PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-13, 11:10:55
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 976965 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail.  I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences.  But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.  And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack.  Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV.  For the rest of us, there are three options:

    a classical US-executed false flag
    a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin.  This option requires you to believe in coincidences.  I don’t.  Unless,
    the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase.  There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas.  As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed.  There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past.  You can read everything about this plan here and here.

The attack:

American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.  The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning.  At this point the accounts begin to differ.

The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets.  The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield.  The others are “unaccounted for”.  Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit.  Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours.  36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target.  That is a fact.

It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping.  There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile.  In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa).  While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014.  The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable.  There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned.  I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just “for show” and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean.  That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia.  I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain  why in the political analysis below.

Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles.  Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions).  Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector.  Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don’t know if they did).  However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to “fry” and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles.  I do believe that this is the correct explanation.  I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.  What I am sure of is that 36 advanced cruise missile do not “just disappear”.  There are two reasons why the Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles: first, it provides them “plausible deninability” (at least for the general public, there is no doubt that  US signal intelligence units did detect the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it allowed them to keep their  air defense missiles for the protection of their own forces.  Can the Russian really do this?

Take a look at this image, taken from a Russian website, which appears to have been made by the company Kret which produces some of the key Russian electronic warfare systems.  Do you notice that on the left hand side, right under the AWACs aircraft you can clearly see a Tomahawk type missile turning around and eventually exploding at sea?

How this is done is open to conjecture. All that we are told is that the missile is given a “false target” but for our purposes this really does not matter.  What matters is that the Russians have basically leaked the information that they are capable of turning cruise missiles around.  There are other possibilities such as an directed energy beams which basically fries or, at least, confuses the terrain following and or inertial navigation systems.  Some have suggested a “kill switch” which would shut down the entire missile.  Maybe.  Again, this really doesn’t matter for our purposes.  What matters is that the Russian have the means to spoof, redirect or destroy US cruise missiles.  It sure appears to be that for the first time these systems were used in anger.

I would note that those who say that the Russian air defense systems did not work don’t know what they are talking about.  Not only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked with the protection of the Syrian Air Space.  That is a task for the Syrian air defenses.  The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to protect Russian personnel and equipment.  This is why the Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes.  And this is hardly surprising as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel.

However, this might be changing.  Now the Russians have withdrawn from their agreement with the USA and, even more importantly, have have declared that the Syrians urgently need more advanced air defense capabilities.  Currently the Syrians operate very few advanced Russian air defense systems, most of their gear is old.

Legal aspects of the attack:

The US attack happened in direct violation of US law, of international law and of the UN charter.  First, I would say that there is strong legal evidence that the US attack violated the US Constitution,  Presidential War Powers Act and the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) resolution.  But since I don’t really care about this aspect of Trump’s criminal behavior, I will just refer you to two pretty good analyses of this issue (see here and here) and just simply summarize the argument of those who say that what Trump did was legal.  It boils down to this: “yeah, it’s illegal, but all US Presidents have been doing it for so long that they have thereby created a legal precedent which, uh, makes it legal after all“.  I don’t think this kind of “defense” is worthy of a reply or rebuttal.  So now let’s turn to international law.

Most people think that crimes against humanity or genocide must be the ultimate crime under international law.  They are wrong.  The ultimate crime is aggression.  This is the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trial on this topic:

    To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

So, following the long and prestigious list of other US Presidents before him, Donald Trump is now a war criminal.  In fact, he is a “supreme war criminal”.  It only took him 77 days to achieve this status, probably some kind of a record.

As for the UN Charter, at least for articles (1, 2, 33, 39) ban the kind of aggression the USA took against Syria.

I think that there is no need to dwell on the total illegality of this attack.  I would just underscore the supreme irony of a country basically built by and run by lawyers (just see how many of them there are in Congress) whose general population seems to be totally indifferent to the fact that their elected representatives act in a completely illegal manner.  All that most American people care about is whether the illegal action brings victory or not.  But if it does, absolutely nobody cares.  You disagree?  Tell me, how many peace demonstrations were there in the USA about the totally illegal US aggression on Yugoslavia?  Exactly.  QED.

Political consequences (internal)

My son perfectly summed up what Trump’s actions have resulted in: “those who hated him still hate him while those who supported him now also hate him“.  Wow!  How did Trump and his advisors fail to predict that?  Instead of fulfilling his numerous campaign promises (and his own Twitter statements) Trump decided to suddenly make a 180 and totally betray everything he stood for.  I can’t think of a dumber action, I really can’t.  I have to say that Trump now appears to make Dubya look smart.  But there is much, much worse.

The worst aspect of this clusterf**k is how utterly immoral this makes Trump appear.  Think of it – first Trump abjectly betrayed Flynn.  Then he betrayed Bannon.

    [Sidebar: I mostly liked Flynn.  I had no use for Bannon at all.  But the fact is that they were not my best friends, they were Trump’s best friends.  And instead of standing up for them, he sacrificed them to the always bloodthirsty Neocons in the hope of appeasing them.  This is what I wrote about this stupid and deeply immoral betrayal the day it happened:

    Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.?  Today, Trump has shown us his true face.  Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation.  This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about reality.

    The worst aspect of that is that by betraying people left and right Trump has now shown that you cannot trust him, that he will backstab you with no hesitation whatsoever.  Would you ever take a risk for a guy like that?  Contrast that with Putin who is “notorious” for standing by his friends and allies even when they do something really wrong!  There is a reason why the AngloZionists could not break Putin and why it only took them one month to neuter Trump: Putin is made of titanium, Trump is just an overcooked noodle]

And now Trump has betrayed HIMSELF by turning against everything he, himself, stood for.  This is almost Shakespearean in its pathetic and tragic aspects!

During his campaign Trump made a lot of excellent promises and he did inspire millions of Americans to support him.  I personally believe that he was sincere in his intentions, and I don’t buy the “it was all an act” theory at all.  Just look at the total panic of the Neocons at the prospects of a Trump victory and tell me this was all fake.  No, I think that Trump was sincere.  But when confronted with the ruthless opposition of the Neocons and the US deep state, Trump snapped and instantly broke because he is clearly completely spineless and has the ethics and morals of a trailer park prostitute.

So what we really have is a sad and pathetic version of Obama. A kind of Obama 2.0 if you want.  The man inspired millions, he promised change you can believe in, and he delivered absolutely nothing except for an abject subservience to the real masters and owners of the United States: the Neocons and the deep state.

Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising him.  And nobody is calling him a “Putin agent” any more.  None of which will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way.  He chose a quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days.  How totally stupid of him.  He apparently also chose the option of an “attack for show” to begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history, probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show?  A few flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters.  Pathetic if you ask me.

Ever since he got into the White House, Trump has been acting like your prototypical appeaser (it makes me wonder if his father was an alcoholic).  How a guy like him ever made in business is a mystery to me, but what is now clear is that the Neocons totally submitted him and that they will now turn him into political roadkill.

I am afraid that the next four years (or less!) will turn into a neverending Purim celebration…

Political consequences (external)


Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US collaboration with Russia of any kind.  Worse, he has also destroyed any hopes of being able to defeat Daesh.  Why?  Because if you really believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want to sell you bridges all over the world.  It ain’t happening.  What is much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton.  Let me explain.

The following are the measures with Russia has taken following the US attack on Syria:

    Denunciation at UN (to be expected, no big deal)

    Decision to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)

    Decision to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)

    Decision to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won’t be able to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something)

The combination of decisions 2, 3 and  4 does not mean that the Russians will shoot the next time, not by itself.  The Russians will still be restricted by their own rules of engagement and by political decisions.  But this will dramatically affect the US decision-making since from now on there will be no guarantee that the Russians will not shoot either.  The Russians basically own the Syrian airspace already.  What they want to do next is to give a similar capability to the Syrians.  Not only will that allow the Syrians to defend themselves against any future US or Israeli attacks, it will provide the Russians plausible deniabilty the day they decide to shoot down a US aircraft or drone.  Finally, the Russians are rushing back some of their most advanced ships towards the Syrian coast.  So after giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, the Russians are now returning to a Obama-times like posture in Syria.  Bravo Trump, well done!

Yes, I know, Tillerson is expected to meet Lavrov this week.  This was discussed ad nauseam on Russian TV and the consensus is that the only reason why the Russians did not cancel this meeting is because they don’t want, on general principle, to be the ones to refuse to speak to the other side.  Fine.  Considering that we are talking about a potential international thermonuclear war, I can see the point.  Still, I would have preferred to say Lavrov telling Tillerson to go and get lost.  Why?  Because I have come to the conclusion that any and all types of dialog with the United States are simply a meaningless and useless waste of time.  For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.  Over the past week or so we saw both Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson completely contradict themselves over and over again: “no we don’t want to overthrow Assad.  Yes we do want to overthrow Assad.  Yes we do. No we don’t“.  This is almost painful and embarrassing to watch.  This just goes to show that just like the Obama Administration, the Trump people are “недоговороспособны” or “not agreement capable”.  I explain this term in this analysis (written about Obama!  Not Trump):

    The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”.  What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement.  While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.  For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state.  But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic.  It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal.  Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”.  That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit.  This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

This is bad.  Really bad.  This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.  What this also means is that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States.

That applies only to the official Kremlin.  Independent Russian analysts are not shy about expressing their total contempt and disgust for Trump.  Some of them are suggesting that Trump decided to show how “tough” he is in preparation for the Tillerson trip to Moscow.  If that is the case, then he is badly miscalculating.  For one thing, a lot of them as saying that what Trump has engaged in is “показуха” – a totally fake shows of force which really shows nothing.  What is certain is that demonstrations of force are very much frowned upon on the Russian culture which strongly believes that a really tough guy does not have to look the part.

Personally I don’t think that impressing the Russians was Trump’s plan.  Nor do I believe, like some, that launching that attack during the visit of Chinese Premier Xi was a deliberate affront or some kind of “message”.  In fact, I don’t think that there was much of a plan at all beyond showing that Trump is “tough” and no friend of Putin.  That’s it.  I think that the so-called “elites” in charge running the USA are infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible.  I don’t buy the “managed chaos” theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their dis-order.  Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it’s not part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant.

I have already explained in my previous analysis why Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is a non-starter and I won’t bother repeating it all here.  What I will say is that Erdogan’s endorsement of Trump’s attack is equally stupid and self-defeating.  I really wonder what Erdogan is hoping to achieve.  Not only did the Americans almost kill him in a coup attempt, they are now working on creating a semi-independent Kurdistan right on the border with Turkey.  Yes, I know, Erdogan wants to get rid of Assad, fair enough, but does he really believe that Trump will be able to remove Assad from power?  And what if Assad is removed, will Turkey really be better off once the Emirate of Takfiristan is declared in Syria? I very much hope that after the referendum Erdogan will recover some sense of reality.

