it was a holiday from school for children and from work for government employees. Older -- and perhaps wiser -- citizens sat troubled in their offices and homes.
This was, by no standards, a good week for Damascus. While the Syrians criticised the Mehlis report, the world praised it as professional. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added to the pressure, saying that now the Syrians had to be held accountable.
The world is now watching Syria. Can it respond affirmatively and conduct a rapprochement with the international community? To many observers, this report was the final warning. It was not merely an accusation against Syria. It was an ultimatum to the Syrians.
The report included the names of high- ranking Syrian officials accused of conspiring to kill Al-Hariri. The list of Syrian and Lebanese names included Maher Al-Assad, the brother of the Syrian president, Asef Shaukat, his brother-in-law, Hassan Khalil, the former director of Syrian Intelligence, and Bahjat Suleiman, the former director of internal security.
Mehlis had no evidence whatsoever to incriminate any of these men, except the unconfirmed testimony of a Syrian agent who claimed to have worked at the Syrian Intelligence in Lebanon. The Syrians insist that these men are innocent and that their names were mentioned without any evidence against them only to tarnish their reputations and that of Syria.
It has now been proven that the man who incriminated them is an imposter and a liar. These names were intentionally leaked to the press, through CNN, then deleted in the final text of the report that was made public. The US was making a point of its own through Mehlis. If Syria cooperates on all issues, including Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, the first version of the report -- which includes the Syrian officials' names -- will be forgotten.
Now Syria has until mid-December to prove its willingness to cooperate with the Americans. If it fails, a more aggressive report will be issued against Damascus by the end of this year. For its part, Syria has understood the message. It has agreed to let Mehlis interview Syrian officials as witnesses outside Syria and pledged many times, most recently through Al-Assad on CNN, that any Syrian involved in the crime would be charged for treason.
Everyone in Syria believes that the Mehlis report is a political document used to incriminate and weaken Damascus. It is based on poor evidence, unconfirmed testimonies from Syrian witnesses, and declarations from anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon. It has no pictures to support its alleged findings, no recordings incriminating Syrian officials, and no direct, truly incriminating evidence.
Rather, it sends mixed signals to the Syrians. Neither does it explicitly say that Syrian officials were involved in the assassination, nor does it say that they are innocent. It creates many theories about Syrian involvement but does not confirm a single one. The report reads: "There is probable cause to believe that the decision to assassinate former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organised without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services." It does not directly accuse the Syrians, therefore.
Legally there is an important difference between claiming that the assassination could not have been carried out without the knowledge of the aforementioned security forces and claiming that they were actually responsible.
The report also raises many eyebrows because it does not mention the names of the Syrian "witnesses" except for Mohamed Zuhayr Al-Saddiq, which was leaked to the press during investigations. This greatly troubles Syrians. By not mentioning names the report leaves very little room for Syria to manoeuvre. How can Syria question or interrogate unidentified Syrians? One witness -- quoted in the report -- said a senior Syrian official told him one month before Al-Hariri's murder that "an earthquake" was about to happen in Lebanon and it would re-write Lebanese history.
Syria has objected that it cannot assume such a statement is true because it does not know who the Syrian officer is, nor does it know the name of the witness, nor does it know the exact text of the conversation. More importantly, it cannot confirm this claim with any other testimony. And Syria does not believe the testimony of most of the witnesses.
Media sources in Syria have said that one of the two Syrian witnesses mentioned frequently in the report is an agent of Rifaat Al-Assad, Bashar Al-Assad's uncle, who was banished in 1982 for trying to seize power. Since Syria came under fire from the US, Rifaat has actively been seeking a comeback.
Syrians also claim that the other witness, Al-Saddiq, is an imposter with a criminal record in Syria. He claimed to be a senior Syrian officer while in reality he was nothing but a foot soldier and a traitor. He claims to have privy information about the assassination, arguing that he was one of the conspirators under orders from his masters in the Syrian Intelligence. The Syrians believe that he is a liar.
But apparently, Mehlis believes him, reminding us of how former Iraqi officials who had fled to the US in the 1990s came out to "confirm" that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) before the US-led coalition launched its invasion in 2003. They just wanted to incriminate Saddam and were lying through their teeth.
The Syrian witness claims, according to section 96 of the report, that the decision to kill Al-Hariri was taken in Damascus in July 2004. The Syrian government is saying that, had such information been backed with evidence, such as recorded talks, pictures, and the testimony of more than one witness, then one could not but believe it. But the only basis for such an accusation is the testimony of the Syrian witness.
Another witness claims to have met Mustafa Hamdan, head of the Lebanese Republican Guard, who is close to Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the Syrians. This witness claims that Hamdan said they were fed up with Al-Hariri and wanted "to send him on a trip". Anybody with the slightest intelligence would have realised that he would be held accountable for his words once the target was hit. Assassins don't usually want to be caught. They don't leave behind obvious traces. They wear gloves when pulling the trigger. They operate in complete secrecy. They don't go around telling everybody they know that they are about to commit murder.
In conclusion, the report does not incriminate Syria. It says it is probable that the murder could not have been done without an approval or involvement from Damascus. Yet now that the investigations have been postponed until December, it leaves room to say (if Syria cooperates) that after further investigation, it has been proven that Al-Hariri was killed by Lebanese officers, with no direct involvement from Syria.
Chances are, it will not say that Syria was innocent. Rather, the best case scenario would be for Mehlis to say that Syria shoulders responsibility because it was in charge of security in Lebanon, or that Syria knew about the plot and turned a blind eye. There is no use for the Syrians to insist that they are innocent because, guilty or not, the report will find a way to incriminate them.
The question is: what is the level of incrimination? If the Syrians cooperate, the report will blame Syria as a whole for leading, one way or another, to the death of Al-Hariri. At first glance this may seem as an embarrassment but in reality it is much less of an embarrassment than the report saying that Syrian officials, by name, are responsible for the murder of Al-Hariri. The regime as a whole will be targeted, with isolation and sanctions, but this will leave room for a future rapprochement similar to the case in Libya, when Muammar Qaddafi decided to cooperate with America, and end his country's isolation despite the fact that he had been responsible with Lockerbie.
The fact that Syria is not Libya, Al-Assad is not Qaddafi, and Syria is innocent unlike Qaddafi who was guilty of Lockerbie, is actually irrelevant to the Americans at this stage.
C a p t i o n : Tens of thousands of Syrians demonstrated on Monday in Damascus to protest against the Mehlis report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri. The demonstration, organised in a show of support for Bashar Al-Assad's regime, came a day before the UN Security Council debated the report
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/766/re81.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment