Egypt's Precarious Balancing Act

December 12, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In 2011, the United States successfully overthrew the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak amid the regional so-called Arab Spring. In place of President Mubarak's government, rose the Muslim Brotherhood, a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) backed political front that has served their, and their Western sponsors' interests for nearly a century post-Ottoman Empire.

The Muslim Brotherhood was also instrumental in setting the stage for destabilization and eventually war in Syria.

To no one's surprise then, under the post-Arab Spring government led by the Muslim Brotherhood's President Mohamed Morsi, Egypt immediately severed ties with allies including Syria, and immediately backed US-GCC regional projects including the overthrow of the Syrian government.

In 2013, amid widespread street protests against the government, a military coup spearheaded by Egyptian army chief General Abedl Fattah el-Sisi, ousted President Morsi. In addition to a nationwide effort to liquidate the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's new government immediately restored ties with the legitimate government of Syria.

The Balancing Act Begins 

Egypt's economy depends almost equally on trade between Europe and the Middle Eastern and North African region (MENA) and to a lesser extent, Asia and North America. It has also become heavily dependent on foreign aid. Until recently, it had depended on tens of billions of dollars from the GCC, and more specifically, Saudi Arabia.

This aid did not come for free. Egypt was expected to back the GCC's (and in turn, Washington's) regional projects including the overthrow of the Syrian government as well as participation in Riyadh's war in Yemen.

But as President Sisi liquidated the Muslim Brotherhood and gradually shifted Egypt's support back behind Syria as well as withdrawing Egypt's symbolic military forces from the Yemeni conflict, Riyadh gradually closed off foreign aid.

Egypt now finds itself dependent on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and facing a similar "carrot and stick" dilemma.


To bolster Cairo's leverage against its Western and Arab creditors, it has attempted to seek closer ties with Russia. This includes several arms deals, improving economic trade and even joint military exercises between the two nations.

Perhaps more importantly than the dollar and cent values of these deals is the geopolitical impact of the most populous Arab nation providing increased political support for Russia as it carries out joint operations with Damascus in nearby Syria.

While Egypt struggles economically, it still remains a potentially potent military power in the region. Analysts have observed that Cairo's geopolitical and strategic contributions, even in limited supply, could help tilt the balance more decisively in Moscow and Damascus' favor, rewriting the entire region's balance of power. Even the prospective ability to do this could be enough to give Egypt breathing room to reestablish itself after its long, post-Arab Spring struggle.

Lingering Threats 

The Muslim Brotherhood still remains a threat in Egypt. Its US-GCC support lies beyond Egypt's borders and constantly threatens to exploit any misstep Cairo might make. Such missteps are eagerly encouraged by the IMF, which has imposed difficult preconditions on Cairo in order to receive much needed aid. Additional taxes and the raising of energy prices provide the perfect pretext for foreign-backed opposition groups to take to the streets, creating once again the chaos that invited violence and turmoil in Egypt in 2011, and to a greater extent in neighboring Libya and nearby Syria.

Egypt's ability to stave off political instability while establishing a sustainable economy and suitable socioeconomic conditions will be key to preventing another upheaval in this immense, pivotal MENA state. Cairo is very likely aware of just how precarious its balancing act has become. Those nations that seek to make its crossing of this latest chasm easier will likely not only play a significant role in sharing Cairo's future prosperity, but also benefit from the regional influence it will be able to project.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�. 

Has the US and Its Allies Used Covert Airdrops to Supply the Islamic State?

December 11, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Is there a way the United States or one of the Islamic State's admitted state sponsors  could be airdropping supplies without triggering suspicion? How have modern airdrop technology and techniques evolved that might make this possible?

When asking these questions, they must first be understood in the context that:

(A.) According to Wikileaks, within the e-mails of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton it was acknowledged that the governments of two of America's closest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were providing material support to the Islamic State (IS);

(B.) That according to the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) (PDF), the US and its allies sought to use a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria as a strategic asset against the Syrian government, precisely where the Islamic (Salafist) State (principality) eventually manifested itself and;

(C.) That the fighting capacity of the Islamic State is on such a large and sustained level, it can only be the result of immense and continuous state sponsorship, including a constant torrent of supplies by either ground or air (or both). 