What about the Israelis, do they really believe that dealing with Assad is worse than dealing with this Caliphate of Takfiristan?!  But then, we can expect anything from folks with such a long history of making really bad decisions.

Still, it really looks like the all have gone completely insane!

Then there is the embarrassing standing ovation coming out of Europe and the Ukraine.  I really am embarrassed for them.  They are rejoicing at the attempted removal of one of the last mentally sane and secular regimes in the Middle-East.  Don’t these European “leaders” realize that if Syria is replaced by a Caliphate of Takfiristan all hell will really brake loose for Europe?  I am amazed at how blind these people are…

Now let’s look at what happened from the point of view of China and the DPRK.  First, as I mentioned, I don’t think that Xi felt that the attack during his visit to the USA was a slap or an affront.  From another civilized country, maybe.  But  not from the USA.  The Chinese are absolutely under no illusion of the total lack of sophistication and even basic manners of US Presidents.  That is not to say that they were not outraged and very concerned.  It goes without saying that they also noticed the “coincidence” that The USN has canceled planned port calls in Australia for the USS Carl Vinson and is instead sending the aircraft carrier and attached group towards the Korean Peninsula.  They also noticed that this move has been given maximal visibility in the US propaganda machine.  One “show of force” in Syria is now followed by another “show of force” in East Asia.

Typical, isn’t it?

If anything, this move will only strengthen the informal but very strong and deep partnership between China and Russia.  Just like the Russians, the Chinese will keep on smiling and make very nice statements about international peace and security, negotiations, etc.  But everybody who matters in China will understand that the real message of out Washington DC is simple: “now it’s Assad – but you could be next”.

Which leaves the DPRK.  I am no mind-reader and no psychologist, but I ask myself the following question: what is worse – if the Americans fail to really scare Kim Jong-un or if they successfully do?  I don’t have the answer, but considering the past behavior of the DPRK leaders I would strongly suggest that both scaring them and failing to scare them are very dangerous options.  The notion of “scare” should not be included in any policies dealing with the DPRK.  But instead of that, the dummies in DC are now leaking a story (whether true or not) that the US intelligence agencies have finalized plans to, I kid you not, “eliminate Kim Jong-un“.  And just to make sure that the message gets through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC threatens the DPRK with war.

Have they all really gone totally insane in Washington DC?

Do I really need to explain here why war with the DPRK is a terrible idea, even if it had no nuclear weapons?

Conclusion: what happens next?

Simply reply: I don’t know.  But let me explain why I don’t know.  In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a “rational actor”.  The Soviets sure where.  As where the Americans.  Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions.  You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)?  I don’t know.  To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types.

Some readers might think that this is hyperbole.  I assure you that this is not.  I am dead serious.  Not only do I find the Trump administration “not agreement capable”, I find it completely detached from reality.  Delusional in other words.  You think Kim Jong-un with nukes is bad?  What about Obama or Trump with nukes?  Ain’t they much, much scarier?

So what can the world do?

First, the easy answer: the Europeans.  They can do nothing.  They are irrelevant.  They don’t even exist.  At least not in the political sense.

Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage.   Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent.  No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.

What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.  But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China.  So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).  This needs to change.  China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia.  All Russia has are superb military capabilities.  China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money.  Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria.  The problem is not Assad.  The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh.  If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next.  Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next.  Everybody in Russia understands that.  But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.  So here is my central thesis:

You don’t want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.

I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors.  Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.  And if Russia is not the world’s policeman, neither is she the world savior.  The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!

Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear.  That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.

    [Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really fast.  Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and primitive.  This is not the case today.  The Chinese have done some tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.  I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese mainland.  Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and Russia in record time.  So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely terrible idea, sheer madness.  However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the “Chinese communist peasants” with their carrier battle groups.  What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction operatons.  The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?  Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands?  Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group?  Think again.]

So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind Russia.  This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources.  If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not be a problem.  Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia.  But he can’t.  Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.  I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

    The Russians are afraid of war.  The Americans are not.
    The Russians are ready for war.  The Americans are not.

The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness.  This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

    [Sidebar.  The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems.  As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing campaign to describe it as the “bestest of the bestest” “in the world” (always, “in the world” as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare).  They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how invincible it makes them.  The perfect illustration is all the (now, in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft.  The Russians do the exact opposite.  First, they try to classify it all.  But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth!  There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!  Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing.  Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in Syria?  Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970s capable of “flying under water” as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]

Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one.  And she is very much alone.  European are cowards.  Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA.  India hopes to play both sides.  Japan and the ROK are US colonies.  Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON/FIVE EYES gang.  Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks.  It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more.  The only actor out there who can do something in China.  If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of “Obama-style nightmare” it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.

In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options.  Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy.  Alas, it appears that Trump has “figured out” that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria).  That won’t work.

Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise.  If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won’t have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things?  Could President Pence be better than President Trump?  I am afraid that it might.  Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.

The next four years will be terrible, I am sorry to say.  Our next hope – however thin – for somebody sane in the White House might be for 2020.  Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will run on a campaign promise of peace and truly draining the swamp?  Maybe “America first” will mean something if Gabbard says it?  Right now she seems to be pretty much the only one refusing the accept the “Assad did it” nonsense.  So maybe she can provide the mix of peace and progressive social policies so many Americans really want?  Maybe she could become the first woman President for all the right, rather then wrong, reasons. I don’t know.  2020 is still very, very far away, let’s just hope we all make it to that date before some imbecile in DC decides that war with Russia is a good idea.

What is certain is that the Democrat vs. Republican and Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy only serves to perpetuate a system which manages to betray the values of BOTH the Left and the Right.  This is paradoxical because it is pretty darn clear that most Americans want their country to be at peace, to stop being constantly at war, and with civilized social and labor standards.  Sure, the hardcore libertarians still believe that laisser-faire is a great solution, even if that hands all the power to corporations and even if that leaves the individual citizen defenseless against the oligarchy.  But bet you that even hardcore libertarians would prefer “statism” (as they would say) with peace than “statism” with war.  Likewise, many hardcore progressives want to severely limit the freedoms of many Americans (small business entrepreneurs, gun owners), but even they would prefer peace without rules and regulations than war without rules and regulations.  So I think that the possibly unifying platform could be expressed in the notion of “peace and civil rights”.  That is something which the vast majority of Americans can agree upon.  Even the Black Lives Matter folks should agree to that kind of “peace and civil rights platform”.  That, I think, ought to be the priority of the Federal government – dismantle the war machine and dismantle the state repression machine: a full pull-out of US forces deployed worldwide combined with a full restoration of civil and human rights as they were before the 9/11 false flag.  And let the States deal with all the other issues.

Alas, I am afraid that the plutocracy in power will never allow that.  The way the crushed Trump in one month tells me that they will do that to anybody who is not one of their own.  So while hope is always a good thing, and while I like dreaming of a better future, I am not holding my breath.  I find a sudden and brutal collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire followed by a break-up of the USA (as described here) far more likely.

We better prepare ourselves for some very tough times ahead.

Our only consolation is that all the dramatic events taking place right now in the USA are signs of weakness.  The US elites are turning on each other and while the Neocons have broken Trump, this will not stop the fratricidal war inside the US plutocracy.   Look at the big picture, at how the empire is cracking at every seam and remember that all this is taking place because we are winning.

Imperialism will die, discredited and hated by all those who will have to live through the upcoming collapse of the US-based AngloZionist Empire.  Hopefully this time it will be the last empire in history and mankind will have learned its lesson (it would be about time!).

The Saker


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation. The Risk of Nuclear War. Former Intelligence Officials Urge Trump to Rethink Blaming Syrian Government

http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation-the-risk-of-nuclear-war-former-intelligence-officials-urge-trump-to-rethink-blaming-syrian-government/5584656

More than two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*

SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.

4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?

5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the U.S. Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria’s CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the U.N. inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The U.N. inspectors’ findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia’s leaders cannot be overstated.

6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said:

    “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.”

Détente Nipped in the Bud


7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.

8 – With Moscow’s cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. U.S. Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.

9 – On Sept 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented:

    “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, “after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned,

    “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

11 – On Oct 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses “will not have time to identify the origin” of the aircraft.

12 – On Oct 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results,” and complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.” Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from “growing trust” to “absolute mistrust.” To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.

14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.

15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.

* Background on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a list of whose issuances can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.

A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.

We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:

    No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.

Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.

***

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)

William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret), DIA (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Donald Trump Is NOT Bluffing – So What Happens If Kim Jong-Un Is Not Bluffing Either?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/donald-trump-is-not-bluffing-so-what-happens-if-kim-jong-un-is-not-bluffing-either/

Korean War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

The Korean War (in South Korean Hangul: 한국전쟁; Hanja: 韓國戰爭; RR: Hanguk Jeonjaeng, "Korean War"; in North Korean Chosŏn'gŭl: 조국해방전쟁; Hancha: 祖國解放戰爭; MR: Choguk haebang chǒnjaeng, "Fatherland Liberation War"; 25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953)[36][38] began when North Korea invaded South Korea.[39][40] The United Nations, with the United States as the principal force, came to the aid of South Korea. China came to the aid of North Korea, and the Soviet Union gave some assistance.

Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as a result of an agreement with the United States, and liberated Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently moved into the south. By 1948, as a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, Korea was split into two regions, with separate governments. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea, and neither side accepted the border as permanent. The conflict escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces—supported by the Soviet Union and China—moved into the south on 25 June 1950.[41] On that day, the United Nations Security Council recognized this North Korean act as invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire.[42] On 27 June, the Security Council adopted S/RES/83: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea and decided the formation and dispatch of the UN Forces in Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the UN force, with the United States providing 88% of the UN's military personnel.

After the first two months of war, South Korean forces were on the point of defeat, forced back to the Pusan Perimeter. In September 1950, an amphibious UN counter-offensive was launched at Inchon, and cut off many North Korean troops. Those who escaped envelopment and capture were rapidly forced back north all the way to the border with China at the Yalu River, or into the mountainous interior. At this point, in October 1950, Chinese forces crossed the Yalu and entered the war.[41] Chinese intervention triggered a retreat of UN forces which continued until mid-1951.

After these reversals of fortune, which saw Seoul change hands four times, the last two years of fighting became a war of attrition, with the front line close to the 38th parallel. The war in the air, however, was never a stalemate. North Korea was subject to a massive bombing campaign. Jet fighters confronted each other in air-to-air combat for the first time in history, and Soviet pilots covertly flew in defense of their communist allies.

The fighting ended on 27 July 1953, when an armistice was signed. The agreement created the Korean Demilitarized Zone to separate North and South Korea, and allowed the return of prisoners. However, no peace treaty has been signed, and the two Koreas are technically still at war.[43][44] Periodic clashes, many of which are deadly, continue to the present.

