https://misteri1963.blogspot.com.esgoogle.com, pub-5827770858464401, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0https://misteri1963.blogspot.com.argoogle.com, pub-5827770858464401, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0https://misteri1963.blogspot.com.cogoogle.com, pub-5827770858464401, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0https://misteri1963.blogspot.com.brgoogle.com, pub-5827770858464401, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0 google.com, pub-5827770858464401, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0 Misteri1963

Translate

miércoles, 20 de septiembre de 2017

'SIL Commander’ Arrested by Libyan Authorities Exposed as Israeli Mossad Agent



September 11, 2017



Source: The Event Chronicle

By Jay Syrmopoulos

Benghazi, Libya – Lending credence to the theory that ISIS operates as a strategic asset of the Israeli Mossad, Libyan security forces have arrested an ISIS leader in the north-eastern Libyan city of Benghazi – who just so happens to be a Mossad agent.

The man arrested, Ephraim Benjamin, was allegedly an Israeli Mossad agent who began his operation following the 2011 toppling of the Libyan government that resulted in the murder of Libyan President Moammar Ghaddafi, according to the Israeli website Inian Merkazi, which translates to “Central Issues.”

The Mossad agent reportedly held a leading position in ISIS after mingling with Libyans during the fall of Ghaddafi. He then became a prominent imam of a large mosque in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, before becoming a ISIS leader who commanded a contingent of upwards of 200 terrorists.

Known in Libya as Abu Hafs, the Mossad agent was arrested and accused by Libyan authorities of gathering intelligence information for the Israeli government.

It is believed that Benjamin, aka Hafs, was a Mossad “Arabist,” which are undercover Israeli spies with Arab features, and who speak fluent Arabic in local dialects, according to the Masr Alarabia website.

The Mossad has a long history of utilizing “Arabists” to infiltrate Palestinian protests and arrest demonstrators as well as assassinating Palestinian anti-occupation activists, according to Masr Alarabia.

Libyan media outlets describe Benjamin as the “Mossad sheikh” who was arrested by local authorities.

Inian Merkazi cited the incident as evidence used by Arab media to justify the argument — popular in much of the Arab world — that Israel is complicit in the rise of ISIS in the region and uses the group as a strategic asset.

Additionally, the fact that ISIS has never so much as attempted an attack within the state of Israel bolsters that line of thinking.

ISIS is popularly believed to have begun official operations within Libya in February of 2015 by beheading 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in the city of Sirte, but terror operations were believed to have been committed by the terrorist group prior to that date.

Seemingly confirming an Israel-ISIS connection, a 15-page report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the work of the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) maintained regular contact with the Islamic State since May of 2013.

While initial reports by the IDF claimed they provided medical care for civilians on the Israeli-Syrian border, UN observers confirmed direct contact between ISIS and IDF soldiers – which included, but was not limited to, medical care.

“Throughout the reporting period, UNDOF frequently observed armed members of the opposition interacting with the IDF across the cease-fire line,” according to the report. “On one occasion UNDOF observed the IDF on the Alpha side [inside Israel]handing over two boxes to armed opposition on the Bravo side [inside Syria].”

These activities in concert seem to indicate a coordinated and ongoing support of the Islamic State by Israel. Essentially, the Israelis are utilizing ISIS as a proxy force in an effort to topple the Assad government.

Tellingly, when the U.S. began operations against the Islamic State, the Israeli high command was reluctant to support the move and called the actions of the United States a mistake.

For those not understanding why Israel would support ISIS, it comes down to geopolitical strategy. The Israeli government perceives allies Iran and Syria as direct threats to the Jewish state, as both maintain significant regional military capabilities and political clout.

Israel’s support for ISIS would seem to confirm that they believe in the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

In this particular circumstance support for the Islamic State equates to Israel eliminating geopolitical rival Syria – under Bashar al-Assad – which would then negate Iranian influence in the region.

It comes down to the simple fact that ISIS is a useful tool for Israel to impose it’s geopolitical will, without having to directly involve themselves in a hot conflict, thus seeming as if they are uninvolved in the conflict.

Once the Syrian government has been toppled, and Iranian influence on the Israeli border largely negated, Israel could then set its sights on the Islamic State – provided they were no longer of use to the Jewish state.

While states such as Israel and the United States often loudly proclaim to be against terrorism, in reality, both governments utilize terrorist groups, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, to undermine regimes they wish to overthrow or gain influence within.

Please share this article to expose the complicity of states such as Israel and the United States in fomenting Islamic terrorism!

Referendum processes and models: from Montenegro to Scotland


The processes that have led different countries to become independent, or to fail in the attempt, are very diverse and  few are extrapolable to the case of Catalonia . They have been traumatic and velvet; agreed and unilateral.
When the latter have been successful, the recognition of the new States has been involved in discussions on international legality that have been resolved in the interests of third countries.
The  Venice Commission established in 2009 guidelines to provide legality and legitimacy to such processes in Europe. The Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, communicated by letter to the Commission the intention to hold a referendum agreed with the Spanish Government.
The body replied in June that both the referendum and cooperation with the same commission to carry out the referendum should be done "in agreement with the Spanish authorities."