Within this context, we can already partially answer these questions with confirmed statements made by another of America's closest allies in the region, and a long-time NATO member, Turkey.

It was a May 2016 Washington Times article titled, "Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out," that quoted none other than the Turkish Foreign Minister himself admitting (emphasis added):

Joint operations between Washington and Ankara in Manbji, a well-known waypoint for Islamic State fighters, weapons and equipment coming from Turkey bound for Raqqa,would effectively open �a second front� in the ongoing fight to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Syria�s borders, [Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu] said.

And clearly, by simply looking at maps of the Syrian conflict over the past 5 years, the supply corridors used by the Islamic State, via Turkey, to resupply its region-wide warfare were significant until Kurdish fighters reduced them to one, now the epicenter of a questionable Turkish military incursion into northern Syria.

With the Islamic State's ground routes hindered, is there another way the US or at the very least, admittedly its Islamic State-sponsoring allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar could deliver food, ammunition, weapons and even small vehicles to the militant group, still held up in Syria's eastern city of Al Raqqa?

The answer is yes.

Modern American Airdrop Capabilities 

A system developed years ago for the United States military called Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS) allows cargo aircraft to release airdrops of supplies from as high as 25,000 feet and as far from a drop zone as 25-30 kilometers. A Global Positioning System (GPS) and an airborne guidance unit automate the drop's trajectory to land within 100 meters of a predetermined drop zone. The system also makes it possible to release several drops at once and have them directed toward different drop zones.

The US military has already received this system and it has been in use for years. At least one Persian Gulf state has taken delivery of the system as well, the United Arab Emirates.

Defense Industry Daily would report that in 2013, the UAE would order the system for use with its C-130H and C-17 aircraft. The same report would note that the system is used by several other NATO allies.

The US has admittedly used this system to drop supplies to both Kurdish fighters and anti-government militants in Syria, including at least one instance where supply pallets ended up "accidentally" with the Islamic State.

In addition to airdrops made by large, manned cargo aircraft, the US has admittedly used drones to drop supplies across the region, the Guardian would admit.

The US Already Makes Airdrops to the Islamic State

The Washington Post in a 2014 article titled, "U.S. accidentally delivered weapons to the Islamic State by airdrop, militants say," claims:

The Islamic State has released a new video in which it brags that it recovered weapons and supplies that the U.S. military intended to deliver to Kurdish fighters, who are locked in a fight with the militants over control of the Syrian border town of Kobane. 

The Washington Post also admits (emphasis added):

The incident highlights the difficulty in making sure all airdrops are accurate, even with GPS-guided parachutes that the Air Force commonly uses. Airdrops of food and water to religious minorities trapped on mountain cliffs in northern Iraq in August hit the mark about 80 percent of the time, Pentagon officials said at the time.

This (and similar incidents) may represent an accident in which JPADS performed poorly. Or it could represent an intentional airdrop meant to resupply Islamic State terrorists with the Washington Post article attempting to explain away how GPS-guided airdrops could "accidentally" end up in enemy territory.

Reports from Qatari-based Al Jazeera claim the US has also dropped weapons to militants other than Kurdish fighters. In an article titled, "US drops weapons to rebels battling ISIL in Syria," Al Jazeera claims:

The US has reportedly dropped weapons to rebel fighters in Syria as the UN Security Council considers dropping food and medicine by air to civilians.

It also claims that:

The weapons supplies were airdropped to rebels in Marea, a town in the northern province of Aleppo, on Friday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said. 

"Coalition airplanes dropped ... ammunitions, light weapons and anti-tank weapons to rebels in Marea," Rami Abdel Rahman, the SOHR head, said.

The Guardian would also admit to the US carrying out similar airdrops in Syria.

Knowingly Dropping Supplies into Terrorist-Held Territory 

And more recently, there has been a push to drop supplies into eastern Aleppo in an attempt to prolong the fighting and prevent the complete collapse of a militant presence there, specifically using JPADS, according to the Guardian.