Kim Jong-Un ain't bluffin', that carrier strike group is toast if it goes hot kinetic. Poor nD chess players are destroying the world before our eyes.. children can do such wicked things.. please stop aggressively killing them, Donald.

The whole of the official US & UK Foreign Policy narrative is a complete fabrication and lie. The politicians and the media have to tell major lies to keep the False Narrative going


http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-whole-of-the-official-us-uk-foreign-policy-narrative-is-a-complete-fabrication-and-lie-the-politicians-and-the-media-have-to-tell-major-lies-to-keep-the-false-narrative-going/

Trump on Assad: 'That's a butcher'

Updated 0345 GMT (1145 HKT) April 13, 2017

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/donald-trump-bashar-al-assad-butcher/


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
.Kim Jong-Un ain't bluffin', that carrier strike group is toast if it goes hot kinetic. Poor nD chess players are destroying the world before our eyes.. children can do such wicked things.. please stop aggressively killing them, Donald


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Five Eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries, all Anglophone and ruled by a common law legal system, are bound by the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[1][2][3]

The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to the post-World War II period, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world. During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor billions of private communications worldwide.[4][5]

In the late 1990s, the existence of ECHELON was disclosed to the public, triggering a major debate in the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the United States Congress. As part of efforts in the ongoing War on Terror since 2001, the FVEY further expanded their surveillance capabilities, with much emphasis placed on monitoring the World Wide Web. The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the known laws of its own countries".[6] Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.[7][8][9][10]

Despite the impact of Snowden's disclosures, some experts in the intelligence community believe that no amount of global concern or outrage will affect the Five Eyes relationship, which to this day remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history.[11]

War on Terror (2001–present)
See also: Global surveillance

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the surveillance capabilities of the Five Eyes were greatly increased as part of the global War on Terror.

During the run-up to the Iraq War, the communications of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix were monitored by the Five Eyes.[42][43] The office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was bugged by British agents.[44][45] An NSA memo detailed plans of the Five Eyes to boost eavesdropping on UN delegations of six countries as part of a "dirty tricks" campaign to apply pressure on these six countries to vote in favour of using force against Iraq.[44][46][47]

SIS and the CIA forged a surveillance partnership with Libya's ruler Muammar Gaddafi to spy on Libyan dissidents in the West, in exchange for permission to use Libya as a base for extraordinary renditions.[48][49][50][51][52]

As of 2010, the Five Eyes also have access to SIPRNet, the U.S. government's classified version of the Internet.[53]

In 2013, documents leaked by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the existence of numerous surveillance programs jointly operated by the Five Eyes. The following list includes several notable examples reported in the media:

    PRISM – Operated by the NSA together with the GCHQ and the ASD[54][55]
    XKeyscore – Operated by the NSA with contributions from the ASD and the GCSB[56]
    Tempora – Operated by the GCHQ with contributions from the NSA[57][58]
    MUSCULAR – Operated by the GCHQ and the NSA[59]
    STATEROOM – Operated by the ASD, CIA, CSE, GCHQ, and NSA[60]

In March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Australia to stop spying on East Timor. This marks the first time that such restrictions are imposed on a member of the FVEY.[61]

Canada and Israel — best friends forever?


http://www.timesofisrael.com/canada-and-israel-best-friends-forever/

Canadian officials like to explain their government’s diehard friendship to Israel by pointing out that the two countries share many common values.

“I would characterize the position as one of moral clarity,” Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver told The Times of Israel earlier this month in Jerusalem. “If there’s a conflict between a democratic ally and terrorist groups that want to destroy it, we don’t see grays. The moral relativism that is sometimes a big factor is not what guides us. We think it’s important for countries to walk the walk as well as talking the talk.”

But other Western countries also don’t love terrorism but still criticize Israel, for example over settlement expansions. “We have said that unilateral action on either side isn’t particularly helpful,” the minister responded, emphasizing that Canada doesn’t support the settlements. “I don’t know what else to say in this regard. There’s willingness on our part to demonstrate moral leadership.”

International Israel support initiative launched


https://www.thejc.com/news/world/international-israel-support-initiative-launched-1.16988

An unprecedented show of support for Israel has come from a group of almost entirely non-Jewish European and American politicians, statesmen and women and theologians.

Led by former Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, they have formed the Friends of Israel Initiative, to oppose the rising tide of criticism and delegitimisation that has questioned Israel's right to exist and act in self-defence.

The FII launched its British branch in the House of Commons on Monday, hosted by the new Tory MP Robert Halfon. A standing-room only audience of 300 people was given a grim warning by Mr Aznar: "If Israel goes down, we all go down."

He said halting the process of eroding Israel's rights was "not only important, but vital: to Israel, of course, but to all Western countries".

Fellow founders include former American permanent UN representative John Bolton, former Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo, former Italian Senate president Marcello Pera, fellow Italian politician and journalist Fiamma Nirenstein and British historian Andrew Roberts.

    ‘If Israel goes down, we all go down’ — Aznar


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
North Korea: The Grand Deception Revealed

http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/13/north-korea-the-grand-deception-revealed/

13.03.2017 Author: Christopher Black

In 2003 I had, along with some American lawyers, members of the National Lawyers Guild, the good fortune to be able to travel to North Korea, that is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, in order to experience first hand that nation, its socialist system and its people. The joint report issued on our return was titled “The Grand Deception Revealed.” That title was chosen because we discovered that the negative western propaganda myth about North Korea is a grand deception designed to blind the peoples of the world to the accomplishments of the Korean people in the north who have successfully created their own circumstances, their own independent socio-economic system, based on socialist principles, free of the domination of the western powers.

At one of our first dinners in Pyongyang our host, Ri Myong Kuk, a lawyer, stated, on behalf of the government, and in passionate terms, that the DPRK’s Nuclear Deterrent Force was necessary in light of US world actions and threats against the DPRK. He stated, and this was repeated to me in a high level meeting with DPRK government officials later on in the trip, that if the Americans would sign a peace treaty and non-aggression agreement with the DPRK, it would de-legitimize the American occupation and lead to reunification. Consequently there would be no need for nuclear weapons. He stated sincerely that, “It’s important that lawyers are gathering to talk about this as lawyers regulate the social interactions within society and within the world,” and added just as sincerely that, “the path to peace requires an open heart.”

It appeared to us then and it is apparent now, in absolute contradiction to the claims of the western media, that the people of the DPRK want peace more than anything else so they can get on with their lives and endeavours without the constant threat of nuclear annihilation by the United States. But annihilation is what they in fact face and whose fault is that? Not theirs.

We were shown American documents captured in the Korean War that are compelling evidence that the US planned an attack on North Korea in 1950. The attack was carried out using American and south Korean forces with the assistance of Japanese Army officers who had invaded and occupied Korea decades before. The North Korean defence and counter-attack was then claimed by the US to be “aggression” which the United States manipulated in the media to get the UN to support a “police operation,” the euphemism they chose to use to carry on what was in fact their war of aggression against North Korea. Three years of war and 3.5 million Korean deaths followed and the US has threatened them with imminent war and annihilation ever since.

The UN vote in favour of a “police action” in 1950 was itself illegal since Russia was absent for the vote in the Security Council. The quorum required for the Security Council under its Rules of Procedure, is all member delegations so that all members must be present or a session cannot proceed. The Americans used a Russian boycott of the Security Council as their opportunity. The Russian boycott took place in defence of the position of the Peoples Republic of China that it should have the China seat at the Security Council table, not the defeated Kuomintang government. The Americans refused to do the right thing, so the Russians refused to sit at the table until the legitimate Chinese government could.

The Americans used this opportunity to carry out a type of coup in the UN, to take over its machinery for its own interests by arranging with the British, French and Kuomintang Chinese to back their actions in Korea by a vote in the absence of the Russians. The allies did as the Americans asked and voted for war with Korea, but the vote was invalid, and the “police action” was not a peace-keeping operation nor justified under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, since article 51states that all nations have the right of self defence against an armed attack, which is what the North Koreans faced and had reacted to. But the Americans have never cared much about legalities and they did not then for the American plan in its entirety was to conquer and occupy North Korea as a step towards the invasions of Manchuria and Siberia and the law was not going to get in their way.

Many in the west have little idea of the destruction carried out in Korea by the Americans and their allies; that Pyongyang was carpet bombed into oblivion, that civilians fleeing the carnage were strafed by American planes. The New York Times stated at the time that 17,000,000 pounds of napalm were used in Korea just in the first 20 months of the war. More bomb tonnage was dropped on Korea by the US than the US dropped on Japan in World War Two. American forces hunted down and murdered not only communist party members but also their families. At Sinchon we saw the evidence that American soldiers forced 500 civilians into a ditch, doused them with gasoline and set them on fire. We stood in an air raid shelter with walls still blackened with the burnt flesh of 900 civilians, including women and children who had sought safety during an American attack. American soldiers were seen pouring gasoline down the air vents of the shelter and burning them all to death. This is the reality of the American occupation for Koreans. This is the reality they fear still and never want to repeat. Can we blame them?

But even with this history, Koreans are willing to open their hearts to former enemies. Major Kim Myong Hwan, who was then the main negotiator at Panmunjom on the DMZ line, told us that his dream was to be a writer, a poet, a journalist, but said in sombre tones, that he and his five brothers “walk the line” at the DMZ as soldiers because of what happened to his family. He said their struggle was not against the American people but their government. He was lonely for his family lost at Sinchon; his grandfather strung up a pole and tortured, his grandmother bayoneted in the stomach and left to die. He said, “You see, we have to do it. We have to defend ourselves. We do not oppose the American people. We oppose the American policy of hostility and its efforts to exercise control over the whole world and inflict calamity on people.”

It was the opinion of the delegation that by maintaining instability in Asia, the U.S. can maintain a massive military presence and keep China at bay in its relations with South and North Korea and Japan and use it as a lever against China and Russia. 

With the continuing pressure within Japan to remove the U.S. bases in Okinawa, the Korean military operations and war exercises remain a central point of American efforts to dominate the region

The question is not whether the DPRK has nuclear weapons which it is legally entitled to have, but whether the United States, which has nuclear arms capability on the Korean peninsula, and which is now installing its THADD missile defence system there, a system that threatens the security of Russia and China, is willing to work with the North toward a peace treaty. We found North Koreans avid for peace and not attached to having nuclear weapons if peace can be established. But the American position remains as arrogant, aggressive threatening and dangerous as ever. In this age of American “regime change,” “pre-emptive war” doctrines, and American efforts to develop low yield nuclear weapons as well as their abandonment and manipulation of international law it was not surprising that the DPRK plays the nuclear card. What choice do the Koreans have since United States threatens nuclear war on a daily basis and the two countries that logic dictates would support them against American aggression, Russia and China, join with the Americans in condemning the Koreans for arming themselves with the only weapon that can act as a deterrent against attack.