REFERENDUM FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND

September 18, 2014.
Agreement between Scotland and United Kingdom. Approved by the Parliament of Scotland. The question was:
Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or no

REFERENDUM ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF MONTENEGRO

21 May 2006
Agreement between Montenegro and Serbia. Accepted by the European Union with the requirement that the participation exceeds 50% and it does earn by at least 55%. The question was:
Do you want Montenegro to be an independent State with complete legal and international legitimacy? Yes or no

REFERENDUM ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF CROATIA

19 May 1991.
Unilateral with respect to Yugoslavia. You could choose between two options:
1. Sovereign and independent  
State 2. Federal State of Yugoslavia

QUEBEC REFERENDUM

30 October 1995.
Agreement between Canada and Quebec. The question was:
Do you agree that the region of Quebec should be sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political association, within the terms of the law, respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on 12 June 1995 Yes or no

DISSOLUTION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA (The divorce of velvet)

1 January 1993.
There was an agreement between the Czech and Slovak republics to dissolve Czechoslovakia and create two new states. 
The respective parliaments approved independence and negotiated the resulting processes.

KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM

September 22, 1991.
Following the unilateral declaration of the Kosovo Provincial Assembly and Metohija, there was an acceptance referendum. The conditions for approval were that at least 66.7% of the population should participate and at least half of the votes should be in favor of independence.
On 17 February 2008, the Kosovar Parliament declared independence unilaterally. Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as a state (nor does Spain).

REFERENDUM OF ICELAND 1944

May 24.
Iceland's unilateral decision on Denmark during the Nazi occupation.

REFERENDUM ON DONETSCK AND LUGANSK POLITICAL STATUS

May 11, 2014.
Unilateral referendum unrecognized by Ukraine, the US and the European Union.
Do you support the act of state independence of the Republic of Donetsk [Lugansk]?  Yes or no



Procesos y modelos de referéndum:de Montenegro a Escocia


Los procesos que han llevado a diferentes países a independizarse, o a fracasar en el intento, son muy diversos y pocos son extrapolables al caso de Cataluña. Los ha habido traumáticos y de terciopelo; pactados y unilaterales. 
Cuando estos últimos han sido exitosos, el reconocimiento de los nuevos Estados se ha visto envuelto en discusiones sobre la legalidad internacional que se han resuelto según los intereses de terceros países.
La Comisión de Venecia estableció en 2009 unas pautas para dotar de legalidad y legitimidad a este tipo de procesos en Europa. El presidente catalán, Carles Puigdemont, comunicó por carta a la Comisión la intención de celebrar un referéndum pactado con el Gobierno español. 
El organismo contestó en junio que tanto el referéndum como la cooperación con la misma comisión para llevar a cabo el referéndum debía hacerse “de acuerdo con las autoridades españolas”.

REFERÉNDUM PARA LA INDEPENDENCIA DE ESCOCIA

18 de septiembre de 2014.
Acuerdo entre Escocia y Reino Unido. Aprobado por el Parlamento de Escocia. La pregunta fue:
¿Debería Escocia ser un país independiente? Sí o No

REFERÉNDUM SOBRE LA INDEPENDENCIA DE MONTENEGRO

21 de mayo de 2006.
Acuerdo entre Montenegro y Serbia. Aceptado por la Unión Europea con el requisito de que la participación superase el 50% y el sí ganase por al menos un 55%. La pregunta fue:
¿Desea usted que Montenegro sea un Estado independiente con completa legitimidad legal e internacional? Sí o No

REFERÉNDUM SOBRE LA INDEPENDENCIA DE CROACIA

19 de mayo de 1991.
Unilateral respecto de Yugoslavia. Se podía elegir entre dos opciones:
1. Estado soberano e independiente 
2. Estado federal de Yugoslavia

REFERÉNDUM DE QUEBEC

30 de octubre de 1995.
Acuerdo entre Canadá y Quebec. La pregunta fue:
¿Está de acuerdo en que la región de Quebec debería ser soberana después de haber hecho una oferta formal a Canadá por una nueva asociación económica y política, dentro de los términos de la ley, respetando el futuro del Quebec y del acuerdo firmado el 12 de junio de 1995? Sí o No

DISOLUCIÓN DE CHECOSLOVAQUIA(El divorcio de terciopelo)

1 de enero de 1993.
Hubo un acuerdo entre las repúblicas checa y eslovaca para disolver Checoslovaquia y crear dos nuevos Estados. 
Los respectivos parlamentos aprobaron la independencia y negociaron los procesos resultantes de las mismas.