Another Guardian article reveals that US drones have previously been used to make airdrops in the region and might be used again to create an "air bridge" to militant-held areas of Syria.

However, even most US and European sources have admitted to a heavy presence of Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise in the city, Jabhat Al Nusra, a designated foreign terrorist organization even according to the US State Department.

If the US would seriously consider airdropping supplies to Al Qaeda to prolong fighting and to continue confounding Syrian forces, why wouldn't they also airdrop supplies to the Islamic State to do the same?

With the ability to drop supplies from as high as 25,000 feet and from as far away as 25-30 kilometers (and possibly even further as was envisioned by future designs), the US or its allies could appear to be resupplying what it calls "moderate rebels" on one part of the battlefield, while diverting a percentage of its drops into Al Qaeda or Islamic State territory. Drones could also be utilized to create "air bridges" harder to detect than those created using larger cargo aircraft.

With the Islamic State's fighting capacity still potent both in Iraq and Syria, and with Kurdish fighters sealing off ground routes along the Syrian border, unless Turkey within its "buffer zone" is passing weapons onward to the Islamic State, what other means could this terrorist organization be using to resupply its regional war effort, if not by air?

For those seriously committed to defeating the Islamic State and other armed groups operating within Syrian territory, answering this question will bring peace and security one step closer.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

සිංහල Font 500ක්

ඔන්න අදත් අරගෙන ආව ඔයාලට ගොඩක් වැදගත් වෙන දෙයක්. ඒ තමා සිංහල අකුරු 500ක්.  එදිනෙදා ජීවිතයේදී ගොඩක් අයට, පරිගණකය ආශ්‍රිතව කරන වැඩ වලදී සිංහල අකුරු උවමනා වෙනව. ඉතින් මේ තියෙන අකුරු 500 ඔයාලට ගොඩක් වැදගත් වේවි ඒ වැඩ වලදී. අවශ්‍ය නොවුනත් download කරල තියාගන්න පස්සෙ කලෙක හරි උවමනා වේවි.

Password- www.ananmananlokayaweb.com

Thailand Pushes Back Against BBC Propaganda

December 8, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Thailand's government has opened an investigation into BBC's "BBC Thai" and its recent activities. It is accused of maliciously slandering Thailand's newly appointed head of state, King Maha Vajiralongkorn in a recent "profile" published in both English and Thai on its website and across social media.

The BBC, known for misleading the public globally, has helped justify devastating wars, political conflict, and the socioeconomic division and destruction of entire nations. While the Western media attempts to portray the BBC's row in Thailand as merely a Thai issue - it is in fact the latest in an extensive global backlash against the monopoly the West has - until now - enjoyed over the media.

The BBC in Thailand 

While the BBC has maintained an office in Thailand for years, "BBC Thai" was created only in 2014, just after the US-backed regime of Thaksin Shinawatra - headed by his own sister Yingluck Shinawatra - was ousted from power amid massive street protests and a subsequent military coup.

Since then, the BBC has worked ceaselessly toward undermining the government, the military, as well as attacking the nation's ancient and revered institutions in an effort to bolster Western-backed opposition fronts.

This includes several notable stunts including the BBC's Jonathan Head visiting the 2015 Bangkok bomb blast scene to tamper with evidence in an effort to undermine the investigation and humiliate investigators as well as the government. Head would confiscate evidence from the scene and carry it to a near by police station - all on camera - in a very public and staged attempt to depict investigators as incompetent. Despite what is a chargeable offense in even the most liberal nations, Thai police attempted to downplay the incident.

During the deluge of leaked documents and emails over the past year, information regarding the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT) of which the BBC's Jonathan Head is a senior figure, revealed ties to convicted financial criminal George Soros and Open Society.

Head would flatly deny the accusations first published by Bangkok-based alternative news site "The New Atlas," before admitting to "a one-off media seminar in Myanmar." However, further investigation revealed that the FCCT included in its Bangkok office, and headed by the FCCT's own president - Dominic Faulder - "The Indochina Media Memorial Foundation" (IMMF) whose actives were indeed funded for years by Open Society.