The reason for this is unclear since the Russians and Chinese have nuclear weapons and built them to act as a deterrent to an attack by the United States just as North Korea is doing. Some of their government statements indicate that they fear not being in control of the situation and that if North Korea’s acts of defence draw a US attack, they will be attacked as well. One can understand that anxiety. But it begs the question why they cannot support North Korea’s right to self-defence and put more pressure on the Americans to conclude a peace treaty, a non-aggression agreement, and to withdraw their nuclear and armed forces from the Korean peninsula. But the great tragedy is the clear inability of the American people to think for themselves, in the face of continual deceptions, and to demand that their leaders exhaust all avenues of dialogue and peacemaking before even contemplating aggression on the Korean Peninsula.

The fundamental foundation of North Korean policy is to achieve a non-aggression pact and peace treaty with the United States. The North Koreans repeatedly stated that they did not want to attack anyone, hurt anyone or be at war with anyone. But they have seen what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and countless other countries and they have no intention of having that happen to them. It is clear that any U.S. invasion would be defended vigorously and that the nation can endure a long, arduous struggle.

At another location on the DMZ we met a Colonel who set up field glasses through which we could see across the divide between north and south. We could see a concrete wall built on the South side, a violation of truce agreements. The major described such a permanent structure as a “disgrace for the Korean people who are a homogenous people.” A loud speaker continuously blared propaganda and music from speakers on the south side. The irritating noise goes on for 22 hours a day, he said. Suddenly, in another surreal moment, the bunker’s loudspeakers began belting out the William Tell overture, better known in America as the theme from the Lone Ranger. The Colonel urged us to help people see what is really going on in the DPRK, instead of basing their opinions on misinformation. He told us “We know that like us the peace loving people in America have children, parents and families.” We told him of our mission to return with a message for peace and that we hope to return someday and “walk with him together freely in these beautiful hills.” He paused and said, “I too believe it is possible.”


So while the people of the DPRK hope for peace and security the United States and its puppet regime in the south of the Korean peninsular wage war, carrying out for the next three months the largest war games ever conducted there, involving air craft carriers, nuclear armed submarines and stealth bombers, aircraft and large numbers of troops, artillery and armour.

The propaganda campaign has been taken to dangerous levels in the media with accusations that the North murdered a relative of the leader of the DPRK in Malaysia, though there is no proof of this, and no motive for the north to do it. The only ones to benefit from the murder are the Americans and their controlled media using it to whip up hysteria about the North and now allegations of the North having chemical weapons of mass destruction. Yes, friends, they think we were all born yesterday and that we haven’t learned a thing or two about the character of the American leadership and the nature of their propaganda. Is it any wonder that the North Koreans fear that any day these on going war “games” can be switched to the real thing, that these “games” are just a cover for an attack, and in the meantime to create an atmosphere of terror for the Korean people?

There is a lot than can be said about the real nature of the DPRK, its people and socio-economic system, its culture. But there is no space for that here. I hope people can visit as our group did and experience for them selves what we experienced. Instead I will close with the concluding paragraph of the joint report made on our return from the DPRK and hope that people take it in, think about it, and act to bring on its call for peace.

The people of the world have to be told the complete story about Korea and our government’s role in fostering imbalance and conflict. Action must be taken by lawyers, community groups, peace activists, and all citizens of the planet, to prevent the U.S. government from successfully generating a propaganda campaign to support aggression in North Korea. The American people have been subjected to a grand deception. There is too much at stake to get fooled again. This peace delegation learned in the DPRK a significant piece of truth essential in international relations. It’s how broader communication, negotiation followed by maintained promises, and a deep commitment to peace can save the world – literally – from a dark nuclear future. Experience and truth free us from the threat of war. Our foray into North Korea, this report and our on-going project are small efforts to make and set us free.”


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Made in Britain, Tested on Yemenis: The Reality of Working for the “Bomb-makers”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/weapons-of-mass-destruction-wmd-made-in-britain-tested-on-yemenis-the-reality-of-working-for-the-bomb-makers/5578706

Jack sits down with his pint in the Fielden Arms in Mellor, and contemplates his latest shift making Typhoon warplanes for the Saudi air force.

Tucking into steak and chips, the 25-year-old talks of moving in with his girlfriend, his good pay at the nearby BAE factory – £40,000, almost twice the local average – and the security it brings.

And then he thinks of the people those planes will be sent to kill.

“You see the children in Yemen starving on the 10 o’clock news,” he tells Middle East Eye. “But you try to not pay attention and just get on with it.”

His friend, Harry, interjects: “It’s really weird and there is no way to describe it, because you are in essence building a weapon of mass destruction.”

So why don’t they quit? “Good pay and job security,” Jack responds, taking another sip of his beer. “If the military contracts go, 7,000 people go with them.”

Jack is like thousands of others who works at the BAE Systems factory in nearby Samlesbury, outside Preston in Lancashire, making parts that will be assembled in nearby Warton to create Typhoons, the most advanced jet fighters operated by the Saudis over Yemen.

There, the Saudis have contributed to a civil war with the most terrible violence: bombing civilians, blowing up hospitals, and imposing a siege that has condemned millions of Yemenis to slow starvation and poverty.

And Britain, in its wisdom, has sold the Saudis the hardware to do it. Since the war began in 2015, the UK has approved arms sales to Riyadh worth more than $3.3bn. Many of those weapons have come from BAE factories like Samlesbury, built by workers like Jack.

This prompted anti-arms trade campaigners to launch a judicial review in February to stop arms exports to the Saudi government until it stops committing human rights atrocities in Yemen. The decision on that review is due in the coming months.

All the while, BAE continues to expand its operations in the north-west of England, and the contracts keep coming. It is building a solar farm the size of nine football fields, creating hundreds of new apprenticeships, and is already Preston’s largest employer with 9,000 staff. Under the £40bn al-Salam deal, signed in 2007 to a 25,000-strong celebration in Preston, BAE has delivered 68 of 72 Typhoons ordered, and another 48 may soon be agreed.

And in the surrounding villages, where the quiet life is punctuated by the sonic booms of jets and the rumble of lorries on narrow roads, the business is welcomed, even venerated. BAE is woven into the fabric of a local life, where generations have manned BAE’s machine rooms.

There is pride in what they do. “Lancashire has a strong history of building fighter jets, and we are proud to be building them,” said Mike Harris, who has worked as an electric fitter in Samlesbury. “We produce the best in the world.”

“We can’t build washing machines because we have a history of building fighter planes,” Harris said. “That’s what we do and want to carry on doing.”

And a block on that expertise would be devastating.

Audrey Charnley sits in the old church opposite BAE’s Warton factory, the main assembly site for Typhoon jets, and speaks of the “problem” for locals if it was to close or lose business due to the efforts of anti-war activists.

Many villagers like Audrey have family who have worked for there. She doesn’t like the “idea” of Warton building fighter jets – “but somebody would be building the jets if Warton wasn’t”.

As to the war in Yemen, “we want peace, just like the peace we feel in this church”, she says.

The same thought is echoed across the way at the local village hall, which Lynn Shuttleworth helps run. “If they didn’t do it here they would do it somewhere else,” she says, before commenting on a more pressing local issue: “Does cause a lot of traffic I must admit.”

And at the Clifton Arms, next to Warton’s factory, Taylor James pulls pints for the workers emerging from their shifts. He knows that victory for the judicial review will hit him and his family’s pub hard.

He’s never really heard of Yemen, or its current catastrophe, and neither – he says – have many people in the area.

“Because it’s not personally affecting me, I don’t really get involved or have an interest in what the planes are used for.”

Politics by other means


Politics may not be the concern of some locals, but it plays a central part in the world in which they live. What is made by BAE has local, national and international repercussions, and has turned parties and traditional allies against each other.

Many in Samlesbury and Warton are members of Unite, the union that helped propel anti-war activist Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party. Twice.

He is opposed to Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and its bombing campaign in Yemen. Union representatives say opposition to Saudi exports is “misguided”.

Simon Brown, who represents thousands at Warton, rationalises that position. He says maintaining trade with Saudi Arabia ensures Britain has a say in what it does.

“Trading gives us influence to talk about the things we’re not happy about in these regimes,” he said at a discussion at the Unite HQ in Salford. “If we left them on their own, we won’t have influence.”

Another senior Unite official, who spoke to MEE anonymously, skips the platitudes for a more succinct answer: it’s about the jobs.

“Of course our members don’t agree with what Saudi are doing in Yemen, it’s barbaric,” says the official.

However, he absolves his members of responsibility: “The government’s created a situation where people can do nothing but work for BAE.”

Andy Clough, a Unite union spokesman at Warton and worker since 1979, agrees: “I’ve seen whole families work there,” he says. “It’s still like that now. There are fathers and sons. That’s the sort of culture that we have.”

Nigel Evans, the local Conservative MP for the Samlesbury factory, has been a staunch defender of BAE systems in parliament.

His last appearance in parliament described the presence of BAE systems in Lancashire as “important” and providing “thousands of jobs for the Ribble Valley and Lancashire” area.

Their loss, he said, would be devastating.

But Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade disagrees. He says that the arms trade is, in fact, a very small part of the British economy.

“Arms companies enjoy a huge influence in the corridors of power, which has bought them a lot of power,” he says.

“We want to see an industrial strategy that puts the skills of industry workers to good use and focuses on positive, substantive jobs and not those dependent on war and conflict.”

According to the Oxford Economics group, BAE in 2013 exported £3.8bn worth of weapons, including missiles, naval systems and jets – 69 per cent of which was sent to countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

But that £3.8bn represents just one percent of all the British economy’s exports.

Smith’s group has another option – last year it launched its “arms to renewables” campaign, which argues skilled engineers could be moved into industries that can build a new future, rather than destroy it.

Skilled engineers will always be in demand, it says.

Back in Samlesbury, such high-minded thinking is just that.

When the shifts change, workers file in and out of the steel gates of the 700-acre site, guarded by a life-sized model of a Lightning, a famous cold war fighters built by English Electric, a forerunner of BAE.

A real one used to stand here – in active service, it was flown by the Saudis in the 1970s.

Workers who take a moment to speak to MEE have the unmistakable pride of decades of excellence, while conceding their concerns about where their jets end up.

But that’s just the way it is.

And the BAE of the future will continue to build expert killing machines: The company has recently signed a multi-million contract to develop a new generation of armed drones, another weapon common in the skies of Yemen, and beyond.

Jack, in the pub in Mellor, is aware this is where his future may lie: building robots for foreign states to kill foreign people in foreign lands.

“There’s nothing we can do,” he says. “We’re caved in, making it impossible to work anywhere else, because we’ve all got specific skills.”