REFERÉNDUM DE INDEPENDENCIA DE KOSOVO

22 de septiembre de 1991.
Tras la declaración unilateral de la Asamblea Provincial de Kosovo y Metohija, hubo un referéndum de aceptación. Las condiciones para la aprobación eran que participara al menos el 66,7% de la población y que al menos la mitad de los votos fuesen a favor de la independencia.
El 17 de febrero de 2008, el Parlamento kosovar declaró la independencia de forma unilateral. Serbia no reconoce a Kosovo como Estado (tampoco lo hace España).

REFERÉNDUM DE ISLANDIA de 1944

24 de mayo.
Decisión unilateral de Islandia respecto a Dinamarca durante la ocupación nazi.

REFERÉNDUM SOBRE EL ESTATUS POLÍTICO DE DONETSCK Y LUGANSK

11 de mayo de 2014.
Referéndum unilateral sin reconocimiento por parte de Ucrania, EEUU y la Unión Europea.
¿Apoya usted el acto de independencia estatal de la República de Donetsk [Lugansk]? Sí o No

Khrushchev explains on Ukrainian television the historical situation of Crimea


Serguei Khrushchev



As we have already explained in another entry , in times of the USSR the Crimean peninsula was part of the Russian Federation until February 19, 1954, in Khrushchev's time, when it was transferred to Ukraine, as we have said, in an illegal way. It should also be remembered that Khrushchov, secretary general of the CPSU from 1953 to 1964, was Ukrainian and recently his son Serguei has appeared on Ukrainian television to explain that in 1954 the change in the administrative ascription of Crimea was made for economic reasons: construction of the North Crimean canal. "The Gosplan assured that it was better to build  [the canal]  under the authority of a single legal person"



, said Khrushchev on television, noting that the decision did not intervene political factors.Khrushchev's son denied the Russians that it was an attempt to cajole the Ukrainian bureaucracy, nor a gift to my mother, born in western Ukraine. "It was a structural and fair decision. And Crimea knew a rebirth. Many vineyards were planted , "he added to the cameras. Khrushchev's son is like his father: his neurons do not work like other humans. The construction of the canal began in 1961, that is to say, seven years after the peninsula was part of Ukraine.





The canal was closed definitively in 2014 and during its operation brought the water of the Dnieper river to the peninsula, that was used mainly for the irrigation of the agricultural crops. The annexation of Crimea to Russia has been rejected by most countries of the world, although it was widely adopted in the three consultations that have been held since the fall of the USSR in 1990. Only North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Nicaragua voted in favor. More information:







Nikita Khrushchov with Stalin in 1936


Nikita Khrushchev with José Stalin


Jruschov explica en la televisión ucraniana la situación histórica de Crimea

Serguei Jruschov



Como ya hemos explicado en otra entrada, en tiempos de la URSS la península de Crimea formó parte de la Federación rusa hasta el 19 de febrero de 1954, en tiempos de Jruschov, cuando fue transferida a Ucrania, como dijimos, de forma ilegal.

Hay que recordar también que Jruschov, secretario general del PCUS entre 1953 y 1964, era ucraniano y recientemente su hijo Serguei ha aparecido en la televisión ucraniana para explicar que en 1954 el cambio en la adscripción administrativa de Crimea se hizo por razones económicas: por la construccion del canal de Crimea del norte.

“El Gosplan aseguró que era mejor construir [el canal] bajo la autoridad de una única persona jurídica”, dijo Jruschov en la televisión, destacando que en la decisión no intervinieron factores políticos.

El hijo de Jruschov desmintió a los rusos que sostienen que fue un intento de engatusar a la burocracia ucraniana, ni tampoco un regalo a mi madre, nacida en Ucrania occidental. “Fue una decisión estructural y justa. Y Crimea conoció un renacimiento. Se plantaron muchos viñedos”, añadió ante las cámaras.

Al hijo de Jruschov le ocurre como a su padre: no le funcionan las neuronas como a los demás humanos. La construcción del canal comenzó en 1961, es decir, siete años después de que la península formara parte de Ucrania.

El canal fue cerrado definitivamente en 2014 y durante su funcionamiento llevaba el agua del río Dnieper a la península, que se utilizaba principalmente para la irrigación de los cultivos agrícolas.

La anexión de Crimea a Rusia ha sido rechazada por la mayor parte de los países del mundo, a pesar de que fue ampliamente aprobada en las tres consultas que se han celebrado desde la caída de la URSS en 1990. Sólo Corea del norte, Afganistán, Cuba, Venezuela, Siria y Nicaragua votaron a favor.

Más información:




Nikita Jruschov con Stalin en 1936


Nikita Jruschov con José Stalin


Entrada destacada

PROYECTO EVACUACIÓN MUNDIAL POR EL COMANDO ASHTAR

SOY IBA OLODUMARE, CONOCIDO POR VOSOTROS COMO VUESTRO DIOS  Os digo hijos míos que el final de estos tiempos se aproximan.  Ningú...