Disrupting Thailand's Sensitive Transition 

Thailand is currently undertaking a sensitive transition. The universally revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej's passing in October 2016 began a year of mourning as well as the process of his son and successor, King Maha Vajiralongkorn assuming responsibilities as head of state.

King Maha Vajiralongkorn has already appointed a new Privy Council. containing several members from his father's inner circle as well as several new advisers who were central in maintaining national unity and stability amid Thailand's recent political crisis.

The appointment of this Privy Council reveals that rumors intentionally spread by the Western media - including the BBC - were categorically false in regards to the "turmoil" and even "civil war" they attempted to promote for years before the anticipated transition in an effort to stoke fear and division among the Thai public.

Regardless of the BBC and other names amongst the Western media being involved in serial deception, they continue using their journalistic credentials to shield themselves from both official and public backlash in Thailand - just as they have elsewhere around the world.

Considering the significant human tragedy the BBC has helped precipitate in, targeting nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, Thailand's reaction to the BBC's politically-motivated tactics and overt attempts to agitate under the cover of "journalism" is proportional to the very real, clear, and present danger it poses to national security.

While Thailand has so far been characteristically lenient on the BBC, despite open fraud and even senior staff tampering with crime scenes, the Western media, faux-rights advocacy groups, and even Western governments are attempting to portray Thailand's recent actions as unreasonable and a breach of "freedom of expression." The irony of course is, that as the West accuses Thailand of suppressing "freedom of expression," the West itself is busy attempting to round up and silence its own detractors under the guise of "confronting fake news."

In reality, the BBC could easily be considered among the "original fake news networks." And if "fake news" must be countered, the BBC should be first in line.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.� 

US Finds Itself Alone in Supposed "Fight" Against ISIS

December 7, 2016 (The New Atlas) - The Brookings Institution's Daniel Byman in a paper titled, "The limits of air strikes when fighting the Islamic State," laments that America's alleged war on the Islamic State (IS) is limited by a lack of capable local allies.

The paper states more specifically that:

The trouble is that local allies are often themselves flawed instruments: corrupt, ineffective, and brutal. Often, U.S. troops are necessary to leaven local forces, provide necessary intelligence, and otherwise carry much of the burden.

Byman concludes that US air power,  "absent other tools and a broader strategy," will always be limited. 

And indeed for the United States, if its goal was ever truly to eliminate the Islamic State, the use of air power alone, and clearly without any capable local allies, will range in efforts anywhere from limited to absolutely futile, if not completely counterproductive.

Whether one believes the US is truly involved in Syria and Iraq to fight the Islamic State, or simply using the terrorist organisation both as a means of undermining each nation's respective governments and as a vector to remain relevant and engaged in the region, its lack of capable local allies (besides, perhaps, the Islamic State itself) is an obvious and growing problem.

Russia Does have Capable Local Allies, So Does Iran 

Conversely, Russia and Iran are involved in the Middle East to crush the Islamic State. Both nations realise that the fall of either Syria or Iraq to heavily armed militants sponsored by a conglomeration of NATO and Persian Gulf states equates to a launching pad being established for destabilisation and even full-scale war within their borders next. 

And for both Russia and Iran, they have found themselves very capable local allies, going far in explaining their success versus the United States' apparent failure and retreat from the conflict and even from the region.

Syrian forces with Russian air power and Iranian ground support have all but won back the northern city of Aleppo leaving only the eastern city of Al Raqqa and the northwestern city of Idlib to liberate.

Idlib, where the majority of NATO-Persian Gulf sponsored militants are fleeing, constitutes a dysfunctional and diminutive city relative to Aleppo and other urban centres already won back by Syrian forces and their allies. In fact, the vast majority of Syria's population now lives in government controlled territory.

The Syrian Arab Army and the various militias fighting alongside it, constitute professional and reliable local allies fighting on a scale and at a level of proficiency no army the West is capable of "raising" or "finding" can compete with.