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
US Military Spending and National Debt

http://warisacrime.org/node/40917

By Hassan A. El-Najjar

US Military Spending and National Debt By Hassan A El-Najjar Dalton State College Abstract When President George W Bush Jr. took Office at the beginning of 2001, the US national debt was about $5.6 trillion. By the end of 2006, the Bush administration added about $3 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion. In this paper, I argue that the US national debt is closely related to military spending and war. Military spending and national debt will be compared particularly since the Reagan administration, when both of them started to increase dramatically. I argue that both military spending and the national debt are beneficiary to the power elite who rule the United States, which enhances their material gains and tightens their grip on power. The paper draws on the power elite theory of C. Write Mills, who argued of an alliance between top business, military, and political leaders to the detriment of society. Militarism and War When President George W Bush Jr. took Office at the beginning of 2001, the US national debt was about $5.6 trillion. By the end of 2006, the Bush administration added about $3 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion.

In this paper, I argue that the US national debt is closely related to military spending and war. Military spending and national debt will be compared particularly since the Reagan administration, when both of them started to increase dramatically. I argue that both military spending and the national debt are beneficiary to the power elite who rule the United States, which enhances their material gains and tightens their grip on power. The paper draws on the power elite theory of C. Write Mills, who argued of an alliance between top business, military, and political leaders to the detriment of society. The US military spending started to increase dramatically during the Reagan terms of office in the 1980s. The justification was winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union through arms race. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US power elite started looking for another front to justify the continuation of the highest military spending in the world. They chose the Middle East as the new frontier because of two factors which would help recruit supporters for the continuation of military spending, namely oil interests and defending Israel.

Iraqi was chosen as a target by Israeli leaders as early as 1988 because it was portrayed as a threat to the Israeli hegemony in oil-rich region. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was the golden opportunity the US power elite were waiting for to justify the US invasion of the Middle East, and consequently the continuation of the highest military spending in history. The US forces did not withdraw from Kuwait and the Arabian Peninsula after the eviction of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Instead, they have stayed there ever since.

A sanctions regime was imposed on Iraq to soften it for the invasion, which was launched in 2003. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have cost the US $359 billion, so far, in addition to the annual military spending (Table 1). The 1991 Gulf War The 1991 Gulf War was mainly a Western campaign to destroy the military machine that Iraq had bought and built during the preceding fifteen years. The military and industrial equipment that Iraq used in developing its conventional and strategic weapon systems was legally purchased from more than 445 Western companies. i

Indeed, during the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988, Western governments promoted the carnage by encouraging business arms deals. When the war was over in 1988, however, the Western policy makers were a bit uncomfortable with all these weapon systems in Iraq. They were perceived as a potential threat to the security of Israel and to the Western interests in the Middle East. The Gulf War has represented a striking example of the historical hegemonic pattern of action that the "core" Western societies have been conducting towards Third World "peripheral" societies.

Moreover, the world military industry has been exceedingly aggressive in promoting its products in the region. Western governments have become the official protectors of the region's autocratic and dictatorial regimes. These are easily persuaded to buy weapons to protect themselves from their internal and external opponents. Stockpiling of weapons and expanding military budgets have led to more influence for the military in society (militarism) in the West and the Middle East alike.

A major negative consequence of militarism is that the process of militarization deprives underdeveloped societies of the financial resources that are badly needed for development. Even in such developed societies as the United States, the federal government sinks in debt while the military-industrial complex is allotted huge amounts of money as a result of military spending.

In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned that the combination of a large permanent military establishment and an immense military-industrial complex may threaten democratic government and the pursuit of world peace. The military-industrial complex may become an independent power in setting priorities in domestic and foreign relations. Funds may be diverted from social programs in order to support the arms build up. With billions of dollars in profits and thousands of jobs at stake, the complex would have a vested interest in world conflict rather than peace.

Eisenhower's fears became reality. ii Even in 1992, when the Cold War was over, about 44 percent of the federal tax revenues were spent on the military establishment. This amounted to about $419 billion out of the $944 billion of taxes collected by the federal government. iii Although direct military spending has started to decrease, it is still claiming the highest percentage of the federal budget. In 1996, out of a total U.S. budget of 1.5 trillion dollars, over 17 percent, or 261 billion dollars, was earmarked for military spending. In comparison, roughly 1.5 percent is allotted for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and another 14 percent is paid as interest on the national debt. iv

The previously bought weapons are destroyed or become outdated when new weapons are developed and manufactured. This opens the door for buying new generations of weapon systems. The purchasing policies of the Pentagon inspired Chuck Spinney to write a Department of Defense brochure titled, "Welcome to the Pentagon." Chuck revealed that the amount of mismatch between President Reagan's spending plans and funding from Congress was about $500 billion. The proposed Reagan defense buildup was going to cost about $500 billion more than Congress and the public had been told. One explanation of these huge extra costs was that: "Weapon developers, when given a choice, always go for the complex, elaborate solution at the expense of the simple one. Complexity leads to higher costs--purchase costs, operations costs, and maintenance costs." v

Higher military costs ultimately lead to more national debt. Before President Reagan had taken office, the U.S. national debt was about $900 billion. During his two terms, he increased it to more than $3 trillion. That is why Reagan is adorned by the military-industrial complex. vi

Adopting the same borrow-and-spend policies, President Bush Sr. added about $1.2 trillion more to the debt. vii The U.S. direct military spending during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations (1981-1993) amounted to about $3.95 trillion, which demonstrates the close relationship between military spending and the national debt. The U.S. military spending to win the Cold War (1945-1991) cost the American people about $12.8 trillion (Table 1). It represented about 46.2 percent of the personal income of the American taxpayers during these years. viii

While the Cold War and its national debt offspring have been a bonanza for the wealthy and the powerful in the military-industrial complex, they represented a huge burden on taxpayers and meant less spending on the poor. Between 1977 and 1992, the top 1 percent of Americans received 91 percent more income. The top one-fifth of the population increased their income by 28 percent. However, the bottom 40 percent of Americans suffered a decrease of their income. There was actually a 17 percent decrease in the income of the poorest 20 percent of American families. The next poorest fifth of families experienced a 7 percent decrease in their income, during the same period. ix President Eisenhower summarized it all, on April 18, 1953, when he said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities." x

During the ten-year period extending between 1984 and 1993, the U.S. spent about $3.1 trillion on the military. At the same time, the U.S. other two major Western allies spent about $825 billion for the same purpose (the U.K. about $408 billion and France about $417 billion). Thus, the U.S. spent about 3.7 times more on the military than did Britain and France together. xi

US Military Spending and the National Debt

The state of war has been a golden opportunity for the US military industry and its beneficiaries to argue for a new Cold War, in which Muslim fundamentalists would replace defeated communists as the new enemies.

The Gulf War and Democracy in America

The state of war has reinforced the interests of the US ruling. In fact, the Gulf War boosted American militarism, which was expected to decline in importance at the end of the Cold War. Thus, opting for war reflected the continuation of the influence of the military establishment and the military industry on political decision-making. The military budget continued to claim huge amounts of money even without a threat of any enemies, denying the poor the services and the assistance they need and deserve. It is true that the direct annual military spending in the U.S. began to decline after the Cold and Gulf Wars. However, it remains the highest in the world (Table 1). It was still about $276 billion, in 1997, $268.3 billion in 1998, $270.6 billion in 1999, $280.8 billion in 2000, and expected to be $305.4 billion in 2001. Other military outlays made total military spending more than half a trillion dollars a year. Outlays for the military and defense functions of the Department of Energy reached about $265.5 billion in 1999, $274.1 billion in 2000, and expected to be $277.5 billion in 2001.

Finally, the budget authority for 2001-2005 was expected to exceed $1.6 trillion. xii Actually, the United States still spends more money on its military establishment than do all the other seven major industrial societies combined. In 1997, the total military spending in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the U.K., together, amounted to about $223 billion. Thus, the United States spent 1.2 times more on its military than did all these seven countries combined. This is despite the fact that these seven countries outnumber the United States by more than 2:1. While there were about 560 million people living in these countries in 1997, the U.S. population was about 268 millions in the same year. xiii The huge military spending in the U.S. becomes clearer when it is compared with military spending in China. In 1997, the Chinese population reached about 1.23 billion people with military spending of about $75 billion. Thus, military spending that year cost every Chinese about $61. In contrast, the U.S. population reached about 268 million with military spending of about $276 billion.

This means that military spending in the U.S. cost every American about $1,030, that is about seventeen times more than that of China although the U.S. population is about 4.5 times less than that of China (Table 2). xiv

Thus, there is no doubt that there was military over-spending in the United States, even a decade after the end of the Cold War. What was surprising was that it was not protested or criticized by the general public or by Congress despite the huge national debt problem that is mostly attributed to the excessive military spending.

In fact, the five major wars that the United States fought throughout the 20th century, in addition to the Reagan’s escalation of the Cold War, were reflected in the five major hikes in the national debt.

In 1900, there was a relatively small national debt of about $2.13 billion that slowly grew until it reached about $5.71 billion in 1917. Then, it jumped to about $14.59 billion in 1918, in response to World War I military spending. In 1942, the year America entered World War II, the national debt was $72.42 billion. But it jumped to about $136.69 billion in the following year and continued to increase until it reached about $269.42 billion, in 1946. While the third war, in Korea, did not lead to a large increase in the national debt, it kept it at a higher level than during World War II. In 1954, a year following the end of the Korean War, the national debt reached about $278.74 billion despite the post-war economic prosperity. The fourth war, in Vietnam, contributed to doubling the national debt. In 1975, the year the war ended, the national debt reached about $576.64 billion (Table3). Despite these steady increases, the national debt was very little in comparison to the unbelievable increases during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations. By the end of the Carter administration, in 1980, the national debt reached $930.21 billion. However, by the end of the Reagan administration, in 1988, the national debt increased to about $2.602 trillion.

The trend continued during the Bush administration so that in 1992, the year Bush left the White House, the national debt reached about $4.064 trillion. It is obvious that the 1980-1992 drastic Cold War arms race, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, was the prime factor that led to the outrageous increase of the national debt from less than $1 trillion at the end of the Carter’s administration to more than $4 trillion at the end of the Bush administration. The continuous high military spending during the Clinton administration caused the national debt to reach about $5.724 trillion by March 2000 (Table 3).

Actually, the Clinton administration increased the national debt to even higher levels than those reached during the previous Republican administrations. While the debt was increased by 35.7 percent during the Reagan administration and by 64 percent during the Bush administration, it was increased by 70.9 percent during the Clinton administration.

In addition to that, President Clinton competed with his Republican predecessors in surrounding himself with war hawks who favor more military spending, and consequently more national debt. He selected Al Gore as his Vice President, after his pro-war vote in the Senate. He even appointed a Republican Senator, William Cohen, as a Secretary of Defense as if there are no Democrats who can perform the functions of that position. Crippled by his successive scandals during his two terms in office, he conceded foreign policy to the pro-Israel “experts” in his administration. The highest ranking among these were Dennis Ross and Madeleine Albright in the State Department, Sandy Berger in the NSC, and William Cohen in the Department of Defense.