Barring direct Western military intervention, not only will Syria and Iraq prevail over the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations operating within their borders, but the peace and security they will establish will rewrite the balance of power for the entire Middle East, making it even more difficult for the United States to find capable local allies to collude with in its regional designs.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

US Policymakers Propose Working Closer with ISIS' Sponsors

December 7, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US-based corporate-financier funded policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, published a particularly incoherent piece titled, "Should we work with the devil we know against the Islamic State?" The piece's author, a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, Daniel Byman, claims (emphasis added):

Saudi Arabia has proven a major source of terrorist recruits and financing, while the Syria-Turkey border was a major crossing point for Islamic State recruits. Both countries [Saudi Arabia and Turkey] still have much to do, but that�s the point�if the Trump administration alienates them, the Islamic State problem will get much worse. With the United States on the other side in Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might send anti-aircraft weapons to Syrian rebels and otherwise escalate the fighting in ways dangerous for international terrorism�actions that, so far, the United States has helped reduce. 

In essence, Byman is admitting what the rest of the world already long ago concluded - the vast fighting capacity the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) possesses is not only a result of immense state sponsorship, it is sponsored by two of America's closest allies in the region - Saudi Arabia and NATO-member Turkey.

It was Turkey's own foreign minister who inadvertently admitted while trying to make a case for the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Syria that Turkey itself served as the primary staging point for ISIS and supplied the summation of its weapons and reinforcements required in Syria and beyond.

A May 2016 Washington Times article titled, "Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out," would quote the Turkish Foreign Minister admitting (emphasis added):

Joint operations between Washington and Ankara in Manbji, a well-known waypoint for Islamic State fighters, weapons and equipment coming from Turkey bound for Raqqa, would effectively open �a second front� in the ongoing fight to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Syria�s borders, [Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu] said.

Byman confirms this with his appeal for the United States to remain aligned and committed to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Retroactively Blaming Syria for a War the US Engineered 

Byman continues by claiming:

Assad facilitated the flow of fighters to Iraq to kill American soldiers there after the 2003 U.S. invasion. He has supported terrorism against Israel and otherwise opposed U.S. interests. And an Assad victory would be widely, and correctly, seen as a triumph for its biggest friend�the clerical regime in Iran. 

However, according to the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) in a 2008 report titled, "Bombers, Bank Accounts and Bleedout: al-Qa'ida's Road In and Out of Iraq," it is admitted that not only did Syria play a significant role in fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates since their inception, but that underground networks were involved in trafficking terrorists into Iraq during the US occupation, not the Syrian government itself.


It would state:

Syria can almost certainly do more to disrupt the traffic across the border. However, it is unrealistic to expect the regime to expend more energy, given the economic and internal political importance of the underground cross border trade to Syrian social and political leaders, and the inherent limits of the regime�s ability to enforce a crackdown indefinitely. 

Byman's other 'moral metrics' for opposing Syria include "supporting terrorism against Israel" and being otherwise opposed to "U.S. interests," but neither accusation is qualified. In reality, Byman is admitting that the US is aligned with two of the largest regional sponsors of terrorism, including sponsors aiding and abetting ISIS itself, and seeks to depose the Syrian government because it otherwise opposes US interests.

Byman then claims:

Assad�s regime is the primary culprit in a war that has killed roughly half a million Syrians and driven millions more into long-term exile.

Byman also laments that an Assad victory would create more refugees still - apparently oblivious to the "successful" regime change the US carried out in Libya in 2011, leaving the nation a failed state and the epicenter of the current and still ongoing regional refugee crisis.

In his eagerness to blame the Syrian government for the ongoing war, Byman strategically omits his own direct role and those of other US policymakers who, for years before the war began, advocated and plotted for its fruition.

From the Beginning, an Alliance with Terrorism, An Alliance of Convenience 
As early as 2007, US journalists like Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh warned of US policymakers plotting with Saudi Arabia to use militants aligned with Al Qaeda to overthrow the governments of both Syria and Iran. In his article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration�s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," Hersh prophetically reported (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co�perated with Saudi Arabia�s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Byman himself, in 2009, would sign his name to a Brookings policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in which he and other US policymakers would advocate the use of terrorism, color revolutions, staged provocations, sanctions and a vast array of other methods to provoke war with and overthrow the government of Iran. As a prerequisite for war with Iran, the paper noted that Syria would need to be dealt with.

In 2011, it became clear that many of the methods described in minute detail in the Brookings policy paper were put into practice, targeting the government in Damascus, not Tehran.

In essence, the Brookings Institution and their gallery of desk-bound warmongers have not only advocated a destructive war they themselves calculate has cost nearly half a million lives, but have advocated both before and during the war, the state sponsorship of terrorist organizations to fuel this war.

Byman's latest piece promoted by Brookings all but admits the US maintains an alliance of convenience with the state sponsors of ISIS - not to defend any sort of value, principle, or moral imperative, but instead to achieve a self-serving geopolitical objective at the cost of such values, principles, and moral imperatives.

Byman concludes by claiming the Syrian government is too weak to consolidate control over Syria, omitting that there exists no alternative more unified or capable than the Syrian government. He then claims that the US should continue backing the "Syrian opposition," either oblivious of or indifferent to the fact that no such thing exists aside from ISIS and other foreign sponsored terrorist organizations. Aside from Raqqa and Idlib run by ISIS and Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise - Al Nusra respectively, the Syrian government has already indeed consolidated control over the country's main urban centers, including Aleppo.

For Byman and other policymakers like him, they find themselves moving imaginary armies across the battlefield that simply do not exist. In the end, the US will have to either abandon its enterprise in Syria, or pledge increasingly open support for ISIS and Al Nusra.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.� 

වීඩියෝ convert කරන්න නියම software එකක්

ඔන්න කාලෙකට පස්සෙ අරගෙන ආව software එකක් හැමෝටම වැදගත් වෙනව කියල හිතපු.මේකෙ නම තමයි "HD Video Converter Factory Pro". මේකෙන් අපිට හැකියාව ලැබෙනව ගොඩක් වීඩියෝ අඩු size එකකට convert කරගන්න. ඒවගේම ඉතාම ඉහල quality එකකට. ඉතින් මේ software එක නිකන් ලබාදෙන එකක් එහෙම නෙමේ. ඒ හින්ද මේ තියෙන්නෙ එකේ crack කරපු එක. ඔයාලට කරන්න තියෙන්නෙ මේක තියෙන WonderFox.HD.Video.Converter.Factory.Pro.9.4.exe  file එක මුලින්ම install කරල ඊට පස්සෙ crack  කියන .rar file එක extract කරල එකෙ තියෙන Se001.ini file එක පහල තියෙන තැනට copy කරන්න. ගැටළු මොනව හරි තියෙනවනම් පහලින් comment එකක් දාන්න. පහල link එකෙන් ඔයාලට පුළුවන් software download කරගන්න.

මෙතනට crack file එක copy කරන්න: 
for Windows XP:  C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\HD Video Converter Factory Pro
for Windows vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8:  C:\Users\USERNAME\Documents\WonderFox Soft\HD Video Converter Factory Pro

password- www.ananmananlokayaweb.com

US Policymakers Seek "New Thailand" Amid Asian Pivot

December 4, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - With the passing of Thailand's head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, a universally revered cultural and pragmatic leader for the last 70 years, Thailand's enemies see an opportunity in what they perceive as a void in national unity.

Throughout Washington's policy circles, several articles containing analysis have been circulated regarding an opportunity for "change" or a "New Thailand."

The least subtle of these articles is Foreign Policy magazine's "A Chance for Change in the New Thailand: Now that the king is gone, can Thailand�s opposition come together to challenge the ruling military junta?," which in title alone gives away the West's desire to foment the sort of "colour revolutions" and "regime change" it has backed around the world from North Africa to the Middle East to Eastern Europe and even Asia itself.

The article makes fundamental mistakes no real geopolitical analysis would make if informing readers was their goal. They are, however, mistakes one would make if they were advocating regime change and needed to create a false pretext with which to justify it.