Moreover, when Al Gore had his chance in 2000, he selected Joseph Lieberman, as his Vice President. Like Gore, Lieberman was one of the few Democrats in the Senate who broke the Party line and supported the Bush administration by voting for war.

With the advent of George W Bush Jr., military spending has reached unprecedented stage in history. The seven military budgets of his administration (2001-2007) have totaled more than $3 trillion ($3.007 trillion), with no reason to believe that it’ll be declining (Table 1). The US national debt for the period extending from the end of 2000 to the end of 2006 (2007 not included yet) also totaled more than $3 trillion ($3.006), which is clearly pointing to the relationship between military spending and the national debt.

Other sectors of the federal budget have nothing to do with the US national debt simply because they are so small compared to the military spending. In 2003, for example, US military spending was $425 billion, while the other seventeen sectors of the federal budget together totaled $435 billion. This means that US military spending represented 49.4% of these eighteen federal budget sectors (www.cdi.org).

Thus, as predicted by President Eisenhower, the expanding influence of the military establishment has dominated political decision-making and ultimately compromised democracy. This has been facilitated by the powers given to the president.

During the Gulf crisis, President Bush Sr. demonstrated his ability to make the war decision without first consulting with Congress. All what the Congress did was giving him support, but he could go to war without Congressional approval anyway. This means that unnecessary wars, like the 1991 Gulf War, can be prevented in the future only if the War Power Act is revised.

This should reduce the powers of the president so that Congressional approval becomes necessary before a president can send troops into hostilities. In absence of such revision, the status quo will continue and the U.S. will be involved in more and more wars. The evidence has demonstrated that once troops are sent to war, Congress had no choice but to support them.

As far as democracy is concerned, Congress should have the ultimate authority in launching wars. xv That serious matter should not be left to presidents alone because they usually delegate decision-making to non-elected bureaucrats in their administrations. These are mainly war hawks, who look for excuses to keep the military spending as high as possible. Therefore, they counsel war instead of peaceful solutions for conflicts. This was what they did in the 1990s even after the Cold War had been over. They have been relentlessly trying to install new enemies for America, selected Muslim countries and groups, this time. In addition, militarism has a direct influence on the democratic process in the United States, as President Eisenhower predicted. The two political parties that alternate power in America follow the same foreign policy. More specifically, American administrations, whether Republican or Democratic, do not have an independent foreign policy for the Middle East. Rather, they blindly follow the Israeli aggressive and expansionist policies in the region.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
US should use ISIS as a proxy - New plan for Syria published in New York Times

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384780-friedman-nyt-isis-support-us/

Why is Trump fighting ISIS in Syria

Thomas Friedman appears to become aroused by the prospect of war. It’d be more appropriate for The New York Times to let him manage this affliction from the safety of his private space than on the pages of the newspaper.

Especially when the Pulitzer Prize winner is calling for America to effectively ally itself with ISIS in Syria.

The definition of a “chicken hawk” is relatively straightforward. It’s a person “who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.” And, according to Wikipedia, “generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict.”

For years, many Europeans have been equally fascinated and appalled by how the American media is jam-packed with these jokers. Because in a country where the military is so omnipresent, you’d imagine it’d be easy to find people from an armed forces background to comment on conflict? After all, they are the experts. And I’d certainly take them more seriously than some dweeb, who’d probably be afraid of his own shadow, fighting from the safety of a Macbook Pro.

That said, every soldier I have ever met has always hated war. Now, this isn't to say there aren’t military men who love and embrace combat. It’s just I’ve never encountered them. Maybe it’s because they are the ones who don’t last too long on the battlefield? Who knows? However, on the Russia beat, I'm subjected to the ramblings of chicken hawks on a daily basis, and I think I’m reasonably qualified to rank them when it comes to turpitude, immorality, depravity and downright baseness. Let’s call it the ‘iniquity index,’ for want of a better term.

Some are clearly doing it for money because the war business rewards its supporters and there are valuable ‘fellowships’ to be had. Others for the notoriety, as it seems the easiest way to fast track your frown onto CNN or Fox these days. And here’s the sinister, ominous and black-hearted part; a significant amount of chicken hawks do it because they seem to get off on war. Watching it, not participating in it, of course. Like Apocalypse Now’s Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore without the inconvenience of actual napalm in the morning.

The Milksop's Lair

One of the worst offenders is Friedman. A poltroon I first suffered during the 1999 NATO assault on Yugoslavia.

Back then, he wrote "Like it or not; we are at war with the Serbian nation… every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.”

Tough words, verging on the sadistic, from a man I imagined must be as hard as nails. Until I saw him on CNN where he seemed more double chin than chiseled jaw.

Living in Europe, I didn’t have to endure the chump for another four years. When he reappeared as a leading cheerleader for George Bush and Tony Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq. He described the transgression as “one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad.” And that was when he wasn’t mocking France for having the temerity to oppose the bloodlust. “Vote France Off The Island,” was his rejoinder.

Now he’s back beating the drums of war. This time in Syria. His proposal is so frightfully fetid and poisonously putrid that it’s best described as inscribed anthrax. Because Friedman has taken to the pages of The New York Times to propose how America should essentially manipulate ISIS to do its bidding by proxy.  Yes, the same ISIS which is trying to return the Middle East to a time around 1389, in a strange symbiosis with his prescription for the Serbs. “In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahideen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan,” he writes.
Sure to rebound

Nevermind how that policy eventually led to the 9/11 attacks on New York, this morose and wicked diatribe also glosses over a sect which has committed genocide and keeps Yazidi women as sex slaves. Not to mention other policies, such as flinging alleged homosexuals off rooftops, destroying world heritage sites and mutilating mothers for breastfeeding in public. And, of course, the brutal beheadings of US citizens like James Foley and Peter Kassig.

Friedman’s suggestion is unhinged and frankly psychotic. But the real transgressor here is The New York Times, which is adding its imprimatur to the ravings of a clearly unwell writer. And further diluting its once-respectable brand in the process. Although the falsehoods it published in support of the Iraq War have already probably done irreversible damage in that regard.

The moral compass is wildly askew here. For instance, “we could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and Assad. After all, they’re the ones overextended in Syria, not us,” Friedman claims. “Make them fight a two-front war — the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.”

    Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... https://t.co/ugm8LBxCrV
    — Seth Frantzman (@sfrantzman) April 12, 2017

As Seth Frantzman of the Jerusalem Post has correctly pointed out, this is “tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding” back in the 1940’s. And it’s unlikely that sort of pitch would impress the Times’ editors. For reasons one hopes are obvious.

P.S. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, it's no wonder.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
US should use ISIS as a proxy - New plan for Syria published in New York Times

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384780-friedman-nyt-isis-support-us/

Why is Trump fighting ISIS in Syria

Thomas Friedman appears to become aroused by the prospect of war. It’d be more appropriate for The New York Times to let him manage this affliction from the safety of his private space than on the pages of the newspaper.

Especially when the Pulitzer Prize winner is calling for America to effectively ally itself with ISIS in Syria.

snip

P.S. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, it's no wonder.


"Friedman is Jewish He attended Hebrew school five days a week until his Bar Mitzva then St Louis Park High School, where he wrote articles for his school's newspaper. He became enamored with IsraeI after a visit there in December 1968, and he spent all three of his high school summers living on KibbutzHaHortrim, near Haifa He has characterized his high school years as "one big celebration of Israel's victory in the Six Day War."

Nothing new here with Israel's fascination with Nuclear destruction,,, 9-11 mini nukes, Chernobyl, Fukushima

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2012/04/was-chernobyl-1986-nuclear-plant.html

https://www.henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
A very well researched and presented article by Gregor Flock

Fake News, Propaganda and “False Flags”: Syria’s Gas Attacks and Washington’s Fake Intelligence Narrative

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news-propaganda-and-false-flags-syrias-gas-attacks-and-washingtons-fake-intelligence-narrative/5585299


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
A very well researched and presented article by Gregor Flock

Fake News, Propaganda and “False Flags”: Syria’s Gas Attacks and Washington’s Fake Intelligence Narrative

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news-propaganda-and-false-flags-syrias-gas-attacks-and-washingtons-fake-intelligence-narrative/5585299

Exactly, and to lend even more credence to the false flag nature of the attack... the "White Helmets" have no public phone number, so how is it possible that they should be on site, cameras rolling for this occasion? It is said that the resultant missile attack had to have been preplanned, well include the White Helmets were likely preplanned to have been on site.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/23/exclusive-the-real-syria-civil-defence-expose-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Check this out:

https://www.rt.com/uk/384940-johnson-russia-syria-coalition/

“Assad has been clinging on. With the help of Russians and Iranians, and by dint of unrelenting savagery, he has not only recaptured Aleppo. He has also won back most of ‘operational’ Syria,” Johnson wrote in a column penned for The Telegraph. While Johnson called for gathering “all evidence at Khan Sheikhoun,” citing the “painful” lessons of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the British FM seems to have already drawn his conclusions.

“It is in some ways bizarre that Bashar al-Assad should be so reckless,” Johnson writes, adding that “it seems mystifying that he should now raise the stakes by so blatantly murdering so many of his own people with chemical weapons.”

Its not mystifying if your not stupid.. Assad had defeated the western proxy infantry and this false flag was cooked up and acted on immediately before evidence could derail the propaganda justification trumpeted by the media for committing the supreme crime of aggression.

The Donald has entered the history books as an international war criminal.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
Check this out:

https://www.rt.com/uk/384940-johnson-russia-syria-coalition/

“Assad has been clinging on. With the help of Russians and Iranians, and by dint of unrelenting savagery, he has not only recaptured Aleppo. He has also won back most of ‘operational’ Syria,” Johnson wrote in a column penned for The Telegraph. While Johnson called for gathering “all evidence at Khan Sheikhoun,” citing the “painful” lessons of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the British FM seems to have already drawn his conclusions.

“It is in some ways bizarre that Bashar al-Assad should be so reckless,” Johnson writes, adding that “it seems mystifying that he should now raise the stakes by so blatantly murdering so many of his own people with chemical weapons.”

Its not mystifying if your not stupid.. Assad had defeated the western proxy infantry and this false flag was cooked up and acted on immediately before evidence could derail the propaganda justification trumpeted by the media for committing the supreme crime of aggression.

The Donald has entered the history books as an international war criminal.


Johnson has shown that he is a lying idiot.

Problem is... where is there a decent press to report this?

Same story here in the Colonies...

http://globalnews.ca/news/3375146/trudeau-trump-syria-chemical-attack/

Ron

PS: Johnson, the English version of JOHN McCain
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Boris is a total embarassment, a self proclaimed passionate Zionist, known liar and war criminal..