The article claims:

the waiting game is now over. In a few months at most � following a period of mourning for the beloved king � the dust will settle and a new political landscape will come into being. In this new environment, the democratic opposition will be able to organize and mobilize far more effectively for a return to democratic rule. It will be able to capitalize on the unpopularity of the new king, mobilizing populations who were unwilling to challenge the junta and its royal mandate. It will also be able to unite various groups around common strategies and campaigns, now that the uncertainties of the referendum and the king�s health have passed. These campaigns might target the new centers of power, or use elections as mobilizing opportunities, or focus on uniting both major parties against the junta. 

But of course, this will depend on the ability of civil society groups to bridge their divisions and unite behind a single banner: returning Thailand to democratic governance.

However, the so-called "democratic opposition" Foreign Policy deceptively refers to is in fact simply the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, who represent a small and dwindling minority amid Thai politics.

Even in 2011, when Shinawatra's sister took power, his political party garnered the support of only 35% of all eligible voters, failed to win even the popular vote and when in 2014 tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to call for the resignation of his party from power, he failed to mobilise a street presence even remotely proportional in his own support. 

Shinawatra himself was a categorically undemocratic figure himself who sought to create a single party government, actively eliminated his political enemies both through litigation and through assassinations as well as cultivated a violent street movement used to intimidate and coerce the population. 

In 2006 he was ultimately ousted from power. In his place, and only under the guise of "democracy," Shinawatra would have his brother-in-law and even his sister take his place as prime minister. In actuality, Shinawatra's rule over Thailand resembled third-world banana republicanism, not "democratic opposition."

"Democratic opposition" in Thailand is actually the same foreign-backed, violent and dishonest rabble that has set upon nations from Libya to Syria, from Ukraine to Myanmar, dividing and destroying nations then turning them over to Western-backed despots. 

And since his ouster in 2006, he and his sponsors abroad, including the United States and Europe, have created for him the same recipe of foreign-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), student groups, alleged pro-democracy media platforms and even armed groups required to seize back power and implement policies favourable to the West.

In reality, the majority of Thailand's population are either indifferent to the current political struggle, or are acutely aware of just how undemocratic Foreign Policy's "democratic opposition" truly is.

The single banner of "returning Thailand to democratic governance" is problematic when all involved knows that what Foreign Policy really means is returning a government to power loyal to both Thaksin Shinawatra and his foreign sponsors who have invested years and billions in lobbying and network building in him.

The Asian Game Board 

Thailand is but one of several nations along China's peripheries that the United States and its European allies seeks to control and turn against Beijing in a bid to isolate Chinese interests, and eventually overthrow them within China proper.

It is no coincidence that Foreign Policy's supposed "democratic opposition" in Thailand is receiving funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Open Society, side-by-side with similar outfits in neighbouring Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Indonesia.

Putting pressure on, and if necessary, overthrowing non-compliant governments in the region has little to do with promoting actual democracy. For example, Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi who declared herself "State Counsellor," an office she literally created for herself upon her National League for Democracy (NLD) winning recent elections, has since ended up locking up journalists seen as overly critical of her regime all while continuing a brutal campaign of repression against Myanmar's Rohingya minorities.

Foreign Policy's "democratic opposition" would be more accurately described as agents of foreign special interests.

Clearly, she is ever bit as undemocratic as the US and Europe claimed the government she replaced was. She, however, cooperates with Western designs both in Myanmar in regards to monopolising its people, resources and economy as well as using Myanmar as part of a wider, regional strategy in which the US seeks to reassert itself geopolitically.

In reality then, this "New Thailand" Foreign Policy magazine seeks the creation of is simply a Thailand devoid of its own, independent institutions and one that is run instead by deeply indebted, corrupt political parties and a network of front organisations masquerading as NGOs and "student groups" completely dependent on US and European financial and political support.

This incremental, systematic cultural and political colonisation of nations by the West and its various extraterritorial institutions requires an active and intelligent defence. Nations like Russia and China are reforming their NGO laws to eliminate organisations merely posing as "nongovernmental" and independent. They are also creating alternatives to platforms like Facebook and Google which are used to manipulate public perception from abroad.