I am tempted to try and get him promoted.. a re-run of the Hague-Hammond switcheroo!


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
How to bring down the elephant in the room

http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

First, a painful, but needed, clarification:

Basement crazies.  Neocons. Zionists.  Israel Lobbyists.  Judaics.  Jews.  Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial “elephant in the room”.  For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody.  Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic.  I won’t. Why?  Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant.  Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now.  So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.

First, terminology.  For those who have not seen it, please read my article “Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important“.  Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon’s article “Jews, Judaism & Jewishness” (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wondering Who).  Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion.  He writes  “I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity.  I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)”.  I very much include them in my discussion.  However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that “Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist” (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand’s excellent book “The Invention of the Jewish People“).  Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my “moderation policies“:

Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity).

Second, so what are Jews if not a race?  In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or “sensitivity” – nothing at all.  We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31).  So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism.  Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status.  In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.

Now let’s come back to our opening list: Basement crazies.  Neocons. Zionists.  Israel Lobbyists.  Judaics.  Jews.  I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that “Jews by birth only”, what Alain Soral in France calls “the everyday Jews”, are not included in this list.  Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable.  My own preference still goes for “Zionist” because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don’t like my choice, just replace “Zionist” with any of the categories I listed above).  Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists.  Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have “Ziocons” as an alternative expression.

[Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite).  By the way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism.  This just comes with the territory.  But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].

——-

The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state.  However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the “Ziocons”: basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la Cheney or McCain.  These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc.  These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the “nationalist” or “patriotic” wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump.  There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the “basket of deplorables”, the “99%ers” – basically the rest of the planet.

Making sense of the crazies

Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of “logic” in this case) of self-deluded racists can be a difficult exercise.  But when the “basement crazies” (reminder: the term from from here) are basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the survival of the mentally sane.  I will now try to outline the reasons behind the “new” Trump policies using two examples: Syria and Russia.

Syria.  I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel.  Right?  Wrong!  You are thinking like a mentally sane person.  This is not how the Israelis think at all.  For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a “security zone” to “protect” northern Israel.  And that, in plain English, means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream).  Even better, the Israelis know Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh is a mortal threat to Hezbollah.  By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long, bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria.  While their northern neighbors would be plugged into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent civilians under whatever pretext.  Remember how the Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014?  With Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to.  Finally, and last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out.  For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even today) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.

Russia.  Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.  Particularly the ex-Trotskyists turned Neocons.  I have explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won’t repeat it all here.  You just need to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the fist Bolshevik government (which was 80%-85% Jews; don’t believe me?  Then listen to Putin himself).  I have already discussed “The ancient spiritual roots of russophobia” in a past article and I have also explain what rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called “Judaism” nowadays) is little more than an “anti-Christianity“(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you).  The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little else than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use.  Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide Nazis (isn’t this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today.  In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate Jews.  While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly expressed in the media (in fact, ‘hate speech’ is illegal in Russia).  One thing to keep in mind is that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country (those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion here).  Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out of Russia as soon as possible.  Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations.  Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies.

Making sense of Trump

I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings.  There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli, but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA.  I doubt that Trump even knows where the Golan Heights even are.  He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies.  Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don’t see any signs of him being hateful of anybody.  More generally, the guy is really not ideological.  The best evidence is his goofy idea of building a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution.  The same goes for his views on Russia.  He probably figured out something along these lines: “Putin is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let’s join forces”.  The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House.  Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely will).  Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to “drain the swamp” but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid).  But even if I am wrong and Trump was “their” plant all along (I still don’t believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood.  I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and “ass-kissing little chickenshits” à la Petraeus.  Not good.  Not good at all.  As for the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) “three letter agencies soup”, it appears that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream up.  Again. Not good.  Not good at all.

Living with ZOG :-)

ZOG.  Or “Zionist Occupation Government”.  That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it’s use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite.  And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia.  To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG  I will reply this: believe me, I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don’t care for racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me.  But, alas, they are also right!  Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible “overtones” of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially “sensitive” when dealing with some special group.  Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world.  Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression.  I just feel that committing the crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely.  At the very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is an extremely important exercise all by itself.  Hence, today I ZOG-away :-)

Some might argue with the “occupation” part of the label.  Okay – what would you call a regime which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal treaty)?  Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon.  I think that it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton.  Others think that it all began with Kennedy.  Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars.  It is true that most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest of the planet spends of defense.  Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5.  Lastly, most Americans do believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet.  True.  But at the same time, they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled.  That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there.  Most Americans also would prefer that the money spent aboard on “defending democracy” (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions of  Americans in need in the USA.  As the southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville, Florida) once put it in their songs “Things goin’ on“:

Too many lives they’ve spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon


Soon? That song was written in 1978!  And since then, nothing has changed.  If anything, things got worse, much worse.

Houston, we got a problem

ZOG is not an American problem.  It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal.  And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform, is now sending a “very powerful armada” to the coast of the DPRK.  Powerful as this armada might be, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens.  You think that I am exaggerating?  Business Insider estimated in 2010 that it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul. Why?  Because the DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict, that’s why.  Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces. Wikipedia says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems.  Two days ago a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20’000 artillery pieces.  Whatever thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is “a lot”.

The DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities.  Of special importance here are the roughly 200’000 North Korean special forces.   Oh sure, these 200’000 are not US Green Beret or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and create chaos and destroy key objectives.  You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10’000+ artillery pieces and 200’000 special forces? Exactly, nothing at all.

And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?

No, I did not.  First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for delivery on a missile.  Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another.  I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up.  Or bring it in a container ship somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there.  One neat trick would be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl Vinson and then blow it up.  Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these ships would be total.  To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don’t think that the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack.  But you never know, necessity is the mother of invention, as the British like to say.

I don’t believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea.  I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made “America great again” or something equally asinine.  The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face.  What if they decided that they needed to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed US targets all over the place).  Then what?  How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the block?  Could he decide to “punish” the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat airbase in Syria?  And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un’s reaction be?

To be totally honest, I don’t think that the “very powerful armada” will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer’s money.  I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call “показуха” – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and “cool” photo ops, but lacking any real substance.  Still, being on the receiving end of Trump’s показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving,  especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies.  I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do.

Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the US.  This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result.  In direct contrast,  both Kim Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to themselves!) that they are tough guys.   Exactly the most dangerous kind of  mindset you want in any nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.

So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons?

Everything.

They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost.  Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire.  And yet now is is playing a crazy game of “nuclear chicken” with the DPRK.  Does that sound like the “real Trump” to you?  Maybe – but not to me.  All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to “play empire”, to show that, as Obama liked to say, the USA is the “indispensable nation“.  God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier strike groups involved in the “solving” of this problem!

[Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference in Astana, Kazakhstan.  Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real.  The said indispensable nation therefore “invited itself” by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and, having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage of the negotiations about the future of Syria.  In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]

So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.

I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression.  I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part.  I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses.  As with all the other forms of crimethink, I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably in public, and you will get used to it.  First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it is also great fun).  Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream “the emperor has no clothes“.  Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe and more follow.  The key thing here is not to allow ideological “sacred cows” to roam around your intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking.  Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations, not human ideological constructs.

Where do we go from here?

Things are coming to a head.  Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary.  It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed.  The good news is that those who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal.  From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan, many paleo-Conservatives clearly “got it”.  As did the real progressives.  What we are left with is what I call the “extreme center”, basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality.

The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought?  I think that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:

1. Peace/pacifism
2. International law
3. Human and civil rights
4. Democracy
5. Pluralism
6. Anti-racism
7. Ethics and morality

Sounds harmless?  It ain’t, I assure you.  ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law.  As for human and civil rights, one quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues.  More proof?  How about the entire “fake news” canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google?  Don’t you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?!  What about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further militarization of police forces?  To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a joke!  Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein).  Heck, just read what ultra-liberal super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President Jimmy Carter writes about Israel!  Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia.  It it pretty clear that these guys not only don’t give a damn about human or civil right, but that they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.

What about democracy?  How can that be a intellectual weapon?  Simple – you show that every time the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y.  Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won.  That is a clear lack of democracy.  So if you say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped into a “good” ideological wrapper.  Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic.  Show it!

Pluralism?  Same deal.  All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a “mono-ideological” society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely absent from the public discourse.  Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control.  Then ask them to compare.  This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see here if you are interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic.  Again, show it!

Anti-racism.  Should be obvious to the reader by now.  Denounce, reject and attack any idea which gives any group any special status.  Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they really want when they claim to struggle for “equality” is a special status for their single-issue minority.  Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy is about defending the minority against the majority.  In reality, minorities are always much more driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to power.  What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against the minorities.  Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don’t let accusations of crimethink freeze you in terror).

Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality.  The modern western society has been built on a categorical rejection of ethics and morality.  Slogans like “God is dead” or “Beyond good and evil” resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century.  Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as “good” or “truth” or “honor” from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka “telescreen” in Orwell’s 1984).  Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of “our way of life” as Americans like to say.  Hollywood movies proclaimed that “greed is good“.  In fact, at the very core of the capitalist ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody’s greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible.  Crazy and sick stuff, but I don’t have the place to discuss this here.  All I will say that that rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire.  Ditto for sexual morality and family.  There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order.  Likewise, there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia and other sexual scandals.  One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased the old communist slogan and declared “naturals of all countries – come to Russia” [in modern Russian “naturals” is the antonym of “homosexual”).  He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon’s hatred of Russia).

[Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all.  While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones.  I don’t think that this is sustainable for too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values]

You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea.  In truth – they cannot directly do this.  But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within.  And look at the alternatives: Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome.  “Direct action” does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists.  Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not.  Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet.  Running for office does not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience.  Even running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives at even a modicum of true sovereignty.  The only other option is “internal exile”, when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual and intellectual freedom and you basically “live there” with no external signs of you having “fled” the Empire’s ugly reality.  But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of “internal exile” will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.

Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable.  However, the Fathers also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world.  I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys, and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally better.  And even if all my efforts are vain, it least I know that I resisted with everything I got.  At the very least, I hope that it will inspire them to fight for their own children.  I also believe that I have to resist this Empire because of all the good, decent and kind people I met in my life, including the Americans I have been living next to for so many years now.  I don’t want any of them to die in a useless and stupid war triggered by the demented minds of a tiny demonic minority of mankind-hating psychopaths who, driven by their apparently infinite capacity for evil and self-delusion, apparently have convinced themselves that either they will own the planet or they will destroy it.

Saint Paul very accurately explained that “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).  As for Ernesto Che Guevara, he wrote that “the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love” (Love of living humanity).  Today is Holy Paskha, the most joyful and sacred day in the Orthodox year, the day which marks the victory of Christ even against death itself!  In the beautiful words of Saint John Chrysostomos:

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.