Both nations also possess their own media organisations aimed at confronting and overcoming the din of propaganda generated by Western media, including righting the wrongs presented in publications like Foreign Policy.

If Thailand and other nations in Asia are able to put up this active and intelligent defence of their national sovereignty and regional stability, the second leg of America's "pivot toward Asia" will fail as miserably as its first.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Thailand: Careless Journalism Backs a Western Colour Revolution

December 4, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Sputnik International is a Russian-based media platform that has added depth and reach to the alternative media.

It was unfortunate then, to see their article, "Dislike: Thai Activist Arrested for Posting Unflattering Article About the King," which carelessly repeated Western media propaganda regarding Thailand.

Aiding and Abetting Western Colour Revolutions... 

The story involves alleged "activist" Jatupat Boonpattararaksa of the "New Democracy Movement," a US-EU-backed opposition movement meant to create in Thailand the same instability Western-backed "colour revolutionaries" have caused across Eastern Europe and the Middle Eastern and North African region (MENA).

Sputnik cites iLawFX, a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Open Society funded front. 

Jatupat was detained for distributing a BBC Thai article claiming to be a "biography" of Thailand's new king and head of state, King Maha Vajiralongkorn. The BBC biography was rife with disinformation and slander aimed at undermining the new head of state's role in unifying and moving the nation forward after over a decade of political turmoil brought about by the US-European backed government of Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra.

The BBC Thai itself was established in 2014 when the Shinawatra government was deposed from power amid massive street protests and a subsequent military coup. It has since sown the same deceptive and subversive disinformation the BBC is know for worldwide.

Sputnik's unfortunate article even goes as far as citing the BBC, as well as the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Open Society-funded front, iLawFX.

The Folly of Repeating Falsehoods 

Sputnik's article reports that Thailand possesses a "draconian lese-majeste law," but fails to note that the majority of jail sentences involve threats of armed subversion or assassination against Thailand's head of state and/or his family. Sputnik also reports that Jatupat has been arrested several times before, but again, fails to note that previous arrests took place under the very same circumstances Sputnik itself often reports on regarding Western-backed "colour revolutionaries" being arrested in Russia, Eastern Europe and across the MENA region.


Sputnik's article concludes by claiming the new king "has never been popular in the country," repeating almost verbatim disinformation disseminated by Western lobbyists for years in anticipation of the previous, and universally revered Thai head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej's passing.

Repeating such falsehoods alienates Sputnik International from the vast majority of Thai readers and viewers who would otherwise benefit from their alternative perspective and the multipolar world the vector sum of their work promotes. Each story Sputnik covers regarding Thailand is a potential opportunity to break through to this audience, but not if Sputnik is merely repeating the same Western disinformation already exposed and rejected by the majority of the Thai public.

Why Does the West Want to Undermine Thailand's Constitutional Monarchy?  

The US and Europe see Thailand as one of several Southeast Asian states that can potentially be used to create a united front to encircle and contain the rise of China as a means of reasserting Western hegemony across Asia Pacific. Thailand's monarchy has for centuries unified the nation and prevented it from succumbing to European colonisation that consumed all of its neighbours without exception.

During the 20th and 21st century, the monarchy has been key to maintaining Thailand's sovereignty amid encroaching, US-dominated "globalisation." The West has worked ceaselessly through opposition groups and their own media to undermine and overthrow the Thai monarchy to remove this obstacle from the path of their regional ambitions.

Through careless reporting, Sputnik has turned an otherwise effective alternative media platform into an echo chamber for the very Western propaganda it was established to confront and refute. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Sputnik's error is that one of their own, Andrew Korybko, wrote a deeply researched, accurate and effective analysis of Thailand's political crisis, including aspects of what he calls "hybrid war," in which the above mentioned "activist" and front he belongs to are a part of.

Had Sputnik's writers cited that instead of US-funded fronts and the BBC, they would have contributed to a constructive counterbalance to Western disinformation in Southeast Asia, instead of simply adding weight to it.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

Sultan 2016 DIRECT DOWNLOAD

File- Sultan.2016.720p.Ganool.mkv
Size- 1.310 GB