These words and this promise should give us the courage to resist no matter how ugly, evil and insane the world around us can become.  Because we do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against wickedness in high places, and because we are not moved by hatred, but by the love for our fellow human being.  Finally, the following words written by a true Jew several millennia ago will, I hope, give us all the courage to struggle until our victory: “I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, who beset me round about. Arise, Lord; deliver me, my God: for thou hast smitten all who were without cause mine enemies; thou hast broken the teeth of sinners.  Deliverance is the Lord’s, and thy blessing is upon thy people” (Ps. 3).

I greet you all with the ancient Christian greeting of Christ is Risen!

The Saker
« Last Edit: 2017-04-19, 20:44:09 by evolvingape »


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
How to bring down the elephant in the room

http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

snip
The Saker

A truly great philosopher, he can express my feelings so precisely, thanks for the post, I had missed that one.

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Australian medics treated Iraqis hit by Islamic State chemical attack, Defence says

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/australian-medics-treated-iraqis-hit-by-is-chemical-attack/8452144

"The failed gas attack highlights Daesh's [Islamic State's] desperation as Iraqi ground forces continue operations to liberate Mosul."

Compare and contrast this position to the unfounded accusations against Assad in the recent false flag gas attack in Syria, used as a cassus belli by the NATO terrorist organisation, for illegal aggression against a sovereign nation defending itself from foreign sponsored mercenary infantry.. a mercenary army he had defeated on the ground with the assistance of Russian air support.

Assad is not desperate, he has won, which is why the use of Chemical Weapons (CW) at this stage in the Syrian proxy war by the legitimate government.. is ridiculous.. not to mention he does not even have CW anymore, government stockpiles were all destroyed as confirmed by the UN.. only the NATO backed proxy terrorist mercenaries have them..

A bit thick are you not Prime Minister Turnbull..  ;D


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
A truly great philosopher, he can express my feelings so precisely, thanks for the post, I had missed that one.

Yes I like the Saker, got a lot of time for his position. I consider him one of the Everymen, whether he does or not, I do not know.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The Hasty Trump Syria Attack Game – It Doesn’t Add Up
By F. William Engdahl
14 April 2017

http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO14Apr2017.php

Trump Is Unmasked: 14 Reasons Why the Syria Airstrikes Were a Really Bad Idea

https://jamesperloff.com/2017/04/19/trump-is-unmasked-14-reasons-why-the-syria-airstrikes-were-a-really-bad-idea/

Behind the "Crisis:" Jewish Lobby vs. North Korea

http://www.newobserveronline.com/2017/04/behind-crisis-jewish-lobby-vs-north.html


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Heres one for you Ron, it is certainly a scenario worth considering:

The US Navy Aims To Sink Its Radioactive Warships Off Korea

http://rense.com/general96/USnavysink.html

The silver lining to the fog of war is that hostile acts of destruction enable the military to order new weapons systems. The self-inflicted sabotage of the battleship Maine rallied the American public to build new steamships to capture Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spanish control. The sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor sparked the biggest naval expansion in world history. Human lives are merely a part of the price. As put by the Beat poet Allen Ginzberg: “War is good for business. Invest your son.”
 
Today, the greatest threat confronting the U.S. Navy does not come from Russia, China or even the outlands of North Korea, but arose from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in spring 2011. Six years of continuous radioactive releases into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean have seriously contaminated dozens of American naval vessels and their personnel, at least 16 warships and 70,000 servicemen by the Navy’s own count. Based on closer examination of naval records of voyages, the total number is at least double that rather low official estimate.
 
The Pentagon is now facing a hard choice: to scrap its radioactive fleet and dump the mess at Hanford nuclear site and inside veterans hospitals, or arrange a naval war to sink the lethal vessels and their human cargo in foreign waters.
 
Considering the rising cost of health care and burden of student loans, American taxpayers are in no mood to finance the scrapping of supercarriers and missile destroyers or paying to build replacement vessels. The only way to rally the public to trade in their paltry savings accounts for armaments procurement is the outbreak of war with a supremely evil enemy.
 
With Syria now relegated to a minor-league battlefield for jihadists, and the Mediterranean shore with its luxury hotels on Israeli beaches being unsuitable for naval warfare, the Pentagon has found a distant villain in North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, who talks tough and fires short-range rockets in the general direction of the USA. Therefore, its one-reactor nuclear program is being promoted as the casus belli for a coming war. Never mind that the North Koreans are merely trying to build a minimal deterrence capability against the vastly bigger nuclear programs of Japan and South Korea, which go secretly approved by Washington DC. The logic goes: If only Tokyo had dropped its nuclear load on Pyongyang instead of dumping it into the Pacific, none of this would be happening.
 
Ducks in a Shooting Gallery
 
Three USN supercarrier strike groups are now heading for the Sea of Japan, a narrow (1,000 kilometers at the widest point) enclosed body of water. There in its calm dark waters, a dozen big ships along with some 130 naval jets and dozens of helicopters will be parked like ducks in a row inside a shooting gallery.
 
If the North Koreans hesitate to open fire, for obvious reasons of national survival and common sense, there is a back-up team of shooters, namely the Maritime Self-Defense Force of Japan. A volley of Mitsubishi anti-ship missiles should do the job of sinking the U.S. Seventh Fleet and drowning the American sailors. The news media will assign the blame on Pyongyang for the dastardly deed. The Second Korean War will ensue, leaving millions dead from explosions and smoke, and in the chaos and fright nobody will notice the treacherous charade that sparked the brutal massacres of friends and foes alike.
 
Donald Trump has promised a huge increase in defense spending for new equipment so the Navy will not be rendered toothless. Half of its carriers and destroyers are now dangerously radioactive but, if current policy holds, these damaged goods will soon be sold off as scrap metal to South Korean and Taiwanese shipyards, eliminating any residual evidence of high treason. Shinzo Abe and Trump will emerge as victors over totalitarianism, much like Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta. Since the media applause will be thunderous, drowning out any and all critics, I am compelled to quietly write this near-term history in advance.
 
Paying back the US by killing Americans
 
The Japanese government is eager to oblige in the elimination of the seaborne evidence, since it was its reactors at Fukushima that hold liability for irradiating dozens of American warships and their crews. Tokyo has been obligated to the American side to sink the USS Ronald Reagan ever since the Japanese authorities failed to issue a warning about the weapons-grade plutonium released during the Reactor 3 meltdown in mid-March 2011. The unrepentant revanchist Abe, in any case, will relish the coming spectacle with a hearty “banzai” to avenge the Imperial fleets lost at the Battle of Midway and in the Coral Sea.
 
The Shock of Fukushima
 
The retreat of the USS Reagan from the coast of Sendai was a memorable event worthy of a disaster movie, as helicopters delivering aid to the tsunami survivors raced back to the carrier after weapons-grade plutonium in the air set off their isotope-detecting geiger counters. At the time, the U.S. commanders were not clued into the fact that the mixed-oxide fuel at Fukushima was involved in plutonium production for secret underground warhead facilities in nearby Hirono and Haramachi. Their understandable assumption was that a foreign power had exploded a hydrogen bomb over Fukushima, and so the good ship Reagan made a U-turn and fled to the open sea, but sadly too late since its air vents were by then heavily irradiated.
 
Unbeknownst to captain and crew was that the carrier’s desalination system was filling up with radioactive seawater flushed out of the Fukushima No.1 plant’s cooling system. Every cup of coffee, shower and any food boiled in water was lethal for crew members. A consequent flurry of odd cancers, miscarriages and defects in newborns motivated many of the crew members to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Navy for failing to alert them to the radioactivity threat and not decontaminating the ship. Instead of admitting the mistakes, the Pentagon has stonewalled the victims.
 
After its return to San Diego, the USS Reagan was towed to the Bremerton Naval Shipyard in Puget Sound where all its innards, from venting and pipes to electronics and computers, were stripped out, piled aboard a train and dumped at the Hanford Nuclear Site. The hulk was then towed back to San Diego where it idled until its internal systems were patched together into a semblance of battle-readiness. Built a a cost of $6 billion, the USS Reagan is overdue for scuttling, and unfortunately the crew with it.
 
Clueless Admirals
 
The carrier USS George Washington, which retreated before reaching Fukushima for the Operation Tomodachi (Friend) relief effort, was pulled out of its home port of Yokosuka and is now sitting in a Virginia dockyard, supposedly for nuclear fuel replacement.
 
The clueless admirals, left out of the loop by the Department of Energy (DOE) about the continuing threat gushing from Fukushima, unwisely allowed the supercarrier USS Nimitz to patrol off the China coast and then sail home along the North Pacific Current, the conveyor belt for radioactive releases from Fukushima to the American coastline. It, too, ended up at Bremerton shipyard for a year, and has since been parked in Everett, Washington State, under showers of radioactive rainfall.
 
Meanwhile, the carrier Carl Vinson was in the Arabian Sea where the body double of “Osama Bin Laden” was laid on its flattop deck and unceremoniously tossed overboard in a supposed “Islamic burial”. Under Muslim custom, believers’ bodies are laid in proper graves in expectation of the Second Coming. Presumably Osama, version 2, knows how to snorkel and swim on the Day of Reckoning. Then, the Navy made the fatal decision to the send the Vinson to the Philippines, just in time to be hit by high-level nuclear waste aboard barges sunk by the Japanese in to the Philippine Trench.
 
An Easter Blasphemy
 
At the time of writing, Easter Sunday 2017, the three aircraft carriers are plying their ways from Australia, San Diego and Hawaii toward Davy Jones’ Locker. The American sailors will soon reenact the destruction of the Russian Tsar’s Baltic Fleet at the entrance of the Japan Sea in the Battle of Tsushima. My grandfather in his youth celebrated that stunning victory, so why am I already mourning the coming slaughter at sea when the sailors, pilots and Marines are already doomed by radioactive exposure? I suppose it is more heroic to die from friendly fire than to waste away inside a veteran’s hospital. And better for the bottom line and big investors, just ask the shrewd Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs.
 
In eulogy before the shooting in the back begins, let us sing the U.S. Navy song:
 
“Stand Navy out to sea, fight our battle cry!
We'll never change our course so vicious foes steer shy-y-y-y!
Roll out the TNT, anchors aweigh!
Sail on to victory, and sink their bones to Davy Jones, hooray!
 
“Anchors Aweigh, my boys, Anchors Aweigh!
Farewell,to Foreign Shores we sail at break of day-ay-ay-ay;
Through our last night ashore, drink to the foam,
Until we meet once more.”
 
Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor with The Japan Times group, is a science journalist based in Hong Kong


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841

Heres one for you Ron, it is certainly a scenario worth considering:


Dastardly, but yes, believable.

Ron
   
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-13, 11:10:55